Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2326 judged GUILTY / SILENCE (3.4 or 1.7) by OscarMeyr
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: >> On Jan 8, 2009, at 10:08 PM, comex wrote: >>> Is it even possible to have fractional assets? >> >> Why not? I don't see anything in R2166 specifying a MUQ for assets. Except that by R2166 single "asset" is an entity, and entities are not generally divisible; assets in particular are regulated and the rules don't say anything about dividing them; and I'd say that when a backing document defines e.g. that "ribbons are a class of fixed assets" it is a pretty strong implication that the singular "ribbon" is a single asset, therefore one entity, therefore indivisible. No it's not 100% clear so legislative or judicial clarity would be nice... Uh oh, R2228 has a grammatical error, says "Rests are a fixed asset" (singular). Does that mean that the set of all Rests is a single indivisible asset? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2326 judged GUILTY / SILENCE (3.4 or 1.7) by OscarMeyr
OscarMeyr wrote: > On Jan 8, 2009, at 10:08 PM, comex wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Taral wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Ed Murphy >>> wrote: As the act in question is noncompliance with a CFJ ruling, I intend with 2 support to fine the ninny 3.4 Rests. If this support is not met, I will fine the ninny 1.7 Rests. >> Is it even possible to have fractional assets? > > > Why not? I don't see anything in R2166 specifying a MUQ for assets. FYI this stands for Minimum Unit Quantity (e.g. 0.01 for USD), dating back to when fractional amounts of currency were explicitly allowed.
DIS: Re: BUS: Activity check
Siege wrote: > I object to my own deactivation (Siege). I'm here, just biding my time. Ominous!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Conductor election
Wooble wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: >> On Dec 22, 2008, at 8:48 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> >>> This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the >>> holder of the Conductor office. The eligible voters are the active >>> players, the vote collector is the IADoP, and the valid options are >>> COMEX and WOOBLE. >>> >>> --IADoP Wooble >> >> I don't think I missed the end of this election. I vote for Wooble. > > I resolved it during the Holiday. This may or may not have been > legal, but it's self-ratified by now. Not yet, 1769(a).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2326 judged GUILTY / SILENCE (3.4 or 1.7) by OscarMeyr
On Jan 8, 2009, at 10:08 PM, comex wrote: On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Taral wrote: On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: As the act in question is noncompliance with a CFJ ruling, I intend with 2 support to fine the ninny 3.4 Rests. If this support is not met, I will fine the ninny 1.7 Rests. Is it even possible to have fractional assets? Why not? I don't see anything in R2166 specifying a MUQ for assets. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Conductor election
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > > On Dec 22, 2008, at 8:48 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the >> holder of the Conductor office. The eligible voters are the active >> players, the vote collector is the IADoP, and the valid options are >> COMEX and WOOBLE. >> >> --IADoP Wooble > > > I don't think I missed the end of this election. I vote for Wooble. I resolved it during the Holiday. This may or may not have been legal, but it's self-ratified by now.
DIS: Re: BUS: Activity check
I object to my own deactivation (Siege). I'm here, just biding my time. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:04 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:08 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > > I cause the AFO to publish this. > > > > Registrar's Census > I'm going a bit further with deactivation than normal here; the idea's > to check to see if various people who haven't posted very recently are > awake, as well as inactivating people who haven't been playing for a > while. > > If I intend to deactivate you, don't take it as an attack; deactivating > people who aren't playing is intended simply to prevent them incurring > obligations and getting punished for not fulfiling them. It also reduces > quorum, making it easier to pass proposals that you aren't voting on. > > For each of the following players, I intend without objection to make > them inactive: > Billy Pilgrim, Craig/teucer, Dvorak Herring, harblcat, j, OscarMeyr, > Pavitra, Schrodinger's Cat, Siege, Sir Toby, w1n5t0n. > > -- > ais523 > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2326 judged GUILTY / SILENCE (3.4 or 1.7) by OscarMeyr
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Taral wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> As the act in question is noncompliance with a CFJ ruling, I intend >> with 2 support to fine the ninny 3.4 Rests. If this support is not >> met, I will fine the ninny 1.7 Rests. Is it even possible to have fractional assets?
Re: DIS: Whither Werewolves?
Elysion wrote: > A pretty self-explanatory subject line... We're in a night phase, and private choices have not yet been completed.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2312 judged GUILTY / SILENCE (3) by OscarMeyr
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments: > > I do not see any Conductor's reports in my archives for the month > between 17 November and 14 December. I uphold the first three NoVs; > I reject the fourth one, as it applies to the week beginning 17 > November. > > Accordingly, I find Defendant root GUILTY and sentence the ninny to > SILENCE of 3 Rests, one for each upheld NoV. Looks like I misread Rule 1504-- SILENCE does not allow any choice of rests. To properly address three NoVs I would need three criminal cases. This only succeeded in creating one rest in root's possession.
DIS: Whither Werewolves?
A pretty self-explanatory subject line... -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker
On Jan 8, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Charles Schaefer wrote: (btw, w1n5t0n, I'm just teasing a bit... it's something that's abundantly *not* clear in the SLR). -G. You know, in B Nomic, we repeal rules when we're done with them. -- w1n5t0n aka Charles Schaefer Y'all are welcome to try. I propose repealing B Nomic. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Charles Schaefer wrote: >> (btw, w1n5t0n, I'm just teasing a bit... it's something that's abundantly >> *not* clear in the SLR). >> >> -G. > You know, in B Nomic, we repeal rules when we're done with them. > -- > w1n5t0n aka > Charles Schaefer Y'all are welcome to try.
