Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: zeckalpha is to be registered.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 31 May 2009, Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:
> I assumed... Hazing of sorts. Makes sense to weed out those unwilling
> to put up with criticism and informs initiates about some of the
> subtleties of the Agoran way. Clever.

Maybe this should be in the FAQ?

The ironic thing is, the reason R869 is written to allow several different 
grammatical constructions that express an intent to register is found
in CFJ 1263.  As Judge Steve wrote:
   ...It may be true
   as Blob says (although I doubt it), that forcing new Players to phrase
   their registration messages explicitly as requests might inculcate some
   humility into them. But I think it's just as likely that being so severe
   on New Players will humiliate rather than humble them and make their
   first official experience with Agora the negative one of being
   nit-picked on for trivial reasons. First impressions last. In the
   spirit, if not precisely in the letter, of Rule 754, differences in
   phraseology should be regarded as inconsequential as long as the meaning
   is clear. Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register as
   a Player should count as a request for registration, whether or not it
   is explicitly phrased as a request.

When I saw your registration I thought: "looks like it fits that standard to 
me but I bet some nitpicky dunderhead will question it."

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2524a assigned to G., Rodlen, ehird

[Ed Murphy]

Rodlen wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Elliott Hird
>  > wrote:
> 
> 2009/5/29 Ed Murphy  >:
> > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2524a
> 
> Trivial OVERRULE/{}.
> 
> 
> OVERRULE.

Ineffective, must specify a replacement judgement.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2541-42 assigned to Rodlen

[Ed Murphy]

coppro wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Rodlen  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Sean Hunt  wrote:
>>> Rodlen wrote:
 I judge CFJ 2541 FALSE and CFJ 2542 TRUE. Â In the first case, Quazie
 attempted to announce that the rule repealed itself without causing it
 to repeal itself. Â In the second case, e did cause it to repeal itself.
 Players had to specifically cause it to repeal itself, not just announce
 that it repealed itself.

 --
 --Rodlen
>>> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment. Rule 105 prevents
>>> Rule Changes from happening other than an instrument taking effect;
>>> Quazie saying e causes a rule to repeal itself is hardly part of that
>>> rule's effect.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, R101(iv) prevents a Rule Change that was not subject to
>>> public review.
>> ...Hmm...however, placing the big "90 days and this can be repealed by any
>> player", in my opinion, through a proposal (public review of the ability to
>> do the rule change), kind of defeats both points.
>>
>> --
>> --Rodlen
>>
> 
> Erp; I misread the rule e was trying to repeal. I thought e was after
> 2207 for some reason. Intent withdrawn.

It would've been ineffective anyway, you didn't specify which
judgement you intended to appeal.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2534 judged TRUE by Rodlen

[Ed Murphy]

Rodlen wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Ed Murphy  > wrote:
> 
> ehird wrote:
> 
> >>> I intend to appeal this as Rodlen clearly has not considered private
> >>> agreements taking effect as is the precedent. He seems to think this
> >>> CFJ asks "if Warrigal re-did the action in a-b, would it work?". It
> >>> does not.
> >> Fails, the number of persons needed for the dependent action were not
> >> specified.
> >>
> >
> > I intend w/ 2 support to do the thing that I attempted to intend to do
> > two levels up in quotes.
> 
> I support.
> 
> 
> So I took the CFJ too literally?

No, you mis-read "if it were announced" as "if it were announced by
Warrigal", overlooking "if it were announced by someone else (thus
possibly triggering Warrigal's previous agreement outside a-b".

Re: DIS: recently unalienated, perhaps misunderstanding rules...

[Ed Murphy]

zeckalpha wrote:

> Rule 2150/6 seems contradictory
> Personhood
> 
>  A person is an entity defined as such by rules with power of at
>  least 2.  A person CAN generally be the subject of rights and
>  obligations under the rules.
> 
>  Any biological organism that is generally capable of
>  communicating by email in English (including via a translation
>  service) is a person.
> 
>  A first-class person is a person of a biological nature.  All
>  other persons are second-class.
> 
>  The basis of a first-class person is the singleton set
>  consisting of that person.
> 
> In my understanding of it, because it says "Any biological organism
> ... is a person." and goes on to say "A first-class person is a person
> of a biological nature.  All other persons are second-class." there
> can be no second class persons.

See Rule 754 (section 2).  As others have noted,
  "A biological organism ... is a person"
does not imply
  "A person is a biological organism ..."

