Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Uncharted space
On 5 August 2010 00:00, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 August 2010 23:42, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: I take it you can actually afford all those threats? I will calculate their costs and your initial supply of TPs, but it seems unlikely. I calculated that the journey's level is 18*6=108, and the costs of the threats (including the asteroid) were 22, 21, 23, 23, 21, leaving me with 0 Threat Points. I beg to differ. Difficulty is 6, times with number of players on the Bridge gives the TPs. All players but you have their station switches set to Bridge when the journey starts. But only active players have a station switch in the first place, as defined in the previous rule. Does the wording the Station switches of all other players are flipped to Bridge in R2299 imply that all such players have a station switch, and define them such if they don't otherwise? If it does, then it would be at conflict with R2298 that says Station is a switch possessed by all active players. And R2298 is lower numbered. If I'm correct, the number of players on the Bridge was 9 and you had 54 Threat Points, meaning you have created an Asteroid and Force Field a but not having enough points to go on after that. I CFJ ((comex has created five threats)), submitting this message up to now as caller's arguments for FALSE. Reminder to H. CotC: I don't see this case assigned to anyone yet, and my Ship Computor report quite depends on it. -- -Tiger
DIS: Re: OFF: Hello World!
Keba wrote: I hereby intend to become a Player. [Why do I join? Well, it‘s Zaraday!] I am so sorry to write my first two mails to the wrong mailing list. I hope your first impression of Keba is not that bad then... -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Why is there a full stop?
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 13:52 +0200, Keba wrote: Proposal: Why is there a full stop? (AI = 2, II = 0, distributable) Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by replacing this text: A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the. same type of response. with this text: A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same type of response. [Who put the . after the the?] You could probably do this more quickly easily via rule 2221, than a proposal. I'm also not convinced that just putting distributable in as a switch value counts as flipping the switch to distributable by announcement (possible for an II-0 proposal), especially when a similar format has been used to make proposals distributable via rule 2284. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Why is there a full stop?
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote: Proposal: Why is there a full stop? (AI = 2, II = 0, distributable) Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by replacing this text: A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the. same type of response. with this text: A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same type of response. [Who put the . after the the?] This sort of thing is usually better achieved by cleaning (R2221) than by proposal. The error was inserted by Proposal 6306 in May of last year, and apparently no one has noticed it since.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Why is there a full stop?
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:23 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: I'm also not convinced that just putting distributable in as a switch value counts as flipping the switch to distributable by announcement (possible for an II-0 proposal), especially when a similar format has been used to make proposals distributable via rule 2284. I've been treating these as effective. For interested proposals, this wording would fail as it doesn't announce that there is a fee associated with the action.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Ship Computor] Printout
ais523 wrote: Also, I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; and I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey. Cute, but as soon as you resolve one of these, Rule 2299 will no longer allow you to resolve any of the others.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Ship Computor] Printout
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 08:55 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: ais523 wrote: Also, I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; and I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey. Cute, but as soon as you resolve one of these, Rule 2299 will no longer allow you to resolve any of the others. Rule 2299's block only lasts until the end of the Journey. It's entirely possible to have an entire Journey within the period with which an intent is still valid. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Ship Computor] Printout
ais523 wrote: On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 08:55 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: ais523 wrote: Also, I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey; and I intend, with notice, to initiate a new journey. Cute, but as soon as you resolve one of these, Rule 2299 will no longer allow you to resolve any of the others. Rule 2299's block only lasts until the end of the Journey. It's entirely possible to have an entire Journey within the period with which an intent is still valid. True, but R1728(a) means intent is only valid for 14 days, so it would have to be a quick Journey. Also, if the Journey fails, then R2299 (last paragraph) blocks with-notice for that Journey's Enemy.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2827 assigned to Wooble