Re: DIS: Proto: A radical inquiry CFJ change
On 8 Jan 2009, at 21:48, Pavitra wrote: This is obviously a scam. The judicial system has recently been subjected to rampant corruption; giving it actual power over the gamestate would be catastrophic. Let's also stop proposals changing the rules.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker
On 8 Jan 2009, at 21:27, Charles Schaefer wrote: You know, in B Nomic, we repeal rules when we're done with them. Agora is rather heavily steeped in tradition.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker
On 8 Jan 2009, at 21:27, Charles Schaefer wrote: Goethe's CFJ Mine.
Re: DIS: Proto: A radical inquiry CFJ change
On Thursday 08 January 2009 06:40:49 Alex Smith wrote: > The basic ideas of the proposal are to ensure that after a case is > resolved and finally judged, the controversy about it is > uncontroversially resolved, with the rules modified to ensure that > the same controversy does not occur again and the gamestate > modified to a known value (so that incorrect judgements which > aren't appealed nevertheless don't cause everyone to continue > playing on an incorrect gamestate; at the moment, this would > normally but not always be incidentally fixed by self-ratification, > but I prefer a less dubious fix). This is obviously a scam. The judicial system has recently been subjected to rampant corruption; giving it actual power over the gamestate would be catastrophic. Also, you forgot (?) to specify that HIDDEN is neither positive nor negative. Finally: * change the rules so that if substantially similar circumstances to the circumstances leading to the case being called occur in the future, the analogous statement would be uncontroversially true (if the judgement was positive) or uncontroversially false (if the judgement was negative), and (Otherwise it could be interpreted as giving the judge the choice of true or false in the case of negative judgements. And we wouldn't want that, now would we?) Pavitra signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker
2009/1/6, Kerim Aydin : > > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > > There is, it's in the FLR. The problem is someone keeps telling new > > players to read the SLR instead, which by definition doesn't contain > > FAQs. The FLR's much more useful to get an overview of what the rules > > mean... I wouldn't have brought it up if it weren't for Goethe's CFJ on the rule. Maybe it should be part of the welcome: > > "Hi, welcome to Agora. By the way, r104 has been covered." Actually, > maybe > it should we should hold a secret wager: "how long before the next new > player > notices R104?". > > (btw, w1n5t0n, I'm just teasing a bit... it's something that's abundantly > *not* clear in the SLR). > > -G. You know, in B Nomic, we repeal rules when we're done with them. -- w1n5t0n aka Charles Schaefer
DIS: Re: BUS: A trivial paradox?
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> I call for judgement on the statement {{{If a rule were created with the
> text {{Wooble SHALL NOT Dance a Powerful Dance. Neither sentence of this
> rule has an effect.}}, then it would be ILLEGAL for Wooble to Dance a
> Powerful Dance.}}}
Trivial refutation option:
Any questions on a hypothetical a future ruleset must take into account
multiple possible states of other future rules of which we know
nothing, any one of which might overrule this entirely. UNDETERMINED.
(no, I know it's not the only option but I think it's a justified one if
you're bored of these trivial attempts).
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A trivial paradox?
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Charles Schaefer wrote: > He just can't Dance a Powerful Dance to the business list. It's kind of hard > to dance to (on) a public forum anyway. Agora's scope is not limited to its fora. Anyone who's ever seen me dance will vote FOR this proposal, and immediately propose removing the second sentence.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2331 assigned to comex
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, comex wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Charles Schaefer > wrote: >> Sorry for clogging the Judicial system. I wasn't aware that this had already >> been addressed. TWICE. > > Three times now, and if I am ever elected CotC, I will make certain to > assign Michael Norrish CFJs as soon as possible so they can't be > retracted ;) FWIW, I think I remember writing a proto-CFJ when I discovered r104 (ca 2001-2002). I vaguely recall at least a couple other proto-CFJs too. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: A trivial paradox?
2009/1/8, Alex Smith :
>
> I submit a proposal (AI=1, II=0, Title="Paradoxical Dancing"), with the
> text {{{Create a power-1 rule with the text {{Wooble SHALL NOT Dance a
> Powerful Dance. Neither sentence of this rule has an effect.}}.}}}
>
> I call for judgement on the statement {{{If a rule were created with the
> text {{Wooble SHALL NOT Dance a Powerful Dance. Neither sentence of this
> rule has an effect.}}, then it would be ILLEGAL for Wooble to Dance a
> Powerful Dance.}}}
>
> Arguments: If the rule in question existed, then this would be a clear
> Epinemedes Paradox. The paradox rules specifically allow for
> hypothetical paradoxes; and the judgement is not irrelevant to the game
> (for instance, Wooble might be planning to Dance a Powerful Dance in the
> future, and would probably want to vote AGAINST the proposal I just
> submitted if it did indeed restrict em from doing so).
> --
> ais523
>
>
He just can't Dance a Powerful Dance to the business list. It's kind of hard
to dance to (on) a public forum anyway.
For those not playing B: We had a recent contract scam saying that any
player other than comex breathing was explicit consent for them to join a
contract causing them to deregister, which was correctly overruled because
no player had breathed to a public forum.