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2545 assigned to coppro

[Ed Murphy]

ais523 wrote:

> On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 09:18 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 23:05, Sean Hunt  wrote:
>>> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
 I appeal this judgment.
>>> Since I spent a Note to remove one of your Rests in the belief that 3
>>> Rests was excessive, I would ask that, if the judgment is overruled,
>>> remanded, or reassigned, you repay me in some manner.
>>>
>>> I have no way of enforcing this, but I will note if you do not.
>>>
>> If the judgment is overruled or re-assigned then it was never valid,
>> which means the rests were never created, and therefore your spending
>> notes to destroy one was invalid.
>>
> Err, no. You can't retroactively prevent a judgement having happened.
> 
> Instead, the appeals panel has to destroy the rests by announcement;
> which might be problematic, given that they no longer all exist. (Rule
> 1504; incidentally, {Wooble, Rodlen, Tiger} have failed for over a week
> to meet this SHALL, but the rule forgets to specify a time limit. I
> wonder what recourse I have in this case? Probably, a proposal to fix
> the rule; I'll do that.)

Proto-proto:  If an entity is required to destroy a Rest in the
possession of a player with no Rests, it CAN by announcement create a
Note of a specified pitch and a Rest in the possession of that player.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2545 assigned to coppro

[Aaron Goldfein]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Ed Murphy  wrote:

>  ais523 wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 09:18 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 23:05, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> >>> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>  I appeal this judgment.
> >>> Since I spent a Note to remove one of your Rests in the belief that 3
> >>> Rests was excessive, I would ask that, if the judgment is overruled,
> >>> remanded, or reassigned, you repay me in some manner.
> >>>
> >>> I have no way of enforcing this, but I will note if you do not.
> >>>
> >> If the judgment is overruled or re-assigned then it was never valid,
> >> which means the rests were never created, and therefore your spending
> >> notes to destroy one was invalid.
> >>
> > Err, no. You can't retroactively prevent a judgement having happened.
> >
> > Instead, the appeals panel has to destroy the rests by announcement;
> > which might be problematic, given that they no longer all exist. (Rule
> > 1504; incidentally, {Wooble, Rodlen, Tiger} have failed for over a week
> > to meet this SHALL, but the rule forgets to specify a time limit. I
> > wonder what recourse I have in this case? Probably, a proposal to fix
> > the rule; I'll do that.)
>
> Proto-proto:  If an entity is required to destroy a Rest in the
> possession of a player with no Rests, it CAN by announcement create a
> Note of a specified pitch and a Rest in the possession of that player.
>

Or just allow negative rests.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2545 assigned to coppro

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 31 May 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> Proto-proto:  If an entity is required to destroy a Rest in the
>> possession of a player with no Rests, it CAN by announcement create a
>> Note of a specified pitch and a Rest in the possession of that player.
>
> Or just allow negative rests.
>

We've had in the past tried to keep currencies a lot like "real things"
and in that sense we're rather medieval; there's precedents that there's
no such thing as a "negative" currency, that you can't magically transmute
fungible currencies into each other; that you can't "decrease a currency
by a negative amount thereby increasing it" etc.  

At least that's some varied precedents it hasn't come up in a bit.

-G.

DIS: Proto: Constitutional Anarchy

[Sean Hunt]

I submit the following proto-proposal, entitled {Constitutional
Anarchy}. Its adoption index is 3, its interest index is 3.

{{{
When interpreting the text of this proposal, it is treated as if text
contained within square brackets did not exist; they are merely
annotations for the convenience of Agora.

Retitle Rule 101 to {The Agoran Charter of Rights and Freedoms}, change
its power to 3.5, and amend it to read as follows:
{{
  WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a
  game but as a society, and
  WHEREAS a society, to function, must balance its laws with the
  natural rights of its participants, and
  WHEREAS the rights of its participants,
  BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that the Agoran Charter of Rights and
  Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in its subject
  only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be
  demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, and
  [Copied from the Canadian Charter; basically says that rights are
   not necessarily absolute.]
  BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that this Rule take precedence over every
  other Rule, contract, or other aspect of society.

 i. Every person has the freedom to perform actions that are not
prohibited or regulated by the Rules, with the sole
exception of changing the Rules.

ii. Every person has the right to participate in the decision
process leading to any and all changes in the Rules.

ii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to
resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable
expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.
Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration
of any judicial determination that e should be punished.

   iii. Every player has the right to participate in the judgment of
matters of controversy, including the violation of rights as
described later in this rule.

iv. Every person has the freedom to refuse to become party to
a binding agreement.  The absence of a person's explicit,
willful consent shall be considered a refusal.

 v. Every person has the freedom to not be considered bound by
an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, or a Rule
Change, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to
review.

vi. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than
once for any single action or inaction.  However, this
right is not violated by replacing part or all of a
penalty with a different but comparable penalty, e.g. when
the rules governing penalties are amended, or when the first
penalty is found inapprorpiate.

   vii. Every player has the freedom to deregister rather than
continue to play.

  viii. Every player has the freedom to participate in the fora.