On 08/12/2010 11:36 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I create a Black ribbon in my possession. --Wooble Fails; I think you meant Blue. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: since I fail at ribbons
On 08/12/2010 12:31 PM, comex wrote: Note: Some of these actions may fail. Murphy gets a Green Ribbon. Wooble gets a Blue Ribbon. I get a Yellow Ribbon. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: since I fail at ribbons
On 08/12/2010 12:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: On 08/12/2010 12:31 PM, comex wrote: Note: Some of these actions may fail. Murphy gets a Green Ribbon. Wooble gets a Blue Ribbon. I get a Yellow Ribbon. -coppro Oh, comex also gets a Silver Ribbon. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal 6740, and this is a clear public acknowledgment of its existence. Therefore, comex was not a member of this set (why does everyone think that e was? By the Assessor's report it's pretty clear e wasn't): It was a blanket vote for.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal 6740, and this is a clear public acknowledgment of its existence. Therefore, comex was not a member of this set (why does everyone think that e was? By the Assessor's report it's pretty clear e wasn't): It was a blanket vote for. All such blanket votes are administrative conveniences for individual votes for proposals. Any statement that is taken as applying a vote to a proposal must specify (and thereby acknowledge) that proposal, otherwise the vote would fail. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal 6740, and this is a clear public acknowledgment of its existence. Therefore, comex was not a member of this set (why does everyone think that e was? By the Assessor's report it's pretty clear e wasn't): It was a blanket vote for. All such blanket votes are administrative conveniences for individual votes for proposals. Any statement that is taken as applying a vote to a proposal must specify (and thereby acknowledge) that proposal, otherwise the vote would fail. -G. Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be interpreted as satisfying clause R683(b). And to clearly identify something you must acknowledge it. And I'll further say, lest you use the one level of indirection argument, that one identifies the decision by identifying the proposal, as that's the only referent (proposal numbers) that we generally use for decisions to adopt proposals. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be interpreted as satisfying clause R683(b). And to clearly identify something you must acknowledge it. And I'll further say, lest you use the one level of indirection argument, that one identifies the decision by identifying the proposal, as that's the only referent (proposal numbers) that we generally use for decisions to adopt proposals. Not the one that I used: I vote FOR on all Agoran Decisions in their voting period. But my main argument is that, however Agora decides to interpret the message within the context of existing gamestate (in this case, as referring to the decision to adopt the unacknowledgeable proposal), my message could have been sent, and had a reasonable effect, at any time in the last few years-- so how was sending it at that particular time acknowledging the existence of anything?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be interpreted as satisfying clause R683(b). And to clearly identify something you must acknowledge it. And I'll further say, lest you use the one level of indirection argument, that one identifies the decision by identifying the proposal, as that's the only referent (proposal numbers) that we generally use for decisions to adopt proposals. Not the one that I used: I vote FOR on all Agoran Decisions in their voting period. But my main argument is that, however Agora decides to interpret the message within the context of existing gamestate (in this case, as referring to the decision to adopt the unacknowledgeable proposal), my message could have been sent, and had a reasonable effect, at any time in the last few years-- so how was sending it at that particular time acknowledging the existence of anything? But it wasn't sent at any time, it was sent at a specific time. If the ballot wasn't accepted, by the facts of the time of sending, as clearly identifying the specific decision in question (among others), it shouldn't have been accepted as a valid ballot for that decision. R683 is one of those places that by using clearly identifying we require that level of specificity. It's a straight-up requirement of being a ballot. You can't identify without acknowledging, and additionally, the only way to identify/acknowledge the decision is to identify/acknowledge the proposal (the decision has no other unique characteristics for identification purposes). You could argue that it failed to clearly identify the particular matter, and therefore wasn't a ballot, and therefore the Assessor's announcement was wrong. But that goes counter to most established gameplay of allowing that level of convenience, and furthermore, the fact that it was a valid ballot, and therefore identified the specific matter in question, has ratified. -G.