--
w1n5t0n aka
Charles Schaefer
DIS: Re: BUS: [Anarchist] proposed repeal
2009/1/8, Geoffrey Spear : > > the Dice Server hates Contracts Are we sure that the dice server is not ehird? -- > w1n5t0n aka > Charles Schaefer
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2331 assigned to comex
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Charles Schaefer wrote: > Sorry for clogging the Judicial system. I wasn't aware that this had already > been addressed. TWICE. Three times now, and if I am ever elected CotC, I will make certain to assign Michael Norrish CFJs as soon as possible so they can't be retracted ;)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > IANAJ, but I do have an opinion on this too actually. There was sufficient > (intentionally-created) unclarity in an action attempt that could be mapped > onto either deregistration (R754i) or UNDAD (per contract you had clear > knowledge of) so as an ambiguous action attempt it's thrown out and you did > neither. -G. FWIW, joining the UNDAD would be a Contract Change; If a Contract Change is ambiguous or its permissibility cannot be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then that change has no effect.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2331 assigned to comex
2009/1/8, comex : > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2331 > > > > == CFJ 2331 == > > > >The current Speaker is Michael Norrish. > > > > > > FALSE. > Sorry for clogging the Judicial system. I wasn't aware that this had already been addressed. TWICE. -- w1n5t0n aka Charles Schaefer
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 8 Jan 2009, at 19:21, Taral wrote: > >> An unfortunate typo. R754(i). > > Degregister is defined by the UNDAD which I knew very well about. There is > sufficient ambiguity, and the CFJ judgment recently passed on the matter by > Goethe agrees. > > I believe I am now an UNDAD party. IANAJ, but I do have an opinion on this too actually. There was sufficient (intentionally-created) unclarity in an action attempt that could be mapped onto either deregistration (R754i) or UNDAD (per contract you had clear knowledge of) so as an ambiguous action attempt it's thrown out and you did neither. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On 8 Jan 2009, at 19:21, Taral wrote: An unfortunate typo. R754(i). Degregister is defined by the UNDAD which I knew very well about. There is sufficient ambiguity, and the CFJ judgment recently passed on the matter by Goethe agrees. I believe I am now an UNDAD party.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: > > On 8 Jan 2009, at 07:08, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> Mon 29 Dec 22:52:22 ehird deregisters (disputed, CFJ 2323) > > Honestly... I clearly said degregister. An unfortunate typo. R754(i). -- Taral "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Proto: A radical inquiry CFJ change
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > As long as you're copying Oracularities from 4E B, why not also copy the > way they take effect when the case can no longer be appealed? Oracularities were originally just Proposals tied to a Question, which were automatically destroyed if the Answer was reversed but voted on normally otherwise.
Re: DIS: argument against
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:10 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that
>>> case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes
>>> "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam was based on
>>> the paragraph and subsections between those, which don't include any
>>> language about requirement. We aren't delaying a requirement time;
>>> instead, we're delaying "the time limit to perform an action", which is
>>> much more CAN-friendly action.
>>
>> Except that "between those" text is only functional for when the rules
>> set a time limit for a FUTURE event. The rules set the time limit for
>> dependent intent is a time limit for a PAST event, so that's covered at
>> all there.
>>
> It also explicitly allows "the time limit to perform an action". I admit
> that that's the most tenuous part of the whole scam, though; arguably,
> the rule contradicts itself there, and the interpretation in which the
> scam doesn't work is the more plausible one.
Yes, the issue is that the phrase ("including the time limit to perform
an action") is a parenthetical on "future event". Two reasonably
consistent ways to read this:
1. In the Rules (other than the holiday rule itself), a dependent
action is (is practice) in the future of the Intent. Therefore, even
though the Dependent Actions rules refer to the time limit of a past
event, the de-facto future action is the action itself, not the intent,
and something with a time limit 4-14 days *after* (in the future of) the
intent posting. The intent posting timing is not affected, but the
deadline for action performance is (Murphy's argument).
2. Since these clauses are only triggered when the rules make a
future event (including a time limit) contingent on a past event, and
the dependent action rule makes a past event contingent on a future
event, dependent actions are not not affected at all by these clauses.
2a. (corollary). My previous arguments show that the "required" clauses
of the holiday rule also don't apply to dependent actions. So between
2 and 2a, dependent action timing is utterly unaffected by the holiday
rule (this nets to Wooble's original result).
-Goethe
Re: DIS: argument against
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:10 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > > comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that > > case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes > > "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam was based on > > the paragraph and subsections between those, which don't include any > > language about requirement. We aren't delaying a requirement time; > > instead, we're delaying "the time limit to perform an action", which is > > much more CAN-friendly action. > > Except that "between those" text is only functional for when the rules > set a time limit for a FUTURE event. The rules set the time limit for > dependent intent is a time limit for a PAST event, so that's covered at > all there. > It also explicitly allows "the time limit to perform an action". I admit that that's the most tenuous part of the whole scam, though; arguably, the rule contradicts itself there, and the interpretation in which the scam doesn't work is the more plausible one. -- ais523
Re: DIS: argument against
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that > case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes > "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam was based on > the paragraph and subsections between those, which don't include any > language about requirement. We aren't delaying a requirement time; > instead, we're delaying "the time limit to perform an action", which is > much more CAN-friendly action. Except that "between those" text is only functional for when the rules set a time limit for a FUTURE event. The rules set the time limit for dependent intent is a time limit for a PAST event, so that's covered at all there. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2321 assigned to Wooble
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I initiate an inquiry CFJ with II 2 into the statement {{If a player
>> gives consent for other players to act on eir behalf without creating or
>> modifying a contract for the purpose, such consent actually does allow
>> those players to act on eir behalf.}}
>>
>> Arguments:
>> I don't think there's any precedent or rules basis for this, but I might
>> be wrong.
>
> CFJ 1719.
That doesn't address whether Peekee's granting of those abilities amounted
to a de-facto contract. For example, it might be IMPOSSIBLE to make
such an agreement without it being considered a contract of some kind
(thus the CFJ statement is UNDETERMINED).
-Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto: A radical inquiry CFJ change
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:55 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > As long as you're copying Oracularities from 4E B, why not also copy the > way they take effect when the case can no longer be appealed? (Though > B's time limit there was four days rather than two weeks, so maybe the > judge can implement eir changes without objection if e is still judge > and the case is neither overturned nor pending on appeal.) Actually, the idea was that voting against the proposal was the appeal. Maybe we should disallow w2s appeals for the proposal-submitting judgements. -- ais523
Re: DIS: argument against
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > ugh. I'm now so convinced my scam didn't work I can't quite stand to > not post the argument and see wrong ones. Sorry if this spoils some > fun, here's the argument, any refutations? > > The section of the Holiday rule in question is only triggered if a > Rule "requires" something be done by a certain time limit. > > If a Rule says "you must do X before you CAN do Y", but you are not > actually required to do Y, then doing X is not a requirement at all, > even if the sequence is time-muddled. > > To see why, take the simple phrase "you must get a coin before you > can spend it." That doesn't mean getting a coin is a "requirement" > otherwise I could just spend 1,000,000 coins and claim "I have until > after the holiday to obtain them." Or take the following reducio-ad- > absurdum : > > "Before Goethe can win by Zotting, e is required to change the > Rules so that e can win by Zotting." This is trivially true, but > it doesn't mean I could legally win by zotting (and have the win > count) then later say, "oops, I broke a rule by not changing the > Rules so I could win by zotting, but I still won". > > All this (and the intent-dependent action sequence) is messing with > the order of "game physics", which is not what the Holiday rule speaks > of for "requires": "requires" should be restricted to dealing with > "SHALL before X" and not the time-reversal of "CAN after doing X." comex and I weren't scamming the paragraph you were scamming, in that case. The takes-precedence paragraph (the second-last) includes "requires", as does the third paragraph; however, our scam was based on the paragraph and subsections between those, which don't include any language about requirement. We aren't delaying a requirement time; instead, we're delaying "the time limit to perform an action", which is much more CAN-friendly action. Incidentally, I think there is a scam on the paragraph you discussed above, but it isn't the one you tried. Happy guessing what it is, everyone, before the next Holiday! -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2321 assigned to Wooble
ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:36 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Counterargument: act-on-behalf doesn't require a contract, it only
>> requires consent. The intent behind this case was to determine
>> whether Wooble's request constituted implicit consent (I expect not,
>> but this will set some interesting precedent either way).
> Interesting point; I don't think act-on-behalf via non-contract consent
> has ever been established by a CFJ, and had assumed it didn't exist. As
> act-on-behalf is based on game custom anyway, this could make for a very
> interesting CFJ.
>
> I initiate an inquiry CFJ with II 2 into the statement {{If a player
> gives consent for other players to act on eir behalf without creating or
> modifying a contract for the purpose, such consent actually does allow
> those players to act on eir behalf.}}
>
> Arguments:
> I don't think there's any precedent or rules basis for this, but I might
> be wrong.
CFJ 1719.
Re: DIS: Proto: Committees
ehird wrote: > On 8 Jan 2009, at 08:32, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> * RBoA (Treasurer) >> * PBA (Coinkeepor) > > If you're gonna do that, pick _one_ bank... No.
Re: DIS: Proto: A radical inquiry CFJ change
ais523 wrote: > * OBVIOUS, appropriate if the statement was uncontroversially true Should be OBVIOUSLY. > When a judge assigns a positive or negative judgement, e SHALL in the > same message submit a proposal (known as the case's Standardisation > Proposal) which would, if adopted: > * change the rules so that if substantially similar circumstances > to the circumstances leading to the case being called occur in > the future, the analogous statement would be obviously true (or > false if the judgement was a negative judgement), and > * modify the gamestate to be what it would be if the statement of > the case had been true at the time that the case was called (or > false if the judgement was a negative judgement). > > Whenever an Agoran Decision on a Standardisation Proposal is resolved as > REJECTED or FAILED QUORUM, an appeal concerning the assignment of > judgement in the question on resolution of the associated inquiry case > is initiated. As long as you're copying Oracularities from 4E B, why not also copy the way they take effect when the case can no longer be appealed? (Though B's time limit there was four days rather than two weeks, so maybe the judge can implement eir changes without objection if e is still judge and the case is neither overturned nor pending on appeal.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2321 assigned to Wooble
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: >> Gratuitous arguments: There blatantly isn't an act-on-behalf here, >> because there's no way a contract with ehird as its only party can allow >> em to act on behalf of Wooble. However, the judge should probably look >> at if Wooble's request to ehird was R2164/3 para 2 consent to allow >> ehird to transfer the case to emself and judge it, and whether ehird did >> indeed invoke that paragraph. (By the way, did anyone else here remember >> that that paragraph existed?) > > Counterargument: act-on-behalf doesn't require a contract, it only > requires consent. The intent behind this case was to determine > whether Wooble's request constituted implicit consent (I expect not, > but this will set some interesting precedent either way). counter-counter: consenting to act-on-behalf-of amounts to a secondary contract, so it must be explicit not implicit [see CFJ 1921, assuming 'consent' and 'agree' are reasonable synonyms in this context]. -G.