  Every use of 'right' or 'freedom' in the Rules refers only to the
  above rights and freedoms, unless explicitly specified.

  Every person has the right and ability to initiate a formal
  inquiry into whether or not a person's (not necessarily eir own)
  rights or freedoms have been violated beyond what is justified
  according to this Rule, and, if that is the case, to have that
  person or persons fairly restituted for the violation. Nothing in
  Agora can cause this ability to be revoked from any person; any
  attempt to do so, including a Rule Change that would remove the
  process, is of no force or effect, unless said attempt first
  removes this clause.

  [This paragraph stipulates that there must exist some means for a
   potential rights violation to be fixed. Most importantly, it
   enshrines the process, allowing it to depend on lower-power rules
   (such as the court system) without being vulnerable to changes to
   them - if the low-power rule would be amended to make a rights
   inquiry not work, then the amendment fails.]

  The rights and freedoms granted by this rule do not create allow
  any actions to be taken, even if those actions would be necessary
  to ensure that those rights and freedoms are respected. Likewise,
  they do not prohibit any action, even if that action would
  violate a right or freedom. Rather, it provides a means for a
  player to correct any injustices under these rights, and provides
  guidance for Agorans in the shaping of the Rules.

  The rights and freedoms set out in this rule do affect the
  legality of actions. In particular, it is illegal to deny someone
  their rights under this rule to the extent that those rights are
  justified and an otherwise-illegal action is legal and required if
  it is the sole way to ensure someone's rights are not unfairly

DIS: Re: OFF: [Anarchist] Canadian Anarchy

[Elliott Hird]

2009/5/31 Jonatan Kilhamn :
> The following proposal constitutes the Anarchists weekly duties.
>
> Canadian Anarchy
> AI=2, II=0
> ((
> Repeal Rule 2249 (Maple Leaf Dominance)
> ))
>
> This message was sent Sun 31 May
> These duties were last fulfilled Tue 19 May
> --
> -Tiger
>

NO

DIS: Re: BUS: Janitor's Report

[Elliott Hird]

2009/5/31 Quazie :
> First Game Clean-up
> AI=3, II=0
> ((
> Append the text of R 2244 to R104

AGAINST; modifies R104

DIS: Re: BUS: Janitor's Report

[Benjamin Caplan]

Quazie wrote:
> Append the text of R 2244 to R104
>
> Repeal rule R2244
You've been around long enough to know better than to amend R104. Also,
both of these sentences should have periods at the end.

> The following are Agoran Holiday's as defined by R1769:
No apostrophe.

> (a) Winter Break -
> The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24
>   December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin
>   after 2 January.
"The period each year..." wants to be indented.

> [I would also like to do an unofficial holiday's section.  This would
No apostrophe.

> include read-the-ruleset week and agora's birthday, though I feel like
Capitalize "Agora's".

Re: DIS: Proto: Constitutional Anarchy

[Benjamin Caplan]

Sean Hunt wrote:
> I submit the following proto-proposal, entitled {Constitutional
> Anarchy}. Its adoption index is 3, its interest index is 3.
What's the ultimate goal of all this?

>   The rights and freedoms granted by this rule do not create allow
>   any actions to be taken, even if those actions would be necessary
"create allow" is surely a mistake. Perhaps "create the possibility
for"? Or did you mean "create the possibility for or legality of"?

> Each Rights Board contains one or more
>   biological players (its members).
You're duplicating code from the definition of first-class persons, and
also dropping some useful text from there. Better all round just to say
"one or more first-class players".

>   to prevent future violations of the same nature from occuring in
occurring

>   A proposal submitted as part of a judgment for a qestion of remedy
question


I haven't looked carefully to see how much duplication/integration this
has with the judicial system in general.


All round... I dunno. What's the point?

Re: DIS: Proto: Constitutional Anarchy

[Sean Hunt]

Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I submit the following proto-proposal, entitled {Constitutional
>> Anarchy}. Its adoption index is 3, its interest index is 3.
> What's the ultimate goal of all this?
> 
>>   The rights and freedoms granted by this rule do not create allow
>>   any actions to be taken, even if those actions would be necessary
> "create allow" is surely a mistake. Perhaps "create the possibility
> for"? Or did you mean "create the possibility for or legality of"?

Create is a mistake, just strike it.


>> Each Rights Board contains one or more
>>   biological players (its members).
> You're duplicating code from the definition of first-class persons, and
> also dropping some useful text from there. Better all round just to say
> "one or more first-class players".

I'm hesitant to make the highest-power rule in the game rely on a
lower-power one.

>>   to prevent future violations of the same nature from occuring in
> occurring
> 
>>   A proposal submitted as part of a judgment for a qestion of remedy
> question
> 
> 
> I haven't looked carefully to see how much duplication/integration this
> has with the judicial system in general.
> 
> 
> All round... I dunno. What's the point?

To make rights actually mean something.

Re: DIS: Proto: Constitutional Anarchy

[Benjamin Caplan]

Sean Hunt wrote:
> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>>   The rights and freedoms granted by this rule do not create allow
>>>   any actions to be taken, even if those actions would be necessary
>> "create allow" is surely a mistake. Perhaps "create the possibility
>> for"? Or did you mean "create the possibility for or legality of"?
That could (disastrously) be read as meaning "The rights and freedoms
granted by this rule disallow any actions from being taken..."

>> All round... I dunno. What's the point?
> 
> To make rights actually mean something.

Why do you think they currently don't?

Re: DIS: Proto: Constitutional Anarchy

[Sean Hunt]

Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>> Sean Hunt wrote:
   The rights and freedoms granted by this rule do not create allow
   any actions to be taken, even if those actions would be necessary
>>> "create allow" is surely a mistake. Perhaps "create the possibility
>>> for"? Or did you mean "create the possibility for or legality of"?
> That could (disastrously) be read as meaning "The rights and freedoms
> granted by this rule disallow any actions from being taken..."
> 
>>> All round... I dunno. What's the point?
>> To make rights actually mean something.
> 
> Why do you think they currently don't?
> 
comex's recent proposal disassembles it quite nicely.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

[Benjamin Schultz]

On May 30, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:


Geoffrey Spear wrote:

I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became
Speaker on 20 May 2009.

Oscar, or anyone deputizing if Oscar fails to do so: I believe the




Respectfully, my nickname is OscarMeyr, not Oscar.  Take a good look  
at my .sig file for a hint as to where this comes from.

-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

[Sean Hunt]

Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On May 30, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> 
>> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>> I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became
>>> Speaker on 20 May 2009.
>> Oscar, or anyone deputizing if Oscar fails to do so: I believe the
>>
> 
> 
> Respectfully, my nickname is OscarMeyr, not Oscar.  Take a good look at
> my .sig file for a hint as to where this comes from.

All right, I will refrain from abbreviating you as Oscar in the future.

Now, are you going to assign Prerogatives or let the rest of us fight
over it (not that it wouldn't be funny)?

DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation

[Benjamin Schultz]

On May 30, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:


Alex Smith wrote:

On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 11:51 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:

I intend to deputize for the Speaker to assign Prerogatives for the
month of June.


So do I. Who is the Speaker, anyway?


OscarMeyr.

And I'll intend to deputize for the Speaker to assign Prerogatives for
the month of June, why not.



Wow.  I REALLY wasn't paying attention.  I didn't even notice I'm  
Speaker.


Now to look at prerogatives.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation

[Sean Hunt]

Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> On May 30, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> 
>> Alex Smith wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 11:51 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
 I intend to deputize for the Speaker to assign Prerogatives for the
 month of June.
>>>
>>> So do I. Who is the Speaker, anyway?
>>>
>> OscarMeyr.
>>
>> And I'll intend to deputize for the Speaker to assign Prerogatives for
>> the month of June, why not.
> 
> 
> Wow.  I REALLY wasn't paying attention.  I didn't even notice I'm Speaker.
> 
> Now to look at prerogatives.
> -
> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
> OscarMeyr
Just in case you missed my earlier post, the MWoPs are myself, ais523,
root, yourself, and Wooble. Root is not a player, everyone else is active.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Janitor's Report

[Quazie]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Benjamin Caplan
 wrote:
> Quazie wrote:
>> Append the text of R 2244 to R104
>>
>> Repeal rule R2244
> You've been around long enough to know better than to amend R104. Also,
> both of these sentences should have periods at the end.
>

I do know better.  It was still a valid janitorial event.  Also, I
could submit the same proposal every week and it wouldn't be illegal
(i would likely get de-janitorized though) maybe thats a bug of
janitor?