DIS: legalistic versus reasonable Agora
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: my message could have been sent, and had a reasonable effect, at any time in the last few years-- so how was sending it at that particular time acknowledging the existence of anything? Further reflection brings up something interesting for me in terms of overall style of Agoran gameplay. Let's say that comex specifically disavowed acknowledging any proposals while voting (e didn't do so, but still). Like this: I vote for all decisions in their voting period. Such a possible vote in no way acknowledges that any such proposals actually exist. This reminds me, rather, of the following approximate exchange from Yes, Minister: Bernard: What should I do if the Prime Minister has told me of plans, in confidence, that I don't feel the Civil Service should support? Sir Humphrey: Well, you should keep them in confidence, Bernard! You should neither confirm nor deny the existence of any such plans to me! But let me ask you: does the P.M have plans to do X? Bernard: No. Sir Humphrey: Does the P.M. have plans to do Y? Bernard: No. Sir Humphrey: Does the P.M. have plans to to Z? Bernard: I can neither confirm nor deny that the P.M. has plans to do Z. Sir Humphrey: Thank you, Bernard. So, from a Sir Humphrey point of view, of course Bernard hasn't communicated any plans to do Z. But any reasonable observer (read, any judge faced with a transcript of the exchange), Bernard clearly did. I'm really torn, here. Agora seems to veer between Sir Humphrey and Reasonable Observer points of view (in fact, the Town Fountain required some nearly identical Sir Humphrey thinking - issues of speech and acknowledgement are particularly vulnerable, because you can say just about anything while not formally saying it). It seems to be that these days I go more for the Reasonable Observer viewpoint. (I was actually thinking that the evolution of this point of view in judgements was fascinating...fertile ground for a thesis). I personally don't see the harm in having that be one of those areas of difference that we let stand between individual judges, though I know (from the past debate over legalistic versus equity contracts) that others, specifically comex, have a strong feel for the legalistic version. Should we judge/legislate strongly versus one or the other? The rules invoke reasonableness a fair amount, but on the other hand we are quite nitpicky Agorans and very often stand on ceremony. I don't really know, and selecting the style seems to be what I debate with myself most often on a lot of close cases like this one. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: If the ballot wasn't accepted, by the facts of the time of sending, as clearly identifying the specific decision in question (among others), it shouldn't have been accepted as a valid ballot for that decision. R683 is one of those places that by using clearly identifying we require that level of specificity. It's a straight-up requirement of being a ballot. I could have voted FOR through blanket vote without even knowing the proposal existed. Indeed, before this message, I never actually stated that I /did/ know it existed, although you might have guessed it from my behavior. Making whether a specific message is a public acknowledgement depend on my state of mind at the time I sent it is rather dangerous. The difference is that, while, for Agoran purposes, my message-- every message-- is parsed platonically with perfect knowledge of the gamestate, acknowledgement only makes sense in the context of incomplete knowledge-- in this case, basic knowledge of Agoran terminology to parse the message, but not specific information on proposals. You can't identify without acknowledging, and additionally, the only way to identify/acknowledge the decision is to identify/acknowledge the proposal (the decision has no other unique characteristics for identification purposes). I can give you all my chits even if they have /no/ unique characteristics for identification purposes.
Re: DIS: legalistic versus reasonable Agora
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I'm really torn, here. Agora seems to veer between Sir Humphrey and Reasonable Observer points of view (in fact, the Town Fountain required some nearly identical Sir Humphrey thinking - issues of speech and acknowledgement are particularly vulnerable, because you can say just about anything while not formally saying it). Hmm... the Town Fountain? What past judgements are you referring to? The only real parallel I can remember (aside from this one-off proposal) is Truthfulness, but there we've always clearly distinguished false versus misleading statements.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Prop
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Any first-class player (the controller) CAN in a public message and for a fee of N ergs, clearly designate a portion of that message to be a public message sent by The Robot. This is INEFFECTIVE if The Robot's message consists of more than N words, or if The Robot's message refers to another message or uses a contrived shorthand in an attempt to reduce the word count. In the latter case, the controller is also guilty of the Class-4 Crime of Backquoting, and the judge of a criminal case for that crime SHALL issue a judicial declaration as to the effectiveness of the message. }}} Cool idea, but contrived shorthand gives far too much room for debate considering we generally find such things perfectly legal. -G. Indeed... might be more interesting if Fans were only gained for unspent ergs, so you'd have to choose between getting more Fans and having The Robot send messages. But in any case, better to make Backquoting POSSIBLE but ILLEGAL.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
comex wrote: [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't all that high, I think that BlogNomic-style immediate distribution is not only feasible, but a significant improvement over what we have now, and not much extra work for the Assessor or voters.] It most certainly /would/ dump a lot of extra work on the Assessor, if only because lots of votes would be sent in response to the authors' individual ID-number-less distribution messages.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