DIS: argument against
ugh. I'm now so convinced my scam didn't work I can't quite stand to not post the argument and see wrong ones. Sorry if this spoils some fun, here's the argument, any refutations? The section of the Holiday rule in question is only triggered if a Rule "requires" something be done by a certain time limit. If a Rule says "you must do X before you CAN do Y", but you are not actually required to do Y, then doing X is not a requirement at all, even if the sequence is time-muddled. To see why, take the simple phrase "you must get a coin before you can spend it." That doesn't mean getting a coin is a "requirement" otherwise I could just spend 1,000,000 coins and claim "I have until after the holiday to obtain them." Or take the following reducio-ad- absurdum : "Before Goethe can win by Zotting, e is required to change the Rules so that e can win by Zotting." This is trivially true, but it doesn't mean I could legally win by zotting (and have the win count) then later say, "oops, I broke a rule by not changing the Rules so I could win by zotting, but I still won". All this (and the intent-dependent action sequence) is messing with the order of "game physics", which is not what the Holiday rule speaks of for "requires": "requires" should be restricted to dealing with "SHALL before X" and not the time-reversal of "CAN after doing X." -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto: Committees
woggle wrote: >>a) The Rules Committee, consisting of the Rulekeepor, the >> Promotor, the Assessor, the Grand Poobah, the Speaker, >> and the Anarchist. > I think the speaker would be a better fit in administration. The Speaker is included here because e can affect caste shuffling. >>e) The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, >> consisting of the Notary and the Liaison of each >> subsidized contract. > and each registered partnership? Sure, why not. >> If a committee would otherwise have less than five members, then >> a player CAN spend any 5-M of eir Notes (where M is its number of >> members) to become a member of it. > This shouldn't be permanent (at least if the committee comes to naturally have > more than 5 members for an extended period of time). Perhaps the above > members are "chartered members" of the committee, and non-chartered members > resets if there are 5 chartered members at the beginning of a week. I thought about that, but it'd be more complicated. Someone can add it after this passes. > Also (5-M) arbitrary notes isn't very musical... Augmented chord? > Pentatonic scale? Pentatonic scale sounds good. >> Create a rule titled "Subsidized Contracts" with Power 2 and this text: >> >> Subsidy is a public contract switch with values Unsubsidized >> (default) and Subsidized. > Changes secured at what power? (if not 2, then why a power 2 rule?) Hmm, not sure yet. >> Assign the following rules to the Rules Committee: [snip] >> * 1450 (Separation of Powers) > Administration committee? Debatable. > Also: > * 879 (Quorum) > * 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) I'm trying to keep the initial assignments minimal; the committees can wrangle over further assignments on their own. I should probably take 1450 out, too. >> Assign the following rules to the Administration Committee: > * 2019 (Prerogatives)? Those are tied to MwP, not offices. >> Assign the following rules to the Judiciary Committee: [snip] >> * 2169 (Equity Cases) > I think this is better assigned to SBaE, as it greatly affects the > character of contracts. Dual assignment makes sense here. Also, the criminal stuff could be assigned to a separate committee, with the CotC on the inquiry one and the Justiciar (whose historical duties have famously included "hot and cold running justice") on the criminal one.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2321 assigned to Wooble
ais523 wrote: > Gratuitous arguments: There blatantly isn't an act-on-behalf here, > because there's no way a contract with ehird as its only party can allow > em to act on behalf of Wooble. However, the judge should probably look > at if Wooble's request to ehird was R2164/3 para 2 consent to allow > ehird to transfer the case to emself and judge it, and whether ehird did > indeed invoke that paragraph. (By the way, did anyone else here remember > that that paragraph existed?) Counterargument: act-on-behalf doesn't require a contract, it only requires consent. The intent behind this case was to determine whether Wooble's request constituted implicit consent (I expect not, but this will set some interesting precedent either way).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's all in the timing
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:49 PM, comex wrote: >> I intend to appeal this judgement with two support. >> Arguments: This deserves a REASSIGN under the corruptive self-interest >> clause. > > Granted writing a quick judgment right before the Holiday deadline > extension expired rather than waiting and writing more detailed > reasoning was probably unwise, but I do believe my reasoning about the > 4 day timing is correct, Except that I explicitly gave a logical and semantic refutation of the exact same reasoning earlier when comex made it. To pass the test of correctness IMO, you (or whomever) would need to demonstrate or explain why my refutation was wrong: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2008-December/023215.html I even gave a better argument for your judgement of FALSE here: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2008-December/023219.html Had you reasonably done so I (personally) would not have appealed... I was more bothered by the cursory examination in light of the range of issues that was raised than by any self-interest. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Taking the plunge
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 07:53 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I flip my judicial rank to 3. I object to each of the below intents >> (for at least as long as it might take others to respond). -Goethe > Many of them are on already-assigned cases, but that's probably a wise > idea anyway. > > Hmm... Agora should stop introducing new things by proposal, and then > not actually using them... Yah. If the proposer doesn't launch a scam on the new rule 5 minutes after adoption, something's clearly wrong with us.
DIS: Re: BUS: Taking the plunge
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 07:53 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I flip my judicial rank to 3. I object to each of the below intents > (for at least as long as it might take others to respond). -Goethe Many of them are on already-assigned cases, but that's probably a wise idea anyway. Hmm... Agora should stop introducing new things by proposal, and then not actually using them... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2323 assigned to Goethe
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 8 Jan 2009, at 14:24, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> TRUE. > > What's your opinion on whether I'm an UNDAD party? Do I need to have one?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Warrigal wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:08 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> Mon 5 Jan 21:32:10 Warrigal becomes a senator >> Something's gone badly wrong here. How did Warrigal manage to last long >> enough to become a Senator without accidentally deregistering emself >> again? > > Oops, forgot. I deregister. You spelled that wrong.
DIS: Re: BUS: Activity check
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:21 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I object to the inactivation of OscarMeyr and Pavitra, each of whom is > clearly active, to save them the trouble. Ugh, sorry. I skimmed through the messages far too quickly... -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2323 assigned to Goethe
On 8 Jan 2009, at 14:24, Kerim Aydin wrote: TRUE. What's your opinion on whether I'm an UNDAD party?
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On 8 Jan 2009, at 07:08, Ed Murphy wrote: Mon 29 Dec 22:52:22 ehird deregisters (disputed, CFJ 2323) Honestly... I clearly said degregister.