>> The following are Agoran Holiday's as defined by R1769:
> No apostrophe.
>
>> (a) Winter Break -
>> The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24
>>       December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin
>>       after 2 January.
> "The period each year..." wants to be indented.
>
>> [I would also like to do an unofficial holiday's section.  This would
> No apostrophe.
>
>> include read-the-ruleset week and agora's birthday, though I feel like
> Capitalize "Agora's".
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Janitor's Report

[Sean Hunt]

Quazie wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Benjamin Caplan
>  wrote:
>> Quazie wrote:
>>> Append the text of R 2244 to R104
>>>
>>> Repeal rule R2244
>> You've been around long enough to know better than to amend R104. Also,
>> both of these sentences should have periods at the end.
>>
> 
> I do know better.  It was still a valid janitorial event.  Also, I
> could submit the same proposal every week and it wouldn't be illegal
> (i would likely get de-janitorized though) maybe thats a bug of
> janitor?

I can win by announcement, though that's not considered a bug (it's also
highly illegal, but if I really wanted to I could).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: zeckalpha is to be registered.

[Michael Norrish]

Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:

I assumed... Hazing of sorts. Makes sense to weed out those unwilling
to put up with criticism and informs initiates about some of the
subtleties of the Agoran way. Clever.


I'm kinda glad I never had to bother with it :-)

Michael.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: zeckalpha is to be registered.

[Sean Hunt]

Michael Norrish wrote:
> Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:
>> I assumed... Hazing of sorts. Makes sense to weed out those unwilling
>> to put up with criticism and informs initiates about some of the
>> subtleties of the Agoran way. Clever.
> 
> I'm kinda glad I never had to bother with it :-)
> 
> Michael.
> 
Woah, dude.

DIS: Re: BUS: Monthly stuff

[Ed Murphy]

coppro wrote:

> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I award myself a Yellow Ribbon.
> I performed duties related to 3-Scroll Rodney in a timely manner during May.

I performed duties related to Cookie Jar and the Fantasy Rules
Contest in a timely manner during May.  (Disclaimer:  I might
have missed a deadline somewhere, but I think they were at least
mostly on time.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Monthly stuff

[Aaron Goldfein]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Ed Murphy  wrote:

> coppro wrote:
>
> > Sean Hunt wrote:
> >> I award myself a Yellow Ribbon.
> > I performed duties related to 3-Scroll Rodney in a timely manner during
> May.
>
> I performed duties related to Cookie Jar and the Fantasy Rules
> Contest in a timely manner during May.  (Disclaimer:  I might
> have missed a deadline somewhere, but I think they were at least
> mostly on time.)
>

NtttPF

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Janitor's Report

[Ed Murphy]

Quazie wrote:

> I do know better.  It was still a valid janitorial event.  Also, I
> could submit the same proposal every week and it wouldn't be illegal
> (i would likely get de-janitorized though) maybe thats a bug of
> janitor?

Not much of one; a whole lot of unwritten guidelines are effectively
covered by the common-sense "annoy enough people and risk sacking".

DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Periodic Election (CotC)

[Ed Murphy]

Yally wrote:

> I intend, with support, to initiate an election for Clerk of the Courts.

Any particular reason?

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Periodic Election (CotC)

[Aaron Goldfein]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Ed Murphy  wrote:

> Yally wrote:
>
> > I intend, with support, to initiate an election for Clerk of the Courts.
>
> Any particular reason?
>
>
None other than CotC has gone the longest without an election.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Janitor's Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 31 May 2009, Quazie wrote:
> I do know better.  It was still a valid janitorial event.  Also, I
> could submit the same proposal every week and it wouldn't be illegal
> (i would likely get de-janitorized though) maybe thats a bug of
> janitor?

Not a legislatively-fixable one; if we changed the rule so you had to 
submit a "different" proposal you could just add a single word; if
we changed it to "substantially different" you could still just add
a word to a change within a rule and we could spend lots of time
arguing over what was truly substantial.  -G.

 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: zeckalpha is to be registered.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Michael Norrish wrote:
> Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:
>> I assumed... Hazing of sorts. Makes sense to weed out those unwilling
>> to put up with criticism and informs initiates about some of the
>> subtleties of the Agoran way. Clever.
>
> I'm kinda glad I never had to bother with it :-)

Yeah, but you have to deal with it vicariously every time R104 comes
up again.  -G.

DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

[Elliott Hird]

Please stop using HTML mail. Your chosen font is hard to read.