coppro wrote: On 08/09/2010 12:03 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: G. ke...@u.washington.edu 29 Oct 09 S I intend, without objection, to flip activity to inactive. Yours? G.'s? Wooble's?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: The difference is that, while, for Agoran purposes, my message-- every message-- is parsed platonically with perfect knowledge of the gamestate, acknowledgement only makes sense in the context of incomplete knowledge-- in this case, basic knowledge of Agoran terminology to parse the message, but not specific information on proposals. I'd agree with you for many sorts of actions, but I have a hard time getting around the fact that a ballot must be interpreted as clearly identifying a matter in order to be a ballot. And rule 683 states that the voter must publish a valid notice (not that the gamestate must platonically interpret it, but the voter must publish it), so it implies rather strongly that the voter must publish something that, by publication itself, clearly identifies (and therefore acknowledges) the matter. That's a higher standard of identification, similar to the current jurisprudence around dependent actions. In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist), you may be referring to it, but you're not clearly identifying it, therefore not voting. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: comex wrote: [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't all that high, I think that BlogNomic-style immediate distribution is not only feasible, but a significant improvement over what we have now, and not much extra work for the Assessor or voters.] It most certainly /would/ dump a lot of extra work on the Assessor, if only because lots of votes would be sent in response to the authors' individual ID-number-less distribution messages. Well. The lack of ID numbers would basically force people to vote in replies, rather than the current situation where vote formats are everywhere on the map; and in most email clients, collecting all the replies to a given message is very easy. So to me it seems essentially easier...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist), you may be referring to it, but you're not clearly identifying it, therefore not voting. This implies that blanket votes are generally ineffective. *shrug*
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Prop
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Any first-class player (the controller) CAN in a public message and for a fee of N ergs, clearly designate a portion of that message to be a public message sent by The Robot. This is INEFFECTIVE if The Robot's message consists of more than N words, or if The Robot's message refers to another message or uses a contrived shorthand in an attempt to reduce the word count. In the latter case, the controller is also guilty of the Class-4 Crime of Backquoting, and the judge of a criminal case for that crime SHALL issue a judicial declaration as to the effectiveness of the message. }}} Cool idea, but contrived shorthand gives far too much room for debate considering we generally find such things perfectly legal. -G. Indeed... might be more interesting if Fans were only gained for unspent ergs, so you'd have to choose between getting more Fans and having The Robot send messages. But in any case, better to make Backquoting POSSIBLE but ILLEGAL. Well, it makes it very hard to use standard practices. For example, Proposal 7001 FOR Proposal 7002 FOR Taking this example, is FOR P7001 a reasonable shorthand? It certainly would be if I sent it, no one would question it. How about FOR P7001-7003 Is that 3 votes for the same price as 1? It certainly isn't contrived by Agoran standards, just concise. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist), you may be referring to it, but you're not clearly identifying it, therefore not voting. This implies that blanket votes are generally ineffective. *shrug* Well, the current jurisprudence is that they're effective as an administrative convenience, as long as they can be mapped onto a clear and unambiguous set of individual votes (and therefore, in a strict legal sense, that they identify every member of that set). I know I used this sort of logic in CFJ 2316 (that's the first CFJ that comes to mind). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
comex wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: comex wrote: [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't all that high, I think that BlogNomic-style immediate distribution is not only feasible, but a significant improvement over what we have now, and not much extra work for the Assessor or voters.] It most certainly /would/ dump a lot of extra work on the Assessor, if only because lots of votes would be sent in response to the authors' individual ID-number-less distribution messages. Well. The lack of ID numbers would basically force people to vote in replies, rather than the current situation where vote formats are everywhere on the map; and in most email clients, collecting all the replies to a given message is very easy. So to me it seems essentially easier... Hmm, I suppose I could write a new enter-votes form as enter several people's votes on one proposal (or multiple proposals, if they were distributed in one message) rather than the current enter one person's votes on several proposals. (I'd still want a form because the Assessor DB auto-calculates voting limits and F/A totals.) The DB wouldn't record votes mid-voting-period, but it doesn't always do that now anyway (depends how often I process mail), and it /would/ still record them after the fact (for various forms of trend analysis).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist), you may be referring to it, but you're not clearly identifying it, therefore not voting. This implies that blanket votes are generally ineffective. *shrug* Well, the current jurisprudence is that they're effective as an administrative convenience, as long as they can be mapped onto a clear and unambiguous set of individual votes (and therefore, in a strict legal sense, that they identify every member of that set). I know I used this sort of logic in CFJ 2316 (that's the first CFJ that comes to mind). -G. But the statement I vote on all decisions etc implies only that at least one such decision exists; it certainly does not acknowledge that P7000 exists, so by your logic, it couldn't be a valid vote on P7000.
