Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking
On 25 Nov 2008, at 05:33, Ed Murphy wrote: How do you know they're fake? They could be defined by a private contract. (They're definitely not eligible, though.) He has said (##nomic) that it was a private pledge that was then destroyed.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > He has said (##nomic) that it was a private pledge that was then destroyed. Note that I could've been lying.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I CFJ on the statement: The Vote Market is a contract. > > Arguments: That quote. :P CFJ 1872 established that it is a contract, and it has the required number of parties now anyway. When the contract was formed, private partnerships were persons though they couldn't register.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On 25 Nov 2008, at 17:54, Kerim Aydin wrote: Good plan, follow up every criminal cfj with another CFJ against the caller, then of course another against *that* caller. You must live in a weird alternate universe where this happened all the time in the past.
DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE > 5985 D 1 2.0 Murphy Fix VLOD increases > 5986 D 1 2.0 Murphy Refactor duty to fill vacancies > 5987 D 1 2.0 Wooble End the Era of Impunity > 5988 D 1 2.0 ehird Fuck That > 5989 D 1 2.0 Wooble One Recordkeepor Per Switch > 5990 D 1 3.0 ehird Fix ratification I vote SELL(2VP) on all of these.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 25 Nov 2008, at 17:54, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> Good plan, follow up every criminal cfj with another CFJ against >> the caller, then of course another against *that* caller. > > You must live in a weird alternate universe where this happened all the > time in the past. I must live in an alternate universe where some players "play the game" by not even paying attention to cases going on around them. Oh, wait... damn. Go look at the case log: CFJs 2031, 1824, 1823 for criminal from criminal, and a far longer list for criminal due to judging. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I must live in an alternate universe where some players "play the game" > by not even paying attention to cases going on around them. Oh, wait... > damn. Whereas the rest of us live in an alternate universe where players blatantly ignore SHALLs, admit it, continue to ignore them, and 2 people won't support a criminal CFJ.
DIS: Re: BUS: Philosophy
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement "The Ambassador CAN flip Wooble's Recognition to
> Friendly without objection.".
>
> Arguments: This is really about whether Wooble is a nomic or not,
> phrased such that I have a miniscule chance of a random Win by Paradox.
>
> A nomic ruleset is defined as follows:
> {{{
> A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means
> for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those
> rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be
> possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of
> actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be
> required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable
> in finite time.
> }}}
> and nomics are defined by nomic rulesets.
[snip]
Gratituous:
CFJ 1860 is the pre-that-defintion precedent on this matter and may be
informative.
Gratituous:
Uncertainty concerning scientific matters related to this question
makes UNDETERMINED an appropriate judgment.
-woggle
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2271 judged TRUE by BobTHJ
> [snip] Is there any way to guarantee that the subject of these messages be consistent with the actual ruling?
DIS: Re: BUS: Animal
OscarMeyr wrote: > I CFJ on the following inquiry statement, barring ehird, comex, and > Pet A: You can only disqualify one person these days. I'm treating this as disqualifying ehird, and failing to disqualify comex or Pet A.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1234 judged by Taral
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1234 FYI, the bug in the summary is fixed now; all judgements are displayed, even if the judge's assignment also has a recusal or transfer tied to it. (This should only affect old cases; currently, a remand generates a new assignment in the database.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Auction
On 25 Nov 2008, at 19:26, Elliott Hird wrote: I publicly pledge that, where the winning bidder is defined as the Vote Market party who, at the end of 5 days after this pledge was made: I terminate that pledge. I publicly pledge that, where the winning bidder is defined as the Vote Market party who, at the end of 5 days after this pledge was made: a) Posted a bid in response to this pledge, consisting of a number of VP that would put my VP holdings to or above 50 and a number of coins b) Has the amount of VP that they bid c) Bid the lowest amount of coins of all bids. (When there is more than one bid for the lowest amount of coins, the bid with the most VP offered is the winner. If there is more than one bid meeting that criteria, the winner is whichever ehird selects from those bids.) to announce the identity of that person and then, once they have transferred the amount of VP they bid to me, transfer the amount of coins they bid to them ASAP. ehird can terminate this pledge at any time, unless the winner has transferred the VP to him.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I must live in an alternate universe where some players "play the game" >> by not even paying attention to cases going on around them. Oh, wait... >> damn. > > Whereas the rest of us live in an alternate universe where players > blatantly ignore SHALLs, admit it, continue to ignore them, and 2 > people won't support a criminal CFJ. So, if a crime is low priority enough that you can't find two supporters, why clog the courts with a CFJ process? Suggested compromise: bring back infractions. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On 25 Nov 2008, at 19:37, Kerim Aydin wrote: So, if a crime is low priority enough that you can't find two supporters, why clog the courts with a CFJ process? Yay the rules are irrelevant!! Let's use telepathy to determine everyone's intentions? Wait, we have that, it's called equity... Suggested compromise: bring back infractions. ais523 has a proto to do this.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 25 Nov 2008, at 19:37, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> So, if a crime is low priority enough that you can't find two supporters, >> why clog the courts with a CFJ process? > > Yay the rules are irrelevant!! Let's use telepathy to determine everyone's > intentions? Wait, we have that, it's called equity... 0. Criminal cases still turn on intentions, you have to knowingly break the rules to be punished. You're not changing that at all. 1. Just stop being an ass. Even when we had infractions, it still required someone to support it or report it. Many went unreported, but you were taking a simple risk of punishment if you counted on that. 2. When you break a SHALL, you take a risk. Half the time you'd get off with an Excused anyway because it was accidental. Why would anyone be wanting to support criminality, unless they had an axe to grind? 3. The instant-reflexive CFJ was just being used when two people were annoyed at each other. If this passes I shall prove my point. I believe I have 5 CFJs permitted per week? And I won't need support to call criminal cases? And an "allegation" can technically include false statements without worry (after all, an allegation is not a claim of truth)? This might be fun. 4. An analogy: if you accidentally (and it was pretty clearly an accident) take one extra bill while playing Mononpoly, someone might say put it back but not get annoyed. Similarly, if you're a couple days late with a weekly report, well, maybe no-one's too bothered. -goethe.
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Resolving Herald election
On 25 Nov 2008, at 19:54, Geoffrey Spear wrote: This message serves to resolve the Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Herald office. The votes were: For Sgeo: root, Sgeo, OscarMeyr For ehird: Elysion The option selected by Agora is Sgeo; e is installed as Herald. CoE: this resolution is incorrect; it installs Sgeo as Herald, which is impossible both theoretically and physically. (Am I barmy? yes.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 3. The instant-reflexive CFJ was just being used when two people were > annoyed at each other. If this passes I shall prove my point. I believe > I have 5 CFJs permitted per week? And I won't need support to call criminal > cases? And an "allegation" can technically include false statements without > worry (after all, an allegation is not a claim of truth)? This might be fun. Uh, except you're forbidden from making false allegations by the same proposal?
DIS: [Herald] Random Interesting Rule Time!
Rule 1664/29 (Power=2) Rebellion A Call for Revolt is a notice submitted by a player (the Agitator) which alleges, roughly, that the current government is corrupt, oppressive and self-serving, that rather than watching over the people it is watching the people, that action must be taken, and furthermore asserts that we do not need a key, because we can break in. The Call is valid only if: (a) the Agitator was rebellious when e submitted the Call; (b) no other Call has been made during the same week; and (c) no Revolt has been successful for the previous thirty days. As soon as possible after a valid Call for Revolt has been submitted, the Registrar shall perform the following events in order: (a) select a random integer from 1 to the number of players (plus 1 if a player bears Miscreant); (b) if the selected number is less than or equal to the number of rebellious players (plus 1 if a rebellious player bears Miscreant), then: (1) announce that the Revolt succeeds; (2) expunge the blots of each rebellious player; (3) grant the ephemeral patent title Rebel Hero to each rebellious player; (4) set the initiative of each abiding player to Goethe, and return all stock cards held by abiding players to the Deck; (5) retire each abiding electee from office; and (6) flip each rebellious player's orthodoxy to abiding; otherwise: (1) announce that the Call for Revolt has failed; (2) assess each rebellious player 2 blots; and (3) assess the Agitator an additional 2 blots. The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the orthodoxy of players at the time the Call was submitted. The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all blots gained or expunged as a result of this rule, and is empowered to perform the actions this rule would require em to perform.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Philosophy
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CFJ 1860 is the pre-that-defintion precedent on this matter and may be > informative. However, CFJ 1860 was judged before nomic was explicitly defined.
DIS: Reminders
The following judges are late, and will probably be recused after the next rotation: 2252 comex (if the case exists at all) 2265 comex 2270 root 2245 Taral 2255 Warrigal
Re: DIS: [Herald] Random Interesting Rule Time!
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rule 1664/29 (Power=2) > Rebellion I support reproposing this along with the recent-ish blot proto.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2274b assigned to BobTHJ, ais523, comex
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2274b > > Appeal 2274b What happened to 2274a?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 3. The instant-reflexive CFJ was just being used when two people were >> annoyed at each other. If this passes I shall prove my point. I believe >> I have 5 CFJs permitted per week? And I won't need support to call criminal >> cases? And an "allegation" can technically include false statements without >> worry (after all, an allegation is not a claim of truth)? This might be fun. > > Uh, except you're forbidden from making false allegations by the same > proposal? I expect to enjoy the court cases resulting.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2276a, 2277a, 2278a assigned to Elysion, root, ais523
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2276a Gratutious arguments: Several interpretations have been thrown out, including (extended from Murphy's post): +S) 2126 takes precedence, so 2156 implicitly defines the initial limit and 2126's increases stick. -S) Even though 2126 takes precedence, 2126 only attempts to operate once and 2156 attempts to operate conditionally, so 2126's increases happen but 2156 comes along afterward and resets things. +G) Even though 2126 takes precedence, it defers to Rule 2156 because the latter is defining a term used by the former (and Rule 754 takes precedence over both). -G) Rule 2156 defines voting limit as caste, so an attempt to increase voting limit is in fact a failed attempt to increase caste. +A) Rule 2126's "increase" should be interpreted such that upon an increase, Rule 2126 defines the voting limit as one higher than it would otherwise be, in the fashion of an RPG. Wooble's judgement agreed with -S, but e gave the issue only a perfunctory treatment.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2282: FALSE > > Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments > was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation" > requires that the annotation was true, which this purported > annotation was not. What, you think there has never been an annotation made in error?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2282: FALSE >> >> Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments >> was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation" >> requires that the annotation was true, which this purported >> annotation was not. > > What, you think there has never been an annotation made in error? Okay, it at least requires that the annotator reasonably believes the annotation to be true. I don't think you reasonably believed that the "has been able for several months" was true pre-scam. Also, if the scam clause was added, then if anything it sets the standards for "annotation" higher than before.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2255 assigned to Warrigal
Warrigal wrote: > I recuse myself from this. Why was I not barred, by the way? Aren't > all parties supposed to be barred? If not, why were all these people > barred? You were deregistered at the time, and I generally don't bother recording the individual disqualification of non-players (nor second-class players, as I seriously doubt their blanket disqualification will be repealed any time soon).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2282: FALSE >> >> Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments >> was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation" >> requires that the annotation was true, which this purported >> annotation was not. > > What, you think there has never been an annotation made in error? By Murphy's logic, if there were past annotations made in error, then they were just false (="not") annotations, but no-one knew that, and if anyone questioned them/provided evidence we'd learn they had been false. That's not internally inconsistent with the ruling, anyway. In previous versions of the ruleset, when annotations were more rigidly defined (e.g. R789/5 "Such an [ordered by a judge] annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule.") then something that wasn't introduced with such a method was simply a piece of text that the rulekeepor happened to include and not an annotation. Murphy is extrapolating the same principle when the rules are (now) silent. Personally, I find a more persuasive argument in noting an annotation by common definition is "a note added by way of comment or explanation" on a text and not a part of the text itself, therefore an annotation is not a R2141-part of the "content", "form", or "text" of the rule, and therefore does not have a rule's scope or regulatory abilities, irrespective of the annotation's truth or falsity. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral
On 25 Nov 2008, at 21:48, Taral wrote: In order to escape the mousetrap, BobTHJ suffered material costs. Therefore, the court intends to enter the following judgement: In light of recent events I believe that a null judgment is appropriate.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2. When you break a SHALL, you take a risk. Half the time you'd get > off with an Excused anyway because it was accidental. Why would anyone > be wanting to support criminality, unless they had an axe to grind? Because it means that SHALLs are ignored. Since the with 2 support requirement was added, in several months, only three people have been found GUILTY of anything, one of which was a partnership: out of these, only ehird was actually punished (for Phill). Each of the other two cases included a sentence of APOLOGY, which the ninny blatantly ignored. In a totalitarian state, everyone is always guilty of something, so that the police always have a reason to arrest anyone. Agora does not have a totalitarian government, but as everyone racks up unpunished Rule violations, it is the community which will, more and more, always have a reason to bring criminal charges against someone thought to be acting improperly. The change to require support has turned the criminal court into a glorified system of equity: nobody can be punished even for the worst Rule violation if it's considered in the best interests of the game, and more importantly, anyone can-- and people do-- get away with minor but intentional Rule violations because nobody cares enough to gather support and punish them. This is already the case with contracts, which too often are assigned null equations, often by judges judging long after the point has been made moot, and no doubt you want to extend the rule of Equity as far as possible, Goethe, but I think that officers should publish their reports on time, that the CotC should assign cases on time, that judges should judge on time (yes, including myself), that ninnies should apologize, and obey equations, and that the Rules of Agora not be considered an obstacle to the orderly functioning of the game. The PBA allows fines, and the Rules allow community service. Let them be used: the CotC can handle whatever frivolous criminal cases may arise. A war of criminal case and counter-case was no common occurrence before July, and whatever pointless cases were created were called primarily because no Rule prohibited it. If you intend to call frivolous criminal cases when this proposal passes, I assume you will be prepared to apologize. Proto-proto: Abolish the pre-trial period. It delays criminal and equity cases excessively, especially the latter because it's rarely ended early; the judge can solicit defenses as necessary.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2. When you break a SHALL, you take a risk. Half the time you'd get >> off with an Excused anyway because it was accidental. Why would anyone >> be wanting to support criminality, unless they had an axe to grind? > > Because it means that SHALLs are ignored. Since the with 2 support > requirement was added, in several months, only three people have been > found GUILTY of anything, one of which was a partnership: out of > these, only ehird was actually punished (for Phill). Each of the > other two cases included a sentence of APOLOGY, which the ninny > blatantly ignored. First of all, if the Ninny ignored an apology, and I noticed, I'd personally bring a case against with a recommended worse penalty. Sorry if I didn't notice these. Secondly, I'd far rather error on this side then the previous "cases for judging incorrectly." Third, two support isn't hard... the fact that prosecution has slowed is a reflection of your will as well as others. if there's three of you (say ehird, Wooble, and comex) who agree, why don't you just always support any intents to prosecute, and further give each other specific power of attorneys to support criminal cases? A private solution that works as well as a regulated one? Who woulda thought? Finally, part of the issue for me is that we've become more lenient than I'd like in sentencing. Why bother a case for a direct violation if the judge is unwilling to do more than issue apology? I'd like either more chokeys or the return of blots. > The change to require support has turned the > criminal court into a glorified system of equity: nobody can be > punished even for the worst Rule violation if it's considered in the > best interests of the game, and more importantly, anyone can-- and > people do-- get away with minor but intentional Rule violations > because nobody cares enough to gather support and punish them. [...] > I think that officers should publish their > reports on time, that the CotC should assign cases on time, that > judges should judge on time (yes, including myself), that ninnies > should apologize, and obey equations, and that the Rules of Agora not > be considered an obstacle to the orderly functioning of the game. All it takes is you, ehird, and Wooble (or any third) to change this if you really think the issue is one of raising cases. I maintain the issue is more in sentencing. Going back to the pre-2-support system, how many cases against late reports are there, really? > This > is already the case with contracts, which too often are assigned null > equations, often by judges judging long after the point has been made > moot, and no doubt you want to extend the rule of Equity as far as > possible, Goethe... I'm not happy with null equations either, I prefer meaningful ones... except in real equity the majority of cases "settle out of court" so what's the harm there, either? > The > PBA allows fines, and the Rules allow community service. Let them be > used: the CotC can handle whatever frivolous criminal cases may arise. But they're not being so used, that's the problem. > Proto-proto: Abolish the pre-trial period. It delays criminal and > equity cases excessively, especially the latter because it's rarely > ended early; the judge can solicit defenses as necessary. The main reason for the pre-trial period was not so much the defense as allowing the defendant to bar a judge (only fair if the prosecutor can, and the barring has to happen before assignment). If you can think of another way to allow the barring, I'd support it (perhaps a 4-day opportunity to bar that starts when the case is called, not when the CotC informs the defendant?). -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
comex wrote: > Because it means that SHALLs are ignored. Since the with 2 support > requirement was added, in several months, only three people have been > found GUILTY of anything, one of which was a partnership: out of > these, only ehird was actually punished (for Phill). Each of the > other two cases included a sentence of APOLOGY, which the ninny > blatantly ignored. Then initiate criminal cases for failure to apologize. I'll support. > anyone can-- and > people do-- get away with minor but intentional Rule violations > because nobody cares enough to gather support and punish them. Again, bring back Infractions. (Yes, ais523's proto, but that brings up another issue that was observed several years back: one way to delay progress in a given area is to float a proto and then fail to submit it as a proposal.) > Proto-proto: Abolish the pre-trial period. It delays criminal and > equity cases excessively, especially the latter because it's rarely > ended early; the judge can solicit defenses as necessary. AGAINST. Controversial cases benefit from the pre-trial period, and uncontroversial cases should go through a more lightweight system.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Animal
On Nov 25, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: OscarMeyr wrote: I CFJ on the following inquiry statement, barring ehird, comex, and Pet A: You can only disqualify one person these days. I'm treating this as disqualifying ehird, and failing to disqualify comex or Pet A. Dang. What's the use of that limitation? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5972 - 5981
On 25 Nov 2008, at 23:06, Sgeo wrote: For your skill in scamming Agora to achieve a dictatorship, you have both been awarded the Patent Title of Scamster. courts says it don't work.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Animal
On 25 Nov 2008, at 23:09, Benjamin Schultz wrote: Dang. What's the use of that limitation? Disqualifying everyone but a partner in crime?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5972 - 5981
ehird wrote: > On 25 Nov 2008, at 23:06, Sgeo wrote: > >> For your skill in scamming Agora to achieve a dictatorship, you have >> both been awarded the Patent Title of Scamster. > > courts says it don't work. [citation needed]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5972 - 5981
C On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ehird wrote: > >> On 25 Nov 2008, at 23:06, Sgeo wrote: >> >>> For your skill in scamming Agora to achieve a dictatorship, you have >>> both been awarded the Patent Title of Scamster. >> >> courts says it don't work. > > [citation needed] > CFJ 2276-2278 FJ
DIS: Gratuituous arguments for 2276a-78a
-G') Rule 2156 defines voting limit as caste, so an attempt to increase voting limit on one proposal alone is an attempt to simultaneously change and not-change caste, thus ineffective.
DIS: No report - no notes
Resolved: Failure to receive a Note due to an untimely Officer's Report is punishment sufficient to trigger R101(vi). Discuss. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2245 assigned to Taral
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In light of recent events I believe that a null judgment is appropriate. If you can get the others to agree, then fine. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Nov 25, 2008, at 6:46 PM, comex wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As Defendant comex pleaded guilty, I trivially find GUILTY. Given that a similar CFJ could be entered with respect to each of P2 through P99, I impose a sentence of CHOKEY for 120 days. I initiate a criminal case against myself alleging that I violated rule 1742 by violating the P100 contract by causing P100 to register with the same basis as another player. I end that case's pre-trial period. How is this not ALREADY JUDGED or somesuch? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > On Nov 25, 2008, at 6:46 PM, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> As Defendant comex pleaded guilty, I trivially find GUILTY. Given that a >>> similar CFJ could be entered with respect to each of P2 through P99, I >>> impose a sentence of CHOKEY for 120 days. >> >> I initiate a criminal case against myself alleging that I violated >> rule 1742 by violating the P100 contract by causing P100 to register >> with the same basis as another player. >> >> >> I end that case's pre-trial period. > > How is this not ALREADY JUDGED or somesuch? I'm guessing e's trying to get a faster judgement in with a more lenient punishment while appealing yours and thus getting yours thrown out on R101(vi). Fairly ironic given eir recent complaint that players blatantly ignore their punishments (not that the appeal in itself would be wrong to do--it's eir right to appeal). Of course, it gets confusing, as, for the purposes of R101(vi), you are effectively punishing em for all of P2-P100 although the statement is only for P100. If the courts were suitably impartial, the judge of this one should defer to the appeals process and precedent of the first one, but who knows how that will work here (e.g. this isn't a "bug" if judges are deferring to each other or recusing/reassigning cases as they SHOULD). -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: 2 support -> 1 support
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree to the following:
> {
> This is a public pledge. Anyone can join or leave this contract by
> announcement. "Zooping a CFJ" means "intending to initiate a CFJ,
> acting on behalf of Sgeo, comex and ehird to support the intent and
> initiating it", e.g. "I zoop a criminal CFJ against foo for violating rule
> 7 by bazzing."