On 2009-06-01, Aaron Goldfein  wrote:
> IADoP's Office Report
>
> Date of last report: Tue, 26 May 09
> Date of this report: Mon, 01 Jun 09
> (All times are UTC)
>
> Recent Election History
> ---
> Sun, 24 May 21:25 G. installed as Herald
> Sun, 24 May 21:25 Scorekeepor election ends
> Tue, 26 May 15:17 Wooble reinstalled as Promotor
> --time of last report--
> Tue, 26 May 18:39 root resigns as Scorekeepor
> Tue, 26 May 19:20 Yally initiates an election for Scorekeepor
> Tue, 26 May 19:20 Yally nominates Quazie as Scorekeepor
> Tue, 26 May 19:20 Yally nominates BobTHJ as Scorekeepor
> Tue, 26 May 19:36 Yally initiates an election for Janitor
> Tue, 26 May 19:36 Yally self-nominates as Janitor
> Tue, 26 May 20:20 Quazie self-nominates as Janitor
> Tue, 26 May 20:21 BobTHJ conditionally accepts Scorekeepor nomination
> Fri, 29 May 00:11 Wooble reelected as Registrar
> Sat, 30 May 16:29 Rodlen declines Janitor nomination
> Sat, 30 May 16:33 Yally declines Janitor nomination
> Sun, 31 May 00:14 BobTHJ installed as Scorekeepor
> Sun, 31 May 00:14 Quazie installed as Janitor
>
> ELECTED OFFICES
>
> TitleHolder Since   Last election  II
> --
> AccountorG.09 May 09   05 May 09   1
> Ambassador   ais52312 Jan 09   08 May 09   1
> AnarchistTiger 16 Feb 09   01 May 09   1
> Assessor Murphy16 Feb 09   08 May 09   2
> ConductorTiger 25 Apr 09   08 May 09   3
> CotC Murphy23 Jan 08   20 Apr 09   3
> Grand Poobah coppro01 Apr 09   08 May 09   1
> Herald   G.24 May 09   18 May 09   1
> IADoPYally 14 Apr 09   05 May 09   2
> InsulatorBobTHJ08 May 09   04 May 09   1
> Janitor  Quazie31 May 09   26 May 09   1
> Notary   ais52308 Feb 09   08 May 09   3
> Promotor Wooble12 May 09   12 May 09   2
> RegistrarWooble16 May 09 15/16 May 09* 1
> Rulekeepor   comex 25 Apr 09   08 May 09   3
> Scorekeepor  BobTHJ31 May 09   26 May 09   1
> Tailor   coppro13 May 09   02 May 09   1
>
> *disputed
>
> IMPOSED OFFICES
>
> Title Holder  Since II
> --
> Speaker   OscarMeyr  20 May 09   1
>
> WEEKLY REPORTS
>
> Office Subject  Last published
> --
> Conductor  Notes 28 May 09
> CotC   Cases, Postures   25 May 09
> IADoP  Offices   26 May/01 Jun 09*
> Insulator  Rests 25 May 09
> Notary List of Contracts 30 May 09
> Promotor   Proposal Pool 29 May 09
> Registrar  Players, Fora 29 May 09
> Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset 28 May 09
> ScorekeeporScores04 May 09
>
> *disputed
>
> MONTHLY REPORTS
>
> Office Subject  Last published
> --
> Accountor  Assets31 May 09
> Ambassador Foreign Relations 30 May 09
> Anarchist  Anarchy Attempts  20 May 09
> Assessor   Emergency Sessions29 May 09
> Herald Patent Titles 04 May 09
> Notary Contract Text and Parties 01 May 09
> Rulekeepor Full Logical Ruleset  01 May 09
> Tailor Ribbons   23 May 09
>
> WEEKLY DUTIES
>
> Office   Duty   Last performed
> --
> Anarchist  Propose repeals   31 May 09
> JanitorPropose cleaning  31 May 09
> Promotor   Distribute proposals  24 May 09
>
> MONTHLY DUTIES
>
> Office   Duty   Last performed
> --
> Ambassador Update NomicWiki  30 May 09
> Grand Poobah   Cycle castes  01 Jun 09
> SpeakerAssign prerogatives   26 Apr 09
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Janitor's Report

[Elliott Hird]

What- how?

