Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Supersize

[Sean Hunt]

Ed Murphy wrote:

coppro wrote:


comex wrote:

I amend Contract B to read:
{
This is a public contract and a pledge.  comex CAN make arbitrary
Contract Changes to this contract by announcement.

If this contract is a contest, comex CAN and MAY award points at eir
discretion, so long as the total number of points awarded or revoked
on any axis do not exceed this contract's threshold index.
}

I flip Contract B's Disclosure to Public (if it wasn't already).  Its
text is above; its list of parties is {comex}.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM, comex  wrote:

I intend, without three objections, to change Contract B's contestmaster to me.

Without three objections, I do so.


I intend, without three objections, to change Contract B's threshold
index to 70.

Without three objections, I do so.

I award 35 + 35i points to myself.


You received at least objections to each intent.


Unless I missed something, e only received objections from Wooble
and woggle.  This may be worth a Patent Title of Cassandra apiece.

Oh, my, you're absolutely right. I forgot to object when I made my side 
deal with comex (which was NOT made in return for me not objecting).


-coppro

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Supersize

[Ed Murphy]

coppro wrote:

> comex wrote:
>> I amend Contract B to read:
>> {
>> This is a public contract and a pledge.  comex CAN make arbitrary
>> Contract Changes to this contract by announcement.
>>
>> If this contract is a contest, comex CAN and MAY award points at eir
>> discretion, so long as the total number of points awarded or revoked
>> on any axis do not exceed this contract's threshold index.
>> }
>>
>> I flip Contract B's Disclosure to Public (if it wasn't already).  Its
>> text is above; its list of parties is {comex}.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM, comex  wrote:
>>> I intend, without three objections, to change Contract B's contestmaster to 
>>> me.
>> Without three objections, I do so.
>>
>>> I intend, without three objections, to change Contract B's threshold
>>> index to 70.
>> Without three objections, I do so.
>>
>> I award 35 + 35i points to myself.
>>
> 
> You received at least objections to each intent.

Unless I missed something, e only received objections from Wooble
and woggle.  This may be worth a Patent Title of Cassandra apiece.

DIS: Re: BUS: Supersize

[Sean Hunt]

comex wrote:

I amend Contract B to read:
{
This is a public contract and a pledge.  comex CAN make arbitrary
Contract Changes to this contract by announcement.

If this contract is a contest, comex CAN and MAY award points at eir
discretion, so long as the total number of points awarded or revoked
on any axis do not exceed this contract's threshold index.
}

I flip Contract B's Disclosure to Public (if it wasn't already).  Its
text is above; its list of parties is {comex}.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM, comex  wrote:

I intend, without three objections, to change Contract B's contestmaster to me.


Without three objections, I do so.


I intend, without three objections, to change Contract B's threshold
index to 70.


Without three objections, I do so.

I award 35 + 35i points to myself.



You received at least objections to each intent.

-coppro

DIS: Re: BUS: Appeals held up; proposal

[Ed Murphy]

woggle wrote:

> On 9/16/09 5:12 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> NoV:  Justiciar woggle violated Rule 2158 (Power=2) by failing to
>> assign a panel to 2670a.
> 
> I contest this. Arguments: I reasonably believed (and still believe)
> that CFJ 2670a does not exist and therefore I am not required or
> permitted to assign a panel to it.

Fair enough, but can we at least get something like "I assign 
to CFJ 2670a (this is ineffective if it doesn't exist)"?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Appeals held up; proposal

[Ed Murphy]

Pavitra wrote:

> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> NoV:  Justiciar woggle violated Rule 2158 (Power=2) by failing to
>> assign a panel to 2670a.

> Was that the one that was recently ruled not to have been assigned even
> though the panel attempted to judge it? If so, UNAWARE would seem
> appropriate.

I pointed this out on September 10 (albeit in a-d) and e still hasn't
gotten around to it.

I submit the above as gratuitous arguments.

DIS: Re: BUS: Appeals held up; proposal

[Pavitra]

Ed Murphy wrote:
> NoV:  Justiciar woggle violated Rule 2158 (Power=2) by failing to
> assign a panel to 2670a.

Was that the one that was recently ruled not to have been assigned even
though the panel attempted to judge it? If so, UNAWARE would seem
appropriate.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: Sorry, mis-read my notes

[Ed Murphy]

I wrote:

> I intend, with 2 support, to appeal.  The arguments indicate that
> the transfer failed, but the statement is "ais523 owns a Dunce Cap
> card" which should have been judged TRUE.  I recommend REASSIGN,
> as coppro presumably just mis-remembered the statement as "ais523
> transferred a Dunce Cap card" or something similar.