Re: DIS: Proto: Committees
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Elliott Hird wrote: > If you're gonna do that, pick _one_ bank... IIB plz kthx
Re: DIS: Proto: Committees
On 8 Jan 2009, at 08:32, Ed Murphy wrote: * RBoA (Treasurer) * PBA (Coinkeepor) If you're gonna do that, pick _one_ bank...
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:08 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Mon 5 Jan 21:32:10 Warrigal becomes a senator > Something's gone badly wrong here. How did Warrigal manage to last long > enough to become a Senator without accidentally deregistering emself > again? Oops, forgot. I deregister. --Warrigal
DIS: Proto: A radical inquiry CFJ change
I've been thinking a lot about CFJs and how they work. Inquiry CFJs have
been much the same for a while, and I reckon it's time for a radical
shakeup. This proto is based partly on BlogNomic and partly on B's 4th
Era, with some of my own ideas added in. This is a protoproto really, it
isn't tidying up loose ends (like repealing and modifying existing rules
so it fits in, which would be necessary in an actual proposal).
The basic ideas of the proposal are to ensure that after a case is
resolved and finally judged, the controversy about it is
uncontroversially resolved, with the rules modified to ensure that the
same controversy does not occur again and the gamestate modified to a
known value (so that incorrect judgements which aren't appealed
nevertheless don't cause everyone to continue playing on an incorrect
gamestate; at the moment, this would normally but not always be
incidentally fixed by self-ratification, but I prefer a less dubious
fix). Possibly the main change, apart from Standardisation Proposals for
TRUE and FALSE that incorporate the judgement into the ruleset, is that
UNDETERMINED requires the judge to submit a proposal to make the
statement determined, and that UNDECIDABLE now requires the judge to
resolve the paradox in question. I've also removed opportunities for the
judge to choose between two appropriate judgements, by giving a
precedence order for which judgements to choose over which others; no
more UNDETERMINED/UNDECIDABLE arguments. In other words, CFJs now
definitively resolve matters of controversy, by forcing proposals to
resolve the matter to be submitted and remaining in constant appeal
until they are adopted. There's also a new HIDDEN judgement to prevent
people using CFJs to determine information about private contracts or
secret BF Jousting programs, and OBVIOUS/OBVIOUSLY NOT judgements to
discourage frivolous CFJs and prevent them clogging up the proposal
system with useless Standardisation Proposals and the rules with useless
clarifications.
Feedback /very/ welcome on this one.
Create a rule (or replace rule 591?) called "Inquiry Cases" with AI
(1.5? 1.7?) and the following text:
{{{
Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. The purpose of inquiry
cases is to resolve matters of controversy. An inquiry case CAN be
initiated by any first-class person (its initiator), by announcement
which includes a statement which is clearly identified as the statement
that the CFJ is about. A person SHOULD only initiate an inquiry CFJ if:
* the initiator believes that the statement is controversial (that
is, that there is unclarity about whether it is true, or
disagreement about whether it is true); and one of the following
holds:
* the initiator believes that the statement is true, or
* the initiator believes that it is impossible to determine the
veracity of the statement on information generally known to
players, or
* the initiator believes that the statement cannot be factually
and logically described as either true or false.
In the message which initiates an inquiry case, its initiator CAN
disqualify one person from assignment as judge of that case; the
initiator is also unqualified to be judge of that case.
An inquiry case has a judicial question on resolution, which is
always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are
as follows, except that no judgement is valid if a previous judgement in
this list is valid:
* MALFORMED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical, not a
single statement inherently capable of having a truth value, or
sufficiently vague that its truth or falsity cannot reasonably
be established. This is neither a positive nor negative
judgement.
* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the statement's truth value at the
time that the case was called is not relevant to the game. This
is neither a positive nor negative judgement.
* HIDDEN, appropriate if the truth or falsity of the statement is
easily determinable by at least one player, but not by every
player.
* OBVIOUS, appropriate if the statement was uncontroversially true
at the time that the case was called. When an inquiry case has
had this judgement for sufficiently long that it cannot be
appealed without a proposal or a change in the rules, then one
Rest is created in the possession of its initiator. This is
neither a positive nor negative judgement.
* OBVIOUSLY NOT, appropriate if the statement was
uncontroversially false at the time that the case was called.
When an inquiry case has had this judgement for sufficiently
long that it cannot be appealed without a proposal or a change
in the rules, then two Rests are created in the possession of
its initiator. This is neither a positive nor negative
judgement.
* TRUE, appropriate if the
DIS: Re: BUS: It's all in the timing
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:49 PM, comex wrote: > I intend to appeal this judgement with two support. > Arguments: This deserves a REASSIGN under the corruptive self-interest clause. My scam's success hinges entirely on whether preemptive objections work, whether Goethe's scam worked is irrelevant to mine. Granted writing a quick judgment right before the Holiday deadline extension expired rather than waiting and writing more detailed reasoning was probably unwise, but I do believe my reasoning about the 4 day timing is correct, and I also believe that no matter how detailed of a judgment I wrote I'd be overturned on appeal since in this case the scamster is more popular with the establishment than you are and the usually suspects will line up behind him instead of fighting to overturn the scam like when you pull them.
Re: DIS: Proto: Committees
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 00:32 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > Create a rule titled "Committee Membership" with Power 2 and this text: > > The following committees exist, consisting of at least the > following members: > > a) The Rules Committee, consisting of the Rulekeepor, the > Promotor, the Assessor, the Grand Poobah, the Speaker, > and the Anarchist. > > b) The Administration Committee, consisting of all > high-priority officers. > > c) The Judiciary Committee, consisting of the Clerk of the > Courts, the Justiciar, and all standing and sitting > players. > > d) The Finance Committee, consisting of the Accountor and > all recordkeepors of rule-backed assets. > > e) The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, > consisting of the Notary and the Liaison of each > subsidized contract. > > f) The Indian Affairs Committee, consisting of the > Scorekeepor and all contestmasters. > > g) The Foreign Relations Committee, consisting of the > Speaker, the Ambassador, and all Embassies. > > If a committee would otherwise have less than five members, then > a player CAN spend any 5-M of eir Notes (where M is its number of > members) to become a member of it. > > The IADoP's report includes the membership of each committee. This looks liable to run into the recent one-hit wonders problem. Is it possible to join a committee which is defined as having a certain set of members? This is probably best clarified in the proposal, or we could have another massive argument with 6 possible interpretations next time someone tries to scam the rule. -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Report
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:18 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > For castes, see the Grand Poobah's report. > For inactive and non-first-class players, see the Registrar's report. > For players in the chokey, see the CotC's report. This boilerplate probably needs changing. Chokey's now done in terms of Rests. -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6027 - 6032
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:14 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Text of adopted proposals:
>
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> Proposal 6027 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Elysion
>
>
> Amend rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by appending the following
> sentence to the end of the first paragraph:
>
> For the purposes of any determination defined by this rule, objections
> shall always be considered withdrawn if they were made prior to the
> announcement of intent to perform the action.
I love the timing on this one. (Yes, I know the Holiday made it more or
less inevitable.)
--
ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:08 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > Mon 5 Jan 21:32:10 Warrigal becomes a senator Something's gone badly wrong here. How did Warrigal manage to last long enough to become a Senator without accidentally deregistering emself again? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Prerogatives (was: Re: Speaker)
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 20:13 -0500, Sgeo wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 21:22 -0500, comex wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Charles Schaefer
> >> wrote:
> >> > Inquiry CFJ: {The current Speaker is Michael Norrish.}
> >>
> >> See CFJs 2155 and 1534.
> >
> > Someone told me that I'm the Speaker now. I'm not entirely sure whether
> > I am or not, but I've been de-facto doing the job for a while via
> > deputisation.
> >
> > Disclaimer: The actions in the rest of this message fail if I am not
> > Speaker; I wouldn't want to mislead anyone into thinking they succeed if
> > I am not.
> >
> > I assign prerogatives for January 2009 as follows (note that these fail
> > if the players in question aren't MWoPs, I'm relying on Murphy's website
> > for that and it's been wrong in the past):
> > ais523: Wielder of Veto [I've tried a few, and I like this one]
> > BobTHJ: Wielder of Extra Votes [we all know how e loves voting power]
> > Pavitra: Default Officeholder [to have someone active here just in case]
> > Zefram: Wielder of Rubberstamp [by elimination]
> > pikhq: Justiciar [make this someone supine to help out the CotC]
> >
> > I intend to deputise for the Speaker to make the above assignments (in
> > case I'm not the speaker; the deputisation does nothing if I am).
> > --
> I think we need to wait until the CFJs regarding recent win attempts
> are resolved.
Note that I think MWoP's half-pragmatised; IIRC, if a player hasn't been
awarded it by the Herald, they definitely aren't, and if they have been,
then they are only if they won.
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Proto: Committees
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 00:32, Ed Murphy wrote: > Proto-Proposal: Committees > (AI = 3, II = 2, please) > > Create a rule titled "Committees" with Power 3 and this text: > > Each rule is assigned to zero or more committees. Changing > whether a rule is assigned to a committee is secured, with a > power threshold equal to that rule's power. > > If a proposal would amend (whether directly or indirectly) a > rule assigned to a committee, and at least half the members > of that committee (measured at the start of its voting period) > who voted on that proposal cast more votes AGAINST it than FOR > it, then it is entirely without effect, even if adopted. > > Create a rule titled "Committee Membership" with Power 2 and this text: > > The following committees exist, consisting of at least the > following members: > >a) The Rules Committee, consisting of the Rulekeepor, the > Promotor, the Assessor, the Grand Poobah, the Speaker, > and the Anarchist. I think the speaker would be a better fit in administration. > >b) The Administration Committee, consisting of all > high-priority officers. > >c) The Judiciary Committee, consisting of the Clerk of the > Courts, the Justiciar, and all standing and sitting > players. > >d) The Finance Committee, consisting of the Accountor and > all recordkeepors of rule-backed assets. > >e) The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, > consisting of the Notary and the Liaison of each > subsidized contract. and each registered partnership? > >f) The Indian Affairs Committee, consisting of the > Scorekeepor and all contestmasters. > >g) The Foreign Relations Committee, consisting of the > Speaker, the Ambassador, and all Embassies. > > If a committee would otherwise have less than five members, then > a player CAN spend any 5-M of eir Notes (where M is its number of > members) to become a member of it. This shouldn't be permanent (at least if the committee comes to naturally have more than 5 members for an extended period of time). Perhaps the above members are "chartered members" of the committee, and non-chartered members resets if there are 5 chartered members at the beginning of a week. Also (5-M) arbitrary notes isn't very musical... Augmented chord? Pentatonic scale? > > The IADoP's report includes the membership of each committee. > > Create a rule titled "Subsidized Contracts" with Power 2 and this text: > > Subsidy is a public contract switch with values Unsubsidized > (default) and Subsidized. Changes secured at what power? (if not 2, then why a power 2 rule?) > > Liaison is a subsidized contract switch with values null and > all roles defined by that contract. > > Subsidize the following contracts, with the following Liaisons: > * AAA (Secretary of Agriculture) > * RBoA (Treasurer) > * PBA (Coinkeepor) > * Vote Market (Broker) > > Assign the following rules to the Rules Committee: > * 105 (Rule Changes) > * 1688 (Power) > * 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) > * 693 (Agoran Decisions) > * 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) > * 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) > * 208 (Resolving Agoran decisions) > * 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) > * 106 (Adopting Proposals) > * 1607 (The Promotor) > * 2137 (The Assessor) > * 1450 (Separation of Powers) Administration committee? Also: * 879 (Quorum) * 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) > Assign the following rules to the Administration Committee: > * 1006 (Offices) > * 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) > * 2160 (Deputisation) > * 2154 (Election Procedure) > * 2217 (Periodic Elections) > * 2138 (The International Associate Director of Personnel) * 2019 (Prerogatives)? > > Assign the following rules to the Judiciary Committee: > * 991 (Judicial Cases Generally) > * 2158 (Judicial Questions) > * 1868 (Judge Assignment Generally) > * 591 (Inquiry Cases) > * 2230 (Notices of Violation) > * 1504 (Criminal Cases) > * 2228 (Rests) > * 2229 (Just Resting) > * 2169 (Equity Cases) I think this is better assigned to SBaE, as it greatly affects the character of contracts. > * 2157 (Judicial Panels) > * 911 (Appeal Cases) > > Assign the following rules to the Finance Committee: > * 2166 (Assets) > * 2126 (Notes) > * 2199 (Ribbons) * 2181 (The Accountor) > Assign the following rules to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship > Committee: > * 1742 (Contracts) > * 2173 (The Notary) > * 2197 (Defining Contract Changes) > * 2198 (Making Contract Changes) > * 2178 (Public Contracts) > * 2191 (Pledges) > * 2145 (Partnerships) > > Assign the following rules to the Indian Affairs Committee: > * 2179 (Points) > * 2136 (Contests) > * 2232 (Contest Axes) > * 2233 (Awarding and Revoking Points) > * 2187 (Win by High Score) > > Assign the fol
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2325 assigned to Taral
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2325 > > = Criminal Case 2325 = > >j violated Rule 2170 by selecting (in B Nomic) a nickname that >has generally been used to refer to another entity within the >past three months. Patent nonsense, given the history of nicknames. NOT GUILTY. -- Taral "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Proto: Committees
Proto-Proposal: Committees (AI = 3, II = 2, please) Create a rule titled "Committees" with Power 3 and this text: Each rule is assigned to zero or more committees. Changing whether a rule is assigned to a committee is secured, with a power threshold equal to that rule's power. If a proposal would amend (whether directly or indirectly) a rule assigned to a committee, and at least half the members of that committee (measured at the start of its voting period) who voted on that proposal cast more votes AGAINST it than FOR it, then it is entirely without effect, even if adopted. Create a rule titled "Committee Membership" with Power 2 and this text: The following committees exist, consisting of at least the following members: a) The Rules Committee, consisting of the Rulekeepor, the Promotor, the Assessor, the Grand Poobah, the Speaker, and the Anarchist. b) The Administration Committee, consisting of all high-priority officers. c) The Judiciary Committee, consisting of the Clerk of the Courts, the Justiciar, and all standing and sitting players. d) The Finance Committee, consisting of the Accountor and all recordkeepors of rule-backed assets. e) The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, consisting of the Notary and the Liaison of each subsidized contract. f) The Indian Affairs Committee, consisting of the Scorekeepor and all contestmasters. g) The Foreign Relations Committee, consisting of the Speaker, the Ambassador, and all Embassies. If a committee would otherwise have less than five members, then a player CAN spend any 5-M of eir Notes (where M is its number of members) to become a member of it. The IADoP's report includes the membership of each committee. Create a rule titled "Subsidized Contracts" with Power 2 and this text: Subsidy is a public contract switch with values Unsubsidized (default) and Subsidized. Liaison is a subsidized contract switch with values null and all roles defined by that contract. Subsidize the following contracts, with the following Liaisons: * AAA (Secretary of Agriculture) * RBoA (Treasurer) * PBA (Coinkeepor) * Vote Market (Broker) Assign the following rules to the Rules Committee: * 105 (Rule Changes) * 1688 (Power) * 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) * 693 (Agoran Decisions) * 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) * 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) * 208 (Resolving Agoran decisions) * 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) * 106 (Adopting Proposals) * 1607 (The Promotor) * 2137 (The Assessor) * 1450 (Separation of Powers) Assign the following rules to the Administration Committee: * 1006 (Offices) * 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) * 2160 (Deputisation) * 2154 (Election Procedure) * 2217 (Periodic Elections) * 2138 (The International Associate Director of Personnel) Assign the following rules to the Judiciary Committee: * 991 (Judicial Cases Generally) * 2158 (Judicial Questions) * 1868 (Judge Assignment Generally) * 591 (Inquiry Cases) * 2230 (Notices of Violation) * 1504 (Criminal Cases) * 2228 (Rests) * 2229 (Just Resting) * 2169 (Equity Cases) * 2157 (Judicial Panels) * 911 (Appeal Cases) Assign the following rules to the Finance Committee: * 2166 (Assets) * 2126 (Notes) * 2199 (Ribbons) Assign the following rules to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee: * 1742 (Contracts) * 2173 (The Notary) * 2197 (Defining Contract Changes) * 2198 (Making Contract Changes) * 2178 (Public Contracts) * 2191 (Pledges) * 2145 (Partnerships) Assign the following rules to the Indian Affairs Committee: * 2179 (Points) * 2136 (Contests) * 2232 (Contest Axes) * 2233 (Awarding and Revoking Points) * 2187 (Win by High Score) Assign the following rules to the Foreign Relations Committee: * 2200 (Nomic Definitions) * 2148 (The Ambassador) * 2185 (Foreign Relations) * 2147 (Protectorates) * 2159 (Protective Decrees) * 2206 (Foreign Trade) * 2207 (Trade Embargo)