On 2009-06-01, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> Quazie wrote:
>> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Benjamin Caplan
>>  wrote:
>>> Quazie wrote:
 Append the text of R 2244 to R104

 Repeal rule R2244
>>> You've been around long enough to know better than to amend R104. Also,
>>> both of these sentences should have periods at the end.
>>>
>>
>> I do know better.  It was still a valid janitorial event.  Also, I
>> could submit the same proposal every week and it wouldn't be illegal
>> (i would likely get de-janitorized though) maybe thats a bug of
>> janitor?
>
> I can win by announcement, though that's not considered a bug (it's also
> highly illegal, but if I really wanted to I could).
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: zeckalpha is to be registered.

[Elliott Hird]

He has bouts of existance, it's not too rare :-)

On 2009-06-01, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> Michael Norrish wrote:
>> Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:
>>> I assumed... Hazing of sorts. Makes sense to weed out those unwilling
>>> to put up with criticism and informs initiates about some of the
>>> subtleties of the Agoran way. Clever.
>>
>> I'm kinda glad I never had to bother with it :-)
>>
>> Michael.
>>
> Woah, dude.
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Office Report

[Elliott Hird]

Disregard.

On 2009-06-01, Elliott Hird  wrote:
> Please stop using HTML mail. Your chosen font is hard to read.
>
> On 2009-06-01, Aaron Goldfein  wrote:
>> IADoP's Office Report
>>
>> Date of last report: Tue, 26 May 09
>> Date of this report: Mon, 01 Jun 09
>> (All times are UTC)
>>
>> Recent Election History
>> ---
>> Sun, 24 May 21:25 G. installed as Herald
>> Sun, 24 May 21:25 Scorekeepor election ends
>> Tue, 26 May 15:17 Wooble reinstalled as Promotor
>> --time of last report--
>> Tue, 26 May 18:39 root resigns as Scorekeepor
>> Tue, 26 May 19:20 Yally initiates an election for Scorekeepor
>> Tue, 26 May 19:20 Yally nominates Quazie as Scorekeepor
>> Tue, 26 May 19:20 Yally nominates BobTHJ as Scorekeepor
>> Tue, 26 May 19:36 Yally initiates an election for Janitor
>> Tue, 26 May 19:36 Yally self-nominates as Janitor
>> Tue, 26 May 20:20 Quazie self-nominates as Janitor
>> Tue, 26 May 20:21 BobTHJ conditionally accepts Scorekeepor nomination
>> Fri, 29 May 00:11 Wooble reelected as Registrar
>> Sat, 30 May 16:29 Rodlen declines Janitor nomination
>> Sat, 30 May 16:33 Yally declines Janitor nomination
>> Sun, 31 May 00:14 BobTHJ installed as Scorekeepor
>> Sun, 31 May 00:14 Quazie installed as Janitor
>>
>> ELECTED OFFICES
>>
>> TitleHolder Since   Last election  II
>> --
>> AccountorG.09 May 09   05 May 09   1
>> Ambassador   ais52312 Jan 09   08 May 09   1
>> AnarchistTiger 16 Feb 09   01 May 09   1
>> Assessor Murphy16 Feb 09   08 May 09   2
>> ConductorTiger 25 Apr 09   08 May 09   3
>> CotC Murphy23 Jan 08   20 Apr 09   3
>> Grand Poobah coppro01 Apr 09   08 May 09   1
>> Herald   G.24 May 09   18 May 09   1
>> IADoPYally 14 Apr 09   05 May 09   2
>> InsulatorBobTHJ08 May 09   04 May 09   1
>> Janitor  Quazie31 May 09   26 May 09   1
>> Notary   ais52308 Feb 09   08 May 09   3
>> Promotor Wooble12 May 09   12 May 09   2
>> RegistrarWooble16 May 09 15/16 May 09* 1
>> Rulekeepor   comex 25 Apr 09   08 May 09   3
>> Scorekeepor  BobTHJ31 May 09   26 May 09   1
>> Tailor   coppro13 May 09   02 May 09   1
>>
>> *disputed
>>
>> IMPOSED OFFICES
>>
>> Title Holder  Since II
>> --
>> Speaker   OscarMeyr  20 May 09   1
>>
>> WEEKLY REPORTS
>>
>> Office Subject  Last published
>> --
>> Conductor  Notes 28 May 09
>> CotC   Cases, Postures   25 May 09
>> IADoP  Offices   26 May/01 Jun 09*
>> Insulator  Rests 25 May 09
>> Notary List of Contracts 30 May 09
>> Promotor   Proposal Pool 29 May 09
>> Registrar  Players, Fora 29 May 09
>> Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset 28 May 09
>> ScorekeeporScores04 May 09
>>
>> *disputed
>>
>> MONTHLY REPORTS
>>
>> Office Subject  Last published
>> --
>> Accountor  Assets31 May 09
>> Ambassador Foreign Relations 30 May 09
>> Anarchist  Anarchy Attempts  20 May 09
>> Assessor   Emergency Sessions29 May 09
>> Herald Patent Titles 04 May 09
>> Notary Contract Text and Parties 01 May 09
>> Rulekeepor Full Logical Ruleset  01 May 09
>> Tailor Ribbons   23 May 09
>>
>> WEEKLY DUTIES
>>
>> Office   Duty   Last performed
>> --
>> Anarchist  Propose repeals   31 May 09
>> JanitorPropose cleaning  31 May 09
>> Promotor   Distribute proposals  24 May 09
>>
>> MONTHLY DUTIES
>>
>> Office   Duty   Last performed
>> --
>> Ambassador Update NomicWiki  30 May 09
>> Grand Poobah   Cycle castes  01 Jun 09
>> SpeakerAssign prerogatives   26 Apr 09
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Heald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 31 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Be it HEREBY KNOWN that as the Herald, I award the title Champion (by
>> Proposal) and Minister Without Portfolio to the entity whose escutcheon
>
> MWoP is only to be awarded to Players.
>
> CFJ: {Canada bears the Patent Title Minister Without Portfolio.}

Whups, agreed, I was confusing it momentarily with Champion which any 
person can hold (I checked, too).  Clearly failed - don't see why a CFJ 
is necessary.  -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Janitor's Report

[Sean Hunt]

Elliott Hird wrote:
> What- how?
> 
> On 2009-06-01, Sean Hunt  wrote:
>> I can win by announcement, though that's not considered a bug (it's also
>> highly illegal, but if I really wanted to I could).

I can flip caste by announcement.

DIS: Re: BUS: Time travel

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>   Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>  the time specified in the message, if any, or at the time
>  date-stamped on that message otherwise.
> }
>
> [This would allow, e.g., "I register yesterday at 17:49 UTC." I believe
> (though there would certainly be CFJs) that the "destination" time would
> have to include the time-travel clause in its Ruleset to acknowledge and
> accept the incoming "traveler" as valid.]

Trivial Win by Paradox if this is adopted.  After the voting results are 
announced:
 
  "[At particular time during the voting period after I cast a vote] 
   I retract my vote and vote in the opposite way."

If it was adopted, then the vote was changed, so the correct vote totals 
weren't announced, therefore it wasn't adopted.  Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: zeckalpha is to be registered.

[Michael Norrish]

Kerim Aydin wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Michael Norrish wrote:

Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote:

I assumed... Hazing of sorts. Makes sense to weed out those unwilling
to put up with criticism and informs initiates about some of the
subtleties of the Agoran way. Clever.

I'm kinda glad I never had to bother with it :-)


Yeah, but you have to deal with it vicariously every time R104 comes
up again.  -G.


It's an ongoing honour that it's still there at all.

Michael.

PS: would people be interested in a Zendo contest/sub-game?  (See
http://www.koryheath.com/games/zendo/design-history, for example.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Time travel

[Benjamin Caplan]

Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>   Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>>  the time specified in the message, if any, or at the time
>>  date-stamped on that message otherwise.
>> }
>>
>> [This would allow, e.g., "I register yesterday at 17:49 UTC." I believe
>> (though there would certainly be CFJs) that the "destination" time would
>> have to include the time-travel clause in its Ruleset to acknowledge and
>> accept the incoming "traveler" as valid.]
> 
> Trivial Win by Paradox if this is adopted.  After the voting results are 
> announced:
>  
>   "[At particular time during the voting period after I cast a vote] 
>I retract my vote and vote in the opposite way."
> 
> If it was adopted, then the vote was changed, so the correct vote totals 
> weren't announced, therefore it wasn't adopted.  Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
> 
> -G.

If my interpretation regarding destination rulesets holds, then that
wouldn't work because the clause enabling time travel is not in the
ruleset at the attempted time of the retraction (!= time of attempted
retraction).

A similar paradox would be possible when /repealing/ the time travel
rule, however, because the clause would be in the ruleset during the
voting period. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, likely
just by voting in the repeal by a wide margin.

-P.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: zeckalpha is to be registered.

[Benjamin Caplan]

Michael Norrish wrote:
> PS: would people be interested in a Zendo contest/sub-game?  (See
> http://www.koryheath.com/games/zendo/design-history, for example.)

Sounds neat.

Turn-based games (e.g., nomic) tend to be made less so when played by
email. Does anyone see any outstanding gameplay issues that would need
to be addressed for realtime Zendo?