Re: DIS: legalistic versus reasonable Agora
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I'm really torn, here. Agora seems to veer between Sir Humphrey and Reasonable Observer points of view (in fact, the Town Fountain required some nearly identical Sir Humphrey thinking - issues of speech and acknowledgement are particularly vulnerable, because you can say just about anything while not formally saying it). Hmm... the Town Fountain? What past judgements are you referring to? The only real parallel I can remember (aside from this one-off proposal) is Truthfulness, but there we've always clearly distinguished false versus misleading statements. The Town Fountain was based on a scam surrounding INSANE proposals, which you weren't allowed to discuss publicly or privately during the voting period (voting was secret). So it was ILLEGAL to acknowledge the proposal to others, though it was legal to send private votes. (come to think of it, no one ever brought up the point that sending a vote was essentially discussing the vote with the assessor). We basically sent a load of private emails talking about how we would vote on a hypothetical insane proposal that might exist, while not IN ANY WAY acknowledging that one of that kind actually did exist. We weren't punished for it because it was all private emails, though (lacking discovery powers) if a case had actually been brought for that particular violation, at least a few of us had privately agreed to play the gentleman's game and provide the emails to the court to see if that phrasing worked, while expecting that any reasonable judge would call us out and punish us. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist), you may be referring to it, but you're not clearly identifying it, therefore not voting. This implies that blanket votes are generally ineffective. *shrug* Well, the current jurisprudence is that they're effective as an administrative convenience, as long as they can be mapped onto a clear and unambiguous set of individual votes (and therefore, in a strict legal sense, that they identify every member of that set). I know I used this sort of logic in CFJ 2316 (that's the first CFJ that comes to mind). -G. But the statement I vote on all decisions etc implies only that at least one such decision exists; it certainly does not acknowledge that P7000 exists, so by your logic, it couldn't be a valid vote on P7000. I agree, strictly it doesn't, just the way I vote 100xFOR isn't 100 announcements of casting a ballot FOR (or at least, it wasn't until very recently). My point is, if we allow those sorts of notices to map onto individual ballots, then we must take each of those individual mappings of having all the properties of individual ballots (including identifying each matter specifically). So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots (which we do; no one has directly questioned 100xFOR for a long time) then you must allow those legal fictions to include all the properties that are required for ballots to have, not just some of them. Clearly identifying the specific matter is one of those properties. So you can claim that such mappings have all of the properties of votes (current practice and precedent) or claim they have none of them (major reversal of same). But not halfway in between. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said For each decision in the list of decisions which a reasonable person would think currently exist, (and I do hereby quasi-incorporate that list), I vote FOR on it... Have we ever had a CFJ about a conditional or mass action where the recordkeepors were mistaken about the gamestate, so that everyone thought it had effect X, but platonically it would have effect Y?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said For each decision in the list of decisions which a reasonable person would think currently exist, (and I do hereby quasi-incorporate that list), I vote FOR on it... Naw, I think the legal fiction can be platonic. It's a weird state where practically there can be a proposal you don't know about, but legally you can be deemed to have acknowledged it by specifying the full set. Note: in this discussion I haven't changed my mind, but it's certainly made me realize that perhaps a third opinion (new CFJ?) may be in order. Have we ever had a CFJ about a conditional or mass action where the recordkeepors were mistaken about the gamestate, so that everyone thought it had effect X, but platonically it would have effect Y? I can't think of one offhand. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: That guy was fun
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 20:49, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Players MUST NOT make proposals submitted in accordance with this rule Undistributable. Why not? If someone wants to pay the 2 ergs, what's the problem?
DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 20:28, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote: -- Keba If you don't mind me asking, who are you? Have you played Agora before (you awarded yourself a white ribbon as if you hadn't). If not, how much time have you spent watching the game? It's clear you have a strong understanding of the Agoran rules, customs, etc. -Yally
DIS: Re: BUS: A History of Agoran Wins, 2009-Present
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 16:58, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
I publish the following thesis, intending to qualify for a degree
(perhaps D.N.Hist?):
{
A History of Agoran Wins, 2009-present
by ais52
First, I thought comex's win by Clout didn't succeed. I thought I blocked it
successfully.
Also, while you've no doubt put a good amount of work into this thesis, it
doesn't appear to be any more than a description of every win since you've
registered. Certainly that effort is deserving of recognition, but, in my
opinion, it is not high level work. This thesis, like the previous one
written to paraphrase the rules (which I believe you also authored), lacks
analysis delving into the deeper aspects of the game and what the greater
significance of these wins was, for example.
Because the thesis is rather long and detailed, I will vote to award you
Bachelor of Nomic, but no higher.