I meant to recommend REMAND.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2688 assigned to BobTHJ

[Ed Murphy]

woggle wrote:

> On 9/16/09 12:08 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2688
>>
>> =  Criminal Case 2688  =
>>
>> ais523 violated the Power-1 rule 1742 by failing to act in
>> accordance with the PerlNomic Partnership contract by attempting
>> to modify it other than by the proposal mechanism.
>>
>> 
> 
> Note:
> 
> Apparently, I wasn't thinking very hard when I specified that Power,
> because R1742 of course has Power 2 and has not had Power 1 for a while.
> Surprisingly, this doesn't affect the criminal case much.

How do you figure?  This error means that the NoV is invalid, and thus
that the criminal case was not successfully initiated.  (I'll remove it
from the DB in a few days unless someone explains why this isn't so.)

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Fix the Senate

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Charles Walker wrote:
>  During an emergency session, the eligible voters on a democratic
>  decision are the active Senators, each with a voting limit of
>  one, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding.

Cheap and easy scam; first few senators who notice this passing (or
the assessor and confederates) switch themselves to being the only 
senators and call a session and push something through.  Can all 
happen in one message with powers of attorney.  (This may not work 
perfectly but you get the idea).

Even if this is trivially fixed (e.g. within the proposal flip all 
currently active senators to being senators by switch), consider:
We purposefully designed the senate as a block against bad invasion
proposals but not a source of power in and of itself, and it is a 
feature not a bug that they can stop things but push things through.

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Fix the Senate

[ais523]

On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 20:29 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
> 
> {{
> 
> Fix the Senate (AI = 3, II = 2)
> 
> There are currently several problems with the Senate Rule. Firstly,
> the following:

Could you please retract the proposal, and repost it with the
explanatory text in a form that makes it clear it doesn't do anything?
For all I know, an AI 3 proposal with text like that might, for
instance, platonically ensure no simpler fixes existed when it called
something the "simplest fix"?

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Attn. Wooble, coppro

[Charles Walker]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Geoffrey Spear  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Charles Walker
>  wrote:
>> Wooble, have you admitted or denied this CoE? I can't seem to find I
>> reply and I thought it would be best to point it out before you
>> distribute this week.
>
> The report's not self-ratifying; I flagged the message to update the
> distributability status.
>

Fair enough, I was just making sure you had noticed it.

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

Re: DIS: Attn. Wooble, coppro

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Charles Walker
 wrote:
> Wooble, have you admitted or denied this CoE? I can't seem to find I
> reply and I thought it would be best to point it out before you
> distribute this week.

The report's not self-ratifying; I flagged the message to update the
distributability status.

DIS: Attn. Wooble, coppro

[Charles Walker]

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Charles Walker
 wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Geoffrey Spear  wrote:
>> chamber: democratic
>> ai: 3.0
>> interest: 1
>> proposer: coppro
>> coauthors:
>> title: FIXME
>> submit_date: 2009-08-27
>> submit_mid: <4a970a36.6040...@gmail.com>
>> distributability: undistributable
>
> CoE: I remember making this Distributable in the message in which I
> self-audited (before the audit, so there's no ambiguity as to whether
> I had the right card).

Wooble, have you admitted or denied this CoE? I can't seem to find I
reply and I thought it would be best to point it out before you
distribute this week.

Also, coppro, have you increased my caste twice yet? I may call equity
on our contract if you don't before this week's distribution.

-- 
C-walker (Charles Walker)

DIS: Re: BUS: Election

[Roger Hicks]

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 19:58, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> I withdraw 2 * No Confidence for 110zm.
> I play No Confidence, specifying the IADoP.
> Since it's gone longest without an election, I initiate an election for
> Insulator.
>
For recordkeeping purposes, can someone summarize for me: This message
was sent Sept. 13, 2009 01:58 UTC but due to the lists being down was
not distributed to the players of Agora until later. When did these
actions actually occur?

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sorry, mis-read my notes

[Sean Hunt]

ais523 wrote:

On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 07:30 -0400, comex wrote:

Wait, what?  Why not REMAND?


Because the case was originally assigned to Pavitra by mistake.

I was the judge at the time of the assignment; I don't believe I would 
not therefore be the prior judge.


-coppro

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Inactivations

[ais523]

On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 09:40 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:19, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> >
> > Having received no objections, I make all the quoted players inactive.
> >
> And here I thought I was the only one who believed dependent actions
> were not broken.