> }
maybe add "each of" in there?
Also: I'll kill you if people start commonly using the term "zoop" in
public messages.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Fairly ironic given eir recent complaint that players >> blatantly ignore their punishments (not that the appeal in itself would >> be wrong to do--it's eir right to appeal). > > Metagaming vs. roleplaying. I try to play this game as best I can, > and that includes avoiding punishment if I can get away with it-- if I > don't, I'm on an unlevel playing field. Yet I might, without > considering myself hypocritical, complain about players being able to > avoid punishment. Yah, you've got me pondering the distinction between illegally and legally shirking a punishment, too. I was actually wondering if this particular struggle were interesting enough to see how it can be countered; e.g. I'm assuming you'll wait until the last moment to appeal the current standing judgement and sentence; we could anticipate you and try to get an appeal/sustain in faster, etc., which places the burden on the second judge to overturn a sustained judgement, which we could appeal if e did, etc. OscarMeyr's sentence itself was interesting (for R101vi in particular) in that it both did and didn't punish for P2-99. This could drag on in a lot of ways for a while with both fairly substantial stakes and no certain winner. I'm on the fence its whether its worth it versus just being annoyed but not bothered to take the energy to stop it (is that letting you "win"?) Is it the wrong thing to do in the game but right in the metagame? Or: The only way to win not to play? I dunno. Another interesting culture note: when I joined in 2001 I had been recently playing a lot of Diplomacy, so I started out with a pretty strong roleplaying aspect of "I'm pretending to be a backstabbing, scheming and scamming politician though I'm not one in real life." I was pretty quickly told by many that "you shouldn't do that, it's un- Agoran, you should be whoever you are in real life and not be a jerk avatar and expect us to appreciate you in the metagame, etc." Not to say there's a right or wrong answer to that attitude it was just surprising to me for a "game" at the time and I kinda took it for granted since. One other interesting thing about agora is a standing long-term gentleman's agreement that things be "interesting" but that extends to metagaming "interesting" as well. E.g. it's possible to "win" by constant badgering trivial contests, CFJs, etc. that you call until everyone just gets bored enough to let you "have it." Is that winning? Or winning short-term but losing long-term if you're trying to get more wins out of multiple people? Is this all one giant round of Mediocrity? And isn't life the same way? Whoa. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 2 support -> 1 support
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:30 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree to the following:
>> {
>> This is a public pledge. Anyone can join or leave this contract by
>> announcement. "Zooping a CFJ" means "intending to initiate a CFJ,
>> acting on behalf of Sgeo, comex and ehird to support the intent and
>> initiating it", e.g. "I zoop a criminal CFJ against foo for violating rule
>> 7 by bazzing."
>> }
>
> maybe add "each of" in there?
>
> Also: I'll kill you if people start commonly using the term "zoop" in
> public messages.
>
Why reject something that might be added to Agoran culture?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > E.g. it's possible to "win" by > constant badgering trivial contests, CFJs, etc. that you call until > everyone just gets bored enough to let you "have it." Still surprised that the Points for Me proposals actually passed.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273 assigned to OscarMeyr
comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As Defendant comex pleaded guilty, I trivially find GUILTY. Given that a >> similar CFJ could be entered with respect to each of P2 through P99, I >> impose a sentence of CHOKEY for 120 days. > > I initiate a criminal case against myself alleging that I violated > rule 1742 by violating the P100 contract by causing P100 to register > with the same basis as another player. Ineffective, and why?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> E.g. it's possible to "win" by >> constant badgering trivial contests, CFJs, etc. that you call until >> everyone just gets bored enough to let you "have it." > > Still surprised that the Points for Me proposals actually passed. I'm not surprised, it's economic. it's just proof that people value VPs (or whatever they then become in the current arcane economy) more than points, or even wins. Nothing wrong with that, everything here is perceived value anyway. (I personally think the way to make wins valuable again is to have every type of win reset everything; caste, points, notes, and contests dissolve; everything resets with a win). -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Reminders
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend with 2 support to appeal this. At least, I hope the rules > aren't irrelevant. The veracity of the Rules considered as a statement, however, is.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > My mistake, I zoop a criminal case against myself alleging that I > violated Rule 1742 by violating the P100 contract by causing P100 to > register with the same basis as another player. (To be clear, this > means I intend to initiate the case, then act on behalf of Sgeo and > ehird, in order, to support it, then initiate the case with 2 > support.) A lot of the success or failure of this scam is based on the CotC's timing: e.g. an appeal could go through immediately while this case remained unassigned for nearly a week, or vice versa. So before I decide whether to "fight" this, CotC Murphy, your opinion? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A lot of the success or failure of this scam is based on the CotC's > timing: e.g. an appeal could go through immediately while this case > remained unassigned for nearly a week, or vice versa. So before I > decide whether to "fight" this, CotC Murphy, your opinion? Knowing me I'll probably forget to appeal it anyway, along with demoting Bayes before the end of the month. -- comex Not-Proposal: Pragmatize sleeping [This rule can take precedence over later ones. The minimum notice for deputisation is reduced from a "real contest" to Goethe, and the above notwithstanding, the holding Gambler Wins the Game.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273 assigned to OscarMeyr
Goethe wrote: > On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, comex wrote: >> My mistake, I zoop a criminal case against myself alleging that I >> violated Rule 1742 by violating the P100 contract by causing P100 to >> register with the same basis as another player. (To be clear, this >> means I intend to initiate the case, then act on behalf of Sgeo and >> ehird, in order, to support it, then initiate the case with 2 >> support.) > > A lot of the success or failure of this scam is based on the CotC's > timing: e.g. an appeal could go through immediately while this case > remained unassigned for nearly a week, or vice versa. So before I > decide whether to "fight" this, CotC Murphy, your opinion? No comment.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273 assigned to OscarMeyr
Goethe wrote: > I'm not surprised, it's economic. it's just proof that people value VPs > (or whatever they then become in the current arcane economy) more than > points, or even wins. Nothing wrong with that, everything here > is perceived value anyway. (I personally think the way to make wins > valuable again is to have every type of win reset everything; caste, > points, notes, and contests dissolve; everything resets with a win). Arguably, everything comes back to bragging rights, the primary forms of which are "look at that (concept I got adopted / win I earned / scam I pulled off)". The economy is relevant to the extent that it serves one or more of these ends.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Arguably, everything comes back to bragging rights, the primary forms > of which are "look at that (concept I got adopted / win I earned / scam > I pulled off)" Yet, perhaps, / wealth I created. Having enough assets to bribe people and such is a bragging right of its own.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Boring Loan Service report
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I increase root's Debt by 578 by transferring 578 coins to em. >> >> In light of ais523's truly scary interest rate, without 3 objections, >> I intend to raise the Interest Rate to 0.25%. > > Also, without 3 objections, I intend to raise the Interest Rate to 1%. I object. There's absolutely no reason to increase the interest rate by 400%; inflation isn't *that* bad.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Boring Loan Service report
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Also, without 3 objections, I intend to raise the Interest Rate to 1%. > > I object. There's absolutely no reason to increase the interest rate > by 400%; inflation isn't *that* bad. NttPF. --Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Siege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to register. Assuming you don't have any tricks up your sleeve, you're a player. Welcome to Agora. --Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Auction
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 01:27:59 pm Elliott Hird wrote: > time, unless the winner has transferred the VP to him. Y'know, you B players really need to get used to the way we use pronouns around here.
DIS: Re: BUS: Philosophy
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 10:52:57 am Alex Smith wrote: > I CFJ on the statement "The Ambassador CAN flip Wooble's > Recognition to Friendly without objection.". > > It is a philosophical question whether or not humans are defined in > some sense by a set of explicit rules; neuroscientists and > philosophers have puzzled over this for decades, and are unlikely > to come to a conclusion any time soon. > > I seriously don't expect an Agoran CFJ to be able to solve this > issue; in fact, logic alone is insufficient to determine matters of > logic and philosophy. > > arguably it isn't > UNDETERMINED because "uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply > the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for this > purpose", and the question is about how the rules define a nomic; I agree with woggle. It's UNDETERMINED, because we have insufficient information as to whether a human is defined by a set of explicit rules. If Wooble is so defined, then e is a nomic; the interpretation of the rules is perfectly clear. The question is a matter of worldly fact. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 23:53, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I would have more interest if it was in a toy language like Befunge. > > > > I don't think that would help that much. The interesting part of the > problem is not in the programming itself, it is the strategy. > Axelrod's work on prisoner's dilemma was essentially 'programmed' by > specifying the table moves to choose given the last three moves. > > - woggle > Would it be realistic/practical to allow players to submit programs written (then compiled...) in any language they want, while one "referee" program written in some appropriate language acts as the host that sets up the match, calls up 2 competing programs to be executed, and feeds these programs the necessary inputs (e.g. the other program's offer)? Billy Pilgrim
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 22:19, Jamie Dallaire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 23:53, Pavitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > I would have more interest if it was in a toy language like Befunge. >> > >> >> I don't think that would help that much. The interesting part of the >> problem is not in the programming itself, it is the strategy. >> Axelrod's work on prisoner's dilemma was essentially 'programmed' by >> specifying the table moves to choose given the last three moves. >> >> - woggle > > Would it be realistic/practical to allow players to submit programs written > (then compiled...) in any language they want, while one "referee" program > written in some appropriate language acts as the host that sets up the > match, calls up 2 competing programs to be executed, and feeds these > programs the necessary inputs (e.g. the other program's offer)? That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to know how to program usually isn't considered unreasonable. But, of course, there are practical problems with doing any-language-you-want (do you have a Hypertalk interpreter? Z80 assembly? VisualWorks?), so things probably need to be more restricted in practice. Probably the closest canonical example of a contest is the (much less theoretically interesting) http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html . -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2255 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 16:26, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>> == Equity Case 2255 ==
>>
>>The buggy automated WRV enforcement e-mail should not have been
>>sent.
>>
>>
>>
>> Caller's Arguments:
>>
>> I recommend a judgement that causes the
>> effects of that message to be completely ignored. I intend to
>> recordkeep the contract as if this were the case, since anything less
>> would lead to mass chaos in the contract.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gratuitous Arguments by comex:
>>
>> I hereby raise the issue (with respect to this equity case, as an
>> argument for equitability) that it's possible that all Lands are owned
>> by the LFD and a lot of stuff failed, depending on how you interpret
>> 'shall'.
>>
>>
>
> Computer scripts should be thoroughly tested before being allowed to go
> live; anything less is not good practice. I enter the following equation as
> my judgment: {H. SoA BobTHJ, fix the scripts and resolve the potential mass
> chaos.}
>
Doneand done.
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 23:32, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to > know how to program usually isn't considered unreasonable. But, of > course, there are practical problems with doing any-language-you-want > (do you have a Hypertalk interpreter? Z80 assembly? VisualWorks?), so > things probably need to be more restricted in practice. Probably the > closest canonical example of a contest is the (much less theoretically > interesting) http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html . > Why not have the competing programs communicate via an HTTP post? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 22:44, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 23:32, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to >> know how to program usually isn't considered unreasonable. But, of >> course, there are practical problems with doing any-language-you-want >> (do you have a Hypertalk interpreter? Z80 assembly? VisualWorks?), so >> things probably need to be more restricted in practice. Probably the >> closest canonical example of a contest is the (much less theoretically >> interesting) http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html . >> > Why not have the competing programs communicate via an HTTP post? That's a viable solution of course. Pros: Less contestmaster work. More programming environment choice. Cons: Making sure all programs are available at the same time. People going against the spirit of the game could use manual intervention to change strategy (timeouts can disincentivize this). Harder to run a whole lot of rounds (which would give a clearer idea of winner). Neutral: Likely encourages more complex solutions (using large external libraries, large datastores, etc.) -woggle