A proposal just passed to revert the wording of the rule in question to
the old, correctly working, version.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Inactivations

[Roger Hicks]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:19, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>>
>> For each of the following players, I intend, without objection, to make
>> em inactive (I know it's broken now but I hope the Assessor will pass
>> the proposal to repair it quickly).
>>
>> woggle
>> Schrodinger's Cat
>> JonnyRotten
>> The Count
>> yuri_dragon_17
>>
>> -coppro
>
> Having received no objections, I make all the quoted players inactive.
>
And here I thought I was the only one who believed dependent actions
were not broken.

BobTHJ

DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Parties Change

[ais523]

On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:25 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:20 AM, The PerlNomic Partnership
>  wrote:
> > This message serves to announce and make effective changes to
> > the list of parties to the PerlNomic Partnership (a public contract).
> 
> CoE: The PNP arguably didn't write this etc.
> 
It isn't self-ratifying, there's a challenge of identity active wrt the
PNP.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sorry, mis-read my notes

[ais523]

On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 07:30 -0400, comex wrote:
> Wait, what?  Why not REMAND?

Because the case was originally assigned to Pavitra by mistake.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sorry, mis-read my notes

[comex]

Wait, what?  Why not REMAND?

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 16, 2009, at 5:26 AM, ais523   
wrote:



On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:20 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:

2009/9/16 Ed Murphy :

coppro wrote:


I assign myself as judge to CFJ 2679, and I judge it FALSE.


I intend, with 2 support, to appeal.  The arguments indicate that
the transfer failed, but the statement is "ais523 owns a Dunce Cap
card" which should have been judged TRUE.  I recommend REASSIGN,
as coppro presumably just mis-remembered the statement as "ais523
transferred a Dunce Cap card" or something similar.


I support.

I support and do so. Good arguments, but they don't match the  
judgement.

(Recommend REASSIGN to coppro so e can fix them.)

--
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Sorry, mis-read my notes

[ais523]

On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:20 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> 2009/9/16 Ed Murphy :
> > coppro wrote:
> >
> >> I assign myself as judge to CFJ 2679, and I judge it FALSE.
> >
> > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal.  The arguments indicate that
> > the transfer failed, but the statement is "ais523 owns a Dunce Cap
> > card" which should have been judged TRUE.  I recommend REASSIGN,
> > as coppro presumably just mis-remembered the statement as "ais523
> > transferred a Dunce Cap card" or something similar.
> >
> I support.
> 
I support and do so. Good arguments, but they don't match the judgement.
(Recommend REASSIGN to coppro so e can fix them.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams

[ais523]

On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 13:50 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote:
> Corrected NoV (forget the power of the rule in the first one): ais523
> violated the Power-1 rule 1742 by failing to act in accordance with the
> PerlNomic Partnership contract by attempting to modify it other than by
> the proposal mechanism.

I contest this too, for the same reason.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BAK: Yay for dependent action scams

[ais523]

On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 13:36 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On 9/15/09 1:49 AM, ais523 wrote:
> > Some scams work better when they're kept secret; however, some are
> > better when people know they're scams in advance. This message contains
> > at least 3 scam attempts; some I think are unlikely to work, some I
> > think are considerably more likely. (Further hints: at least one depends
> > on the newly-amended wording of rule 2124; exactly one depends on the
> > mysterious proposal 6455.)
> > 
> > Note that although there are a lot of intents here (in abbreviated
> > form), I don't think it would be impossible to write them out in full,
> > although it would spam the lists somewhat. If anyone really insists, I
> > will write them out in full and spam the list as a result.
> > 
> > For each public contract (see the list at
> > ), I
> > intend, without objection; I intend, without member objection; and I
> > intend, without 3 objections; to replace its entire text with the
> > following:
> 
> Notice of violation: ais523 violated rule 1742 by failing to act in
> accordance with the PerlNomic Partnership contract by attempting to
> modify it other than by the proposal mechanism.

I contest this; intending to modify it is not attempting to modify it.
There are certain contracts (such as Enigma, the PNP, and the IBA) which
I don't plan to touch at all with this scam, for ethical reasons.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2688 assigned to BobTHJ

[Charles Reiss]

On 9/16/09 12:08 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2688
> 
> =  Criminal Case 2688  =
> 
> ais523 violated the Power-1 rule 1742 by failing to act in
> accordance with the PerlNomic Partnership contract by attempting
> to modify it other than by the proposal mechanism.
> 
> 

Note:

Apparently, I wasn't thinking very hard when I specified that Power,
because R1742 of course has Power 2 and has not had Power 1 for a while.
Surprisingly, this doesn't affect the criminal case much.

- woggle



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature