Re: DIS: proto

[omd]

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Tanner Swett  wrote:
> This is a really long proposal that makes a heck of a lot of changes, some of 
> which I disagree with; I'd almost certainly vote AGAINST it, or any similar 
> proposal, unless it were broken into something like a dozen smaller 
> proposals, in which case I'd vote AGAINST only the objectionable parts and 
> FOR the rest.

This is indeed a very long proposal.  I should probably split it up
into a few pieces, since there are a few quite independent parts, and
splitting it up makes it easier to understand.  I could also split it
up into many pieces, as you suggest, and if more players have this
opinion then it may be required for me to do so to get the proposal to
pass.  However, I fundamentally don't want to, because I think most of
the mechanics I proposed changing need cleanup one way or another;
rather than having a proposal fail and leave that part of the rules
completely untouched, I would prefer to settle on some degree of
change that everyone can agree on.

> Besides, a proposal of this length is very likely to contain mistakes, 
> perhaps multiple significant ones; going through the proposal and checking to 
> make sure there aren't any significant mistakes seems like a pretty 
> significant effort.

Well, yes, but you would have the same burden if I submitted a dozen
smaller proposals at the same time.  I could space them out over
several weeks... it wouldn't be the end of the world, but it is also
not something I remember ever having been done before.  It's not
/that/ long.

> As for the particular parts I find objectionable: To me, Power has always 
> felt like one of the defining pillars of Agora; it seems useful enough to be 
> worth keeping around, and surely not confusing or complicated enough to be 
> worth getting rid of.

imo it is fundamentally wrong that Power is (a) untracked and (b) left
over on proposals after they take effect; moreover, I'm not even sure
it works the way we think it does, due to

  All entities have Power zero except
  where specifically allowed by the rules.

I'm not sure this actually makes a difference, since during my
playerhood nobody has ever succeeded at setting some random entity's
power (although I've tried setting my own at least once as part of
failed scams :), but it's weird.  My proto attempts to make this more
clear, although I think I should add an explicit clause about Power
only existing as defined by the rules to match the intent.

While I don't think the "can cause this rule to amend itself"
requirement is the end of the world, I don't think that removing it
constitutes removing Power; it just makes it less weird.  (Also stops
ais523 claiming that random actions fail because the actors don't have
enough power. :p)

> Second-class persons pass in and out of fashion in Agora; keeping the 
> definitions around allows them to keep doing so as Agorans wish, whereas 
> removing the definitions would make it significantly more difficult to bring 
> second-class persons back even if we want to.

There are two aspects of this.

One is jargon: it's not the inherent complexity of the concept of
first-class players, but the more literal impact of having the word
"first-class" everywhere that is the problem.  To quote yourself:
> The ruleset is really, really long, and a lot of it is really dense in 
> jargon. In order to understand Rule 2401 "Registration Yaks", you have to 
> know what "Registrar", "Yak Master", "Budget Switch", "first-class person", 
> "register", "impel", "Yak", "first-class player", "active", "Agoran 
> decision", "announce", and "CAN" mean.

My proto is in large part a reaction to that discussion: although at
some point you can only simplify the ruleset by removing
functionality, there is a bunch of stuff that has grown overly complex
and can be refactored "for free".  Among the bits of jargon you cited,
some are basically unavoidable, some are hard to think of a way to
improve (although the Yak stuff is volatile enough that I don't really
mind having it be a little confusing, since it'll probably change soon
anyway).  But "first-class" is low-hanging fruit, and makes the
ruleset that much more fluid to read.

An alternative fix would be changing "first-class" to "natural", but
prospective players might not immediately see that "natural player" =
"player that is a natural person".

The other aspect is that I don't see the point of second-class players
if they haven't been able to do almost anything for years, and are
unlikely to be granted those powers back.  They get to feel good about
being listed in the Registrar's report, and that's about it.  Unless
we're going to really treat second-class players like players (e.g. by
defining a limited number of them, as in scshunt's recentish
change-everything-by-dictatorship proposal), which would be easier to
set up /without/ "first-class" everywhere, I would prefer letting them
do things to be opt-in rather than opt-out - by definin

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523

[Max Schutz]

ok we can attack this from either side and still arrive at the same
conclusion though you have to admit that timing of moves is a key element
of gaming


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Tanner Swett  wrote:

> The thing is, though, Fool doesn't really have a plan. E created the
> promises and then (allegedly) deregistered everyone else; now it doesn't
> matter what happens to the promises, because Fool's already finished.
>
> The fact that destroying one promise changes matters with regards to the
> other promise also doesn't really matter; the question is whether each
> promise could be destroyed right now, not whether each promise could be
> destroyed after the other one I'd destroyed.
>
> -Machiavelli

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523

[omd]

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Tanner Swett  wrote:
> Arguments:

I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not.  I agree that

00:53 < tswett> If a rule were to say "if it is POSSIBLE to do X, then
it is POSSIBLE to do Y", I think we would treat
this as meaning something very different from "if it
is IMPOSSIBLE to do Y, then it is POSSIBLE to do
X".

and that therefore, we should not treat Agora's ruleset as a set of
axioms.  However, I don't think this is actually divorced from logic
somehow - e.g. I think that a CFJ on whether Fool CAN deregister
everyone would have still been FALSE, and don't think that adding an
indirection in the form of a definition, which would seem to require
some form of logic (e.g. Fool uses Curry's paradox to establish that e
is a Yak Master, then creates some Yaks) would change anything.

Actually, a simple way to model this in formal logic, which I did not
think of (doh), is to make the statements in the rules primitive
inference rules rather than axioms.

Registrar(p) ⊢ YakMaster(p)   # definition
Player(p) ⊢ CanDeregister(p)  # mechanism

This gets more complicated in the presence of self-contradictory
statements and the "default deny" rule:
~CanDoX(p) ⊢ CanDoX(p)  # bad rule
[can't prove CanDoX(p)] ⊢ ~CanDoX(p) # ??? this shouldn't exist
⊥
CanDoY(p)

so it may be required to use more power than inference rules in some
unusual situations, but it's a reasonable general framework.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523

[Tanner Swett]

The thing is, though, Fool doesn't really have a plan. E created the
promises and then (allegedly) deregistered everyone else; now it doesn't
matter what happens to the promises, because Fool's already finished.

The fact that destroying one promise changes matters with regards to the
other promise also doesn't really matter; the question is whether each
promise could be destroyed right now, not whether each promise could be
destroyed after the other one I'd destroyed.

-Machiavelli

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523

[Max Schutz]

I was looking at it more like a stack than a circle  but then again stack
is more of a magic the gathering thing though it does work in this case


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Tanner Swett  wrote:

> Alternative, far shorter argument for TRUE: Fool's alleged conditions were
> circular and therefore meaningless.
>
> –Machiavelli, whose dash seems to be rather short at the moment

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523

[Tanner Swett]

Alternative, far shorter argument for TRUE: Fool's alleged conditions were
circular and therefore meaningless.

–Machiavelli, whose dash seems to be rather short at the moment

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523

[Tanner Swett]

On Aug 4, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
> 
> ==  CFJ 3381  ==
> 
>I am a player.
> 
> 
> 
> Caller: omd

Arguments:

Recently, Fool purported to deregister all first-class players other than 
emself, by means of a logical deduction from a certain set of Promises. This 
CFJ asks whether Fool's attempt succeeded.

At first glance, it seems like the unavoidable conclusion is that Fool's 
attempt did indeed succeed. Fool submitted two promises, titled 
"Paraconsistency is overrated, part 1" and "Paraconsistency is overrated, part 
2" (which we will abbreviate as P1 and P2), with (essentially) the following 
conditions for destruction by author:

P1: P2 CAN be destroyed with notice.
P2: If P1 CAN be destroyed with notice, then Fool CAN deregister all other 
first-class players.

Rule 2337 "Promises" (along with the other clause in the rules stating that if 
one rule says an action CAN be taken under certain circumstances, then the 
action CANNOT be taken outside those circumstances) states (again, essentially) 
that a promise can be destroyed with notice if and only if its destruction 
condition is satisfied. So we apparently have the following two axioms:

(D-P1) P1 can be destroyed if and only if P2 can be destroyed.
(D-P2) P2 can be destroyed if and only if (if P1 can be destroyed, then Fool 
can deregister all other first-class players).

Under classical logic, it can be proven from these axioms that Fool can 
deregister all other first-class players. The proof is as follows:

Suppose that P2 cannot be destroyed. Then, by D-P1, P1 cannot be destroyed, 
either. This means that the statement "if P1 can be destroyed, then Fool can 
deregister all other first-class players" is vacuously true. But this means 
that the left-hand side of the biconditional of D-P2 is false, whereas the 
right-hand side is true; this is a contradiction. So we can conclude that P2 
can be destroyed.

Since P2 can be destroyed, by D-P1, P1 can be destroyed, too. Thus, by D-P2, 
Fool can deregister all other first-class players.

It has been suggested that intuitionistic logic ought to be used to interpret 
the rules, instead of classical logic. Unless I have made a mistake in querying 
lambdabot, intuitionistic logic does not allow us to conclude that Fool can 
deregister all other first-class players:

 @djinn (p2 -> p1) -> (Not p2 -> Not p1) -> ((p1 -> fool) -> p2) -> 
(Not (p1 -> fool) -> Not p2) -> fool
 -- f cannot be realized.

However, intuitionistic logic does allow us to conclude that it is not 
IMPOSSIBLE for Fool to deregister all other first-class players. This 
conclusion seems no better than the conclusion that it is POSSIBLE for em to do 
so.

Agoran tradition seems to be to use a sort of vague paraconsistent rule of 
thumb when dealing with paradoxes, namely, something like this: "when some part 
of a rule contradicts itself, declare the truth value of the contradictory 
statements to be 'paradoxical', and do not let this declaration lead to any 
unreasonable consequences". But this is irrelevant here, because there is no 
contradiction; Agora has no tradition (and probably shouldn't have a tradition) 
of using any form of paraconsistent or otherwise non-classical logic in the 
absence of contradictions.

So, to recap, given the statements in the rules, it seems to be an unavoidable 
logical conclusion that Fool's attempts to deregister all other first-class 
players succeeded. However, I think there is a reasonable nomic-philosophical 
(nomicological?) viewpoint according to which Fool's attempts to deregister 
failed.

Agora is a game that is played according to its rules. But what does it mean to 
play according to a set of rules? One interpretation, perhaps the traditional 
interpretation of Agora, is that the rules should be treated as axioms in a 
logical system, and then the state of the game is whatever can be concluded 
from these axioms. But the axiom interpretation is not without its problems; 
indeed, one significant failing of this interpretation seems to be the fact 
that it can produce paradoxes.

I would like to suggest an alternative interpretation of the rules: namely, 
that the rules are a complete and comprehensive set of mechanisms for 
interacting with the game. Thus, even if it is possible to prove, using 
classical logic, that some action CAN be taken, this proof is irrelevant to the 
possibility of the action; the action can still only be taken if there is in 
fact a mechanism for taking that action.

Let us take another look at Rule 2337 "Promises" using the mechanism 
interpretation. The relevant paragraph says:

  If a promise has one or more conditions under which the author
  of the promise can destroy it, and they are all satisfied, then
  the author CAN destroy that promise with notice.

Under the mec

Re: DIS: proto

[Tanner Swett]

Comments on omd's proto:

This is a really long proposal that makes a heck of a lot of changes, some of 
which I disagree with; I'd almost certainly vote AGAINST it, or any similar 
proposal, unless it were broken into something like a dozen smaller proposals, 
in which case I'd vote AGAINST only the objectionable parts and FOR the rest.

Besides, a proposal of this length is very likely to contain mistakes, perhaps 
multiple significant ones; going through the proposal and checking to make sure 
there aren't any significant mistakes seems like a pretty significant effort.

As for the particular parts I find objectionable: To me, Power has always felt 
like one of the defining pillars of Agora; it seems useful enough to be worth 
keeping around, and surely not confusing or complicated enough to be worth 
getting rid of. Second-class persons pass in and out of fashion in Agora; 
keeping the definitions around allows them to keep doing so as Agorans wish, 
whereas removing the definitions would make it significantly more difficult to 
bring second-class persons back even if we want to. Rule 105 "Rule Changes" 
does in fact do something, though I admit perhaps it doesn't do very much; I'm 
thinking of CFJ 3300, where the existence of Rule 105 allowed us to 
conclusively show that whichever-rule-it-was was not turned into a Slave Golem 
(because making a rule into a Slave Golem is not a Rule Change, and rules 
cannot be modified except via Rule Changes).

There may have been other objectionable bits, but I don't remember them.

—Machiavelli

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal

[Elliott Hird]

On 6 August 2013 04:14, omd  wrote:
> A person has the right to register and to
> remain a player except where forbidden due to eir own
> prior actions.

Needs handling for inactivity?

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] (re-)Distribution of proposals 7569-7573

[omd]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Fool  wrote:
> Fool's party is the Serious party, and that party has set a 3-line
> Whip on 7572. No other Whips are set.

By the way, this is the first accidental rule violation on your part
I've noticed, but it only applies if your interpretation is correct.

Re: DIS: Re: CoE Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7548-7564

[Elliott Hird]

On 6 August 2013 02:25, omd  wrote:
> Was it really necessary to post this out a week - 3 hours after
> initiation, requiring a revote?

This is Fool's nomic now -- we just play it.

Oh, wait; no we don't.

DIS: Re: CoE Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7548-7564

[omd]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Fool  wrote:
> Same problem -- doesn't list parties of authors. (And omd is not Promotor.)

Was it really necessary to post this out a week - 3 hours after
initiation, requiring a revote?

DIS: Re: CoE Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7567-7582

[omd]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Fool  wrote:
> On 05/08/2013 7:15 PM, omd wrote:
> [...]
> Rule 107 says that for a notice of distribution to be valid it must include
> "any additional information defined by the rules as essential parameters"
> (unless this error goes unnoticed for a week).

Oh, bother.  Thanks, but I believe this has gone unnoticed for a week?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381

[omd]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Fool  wrote:
> One more CoE: As we see, people appeal judgements out of spite, and I expect
> they pass judgements out of spite as well. In fact, in a discussion some
> time ago it was already mentioned that this was expected in dictatorship
> cases. I think even it was you that said it.

I'd say that judgements on scam cases do tend to be biased against the
scamsters, and from time to time I've thought that unfortunate.  On
the other hand, I've also looked back at interpretations that had
seemed almost certain to me while I was building huge constructs of
planned scam actions with them as foundations, and realized that
really, from a neutral, reasonable perspective, they were pretty
unlikely, if not ridiculous - and observed what I thought to be that
tunnel vision in others.  I do not claim that you are necessarily
affected by this, as certainly the same can apply to other
participants in an argument, such as myself (or of course it's not
black and white, so we are certainly both affected to some degree) but
in general it tends to make judgements look more spiteful then they
are.

And, perhaps more importantly, this is a democratic nomic (whether
formally or informally).  If nobody likes your scam out of spite, it's
their prerogative to continue playing unreasonably.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381

[Elliott Hird]

On 6 August 2013 01:25, Fool  wrote:
> One more CoE: As we see, people appeal judgements out of spite, and I expect
> they pass judgements out of spite as well. In fact, in a discussion some
> time ago it was already mentioned that this was expected in dictatorship
> cases. I think even it was you that said it.

Oh, please just go away.

DIS: Re: OFF: publicity

[Fool]

On 05/08/2013 2:53 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:

This is a Public message.

Having received no objections, I flip the Publicity of
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org  and
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org  to
Public.

I intend to deputise for the Rulekeepor to publish the Full Logical
Ruleset, which is shamefully overdue.



Can't you just go ahead and Assume the office? Or does that rule not 
really exist.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. everyone but Fool, CFJ 3381

[Fool]

On 04/08/2013 12:39 PM, omd wrote:

But to reiterate one last time, after which I will verily shut up and wait for
a judge to be assigned: Agora necessarily must proceed according to
consensus; we have a formal procedure to arrive at a consensus, which is
reasonably fair;


One more CoE: As we see, people appeal judgements out of spite, and I 
expect they pass judgements out of spite as well. In fact, in a 
discussion some time ago it was already mentioned that this was expected 
in dictatorship cases. I think even it was you that said it.

Re: DIS: proto

[Charles Walker]

On 5 August 2013 23:59, omd  wrote:
> Proto: I Am Wearing A Unicorn Horn (AI=3, PF=100)
>
> aka Unnecessary Nebulous Intricacies & Complexities Oblige Repeal Now

I express my general agreement.

> Amend Rule 101 (The Rights of Agorans) by removing item i., and
> renumbering the following items accordingly.  [Meaningless.]

True, but it's a common enough mistake that maybe we should point it
out somewhere prominent. The same applies to R2125. But probably we'd
be fine without both of these.

> [This proposal also removes second-class persons.  Sorry, it's been
> too long... and Parties really don't need to be persons.]

Do Parties even need to exist? Repeal 2410, 2411 and 2413 and make the
Speaker an elected office (make Speaker elections harder to initiate
(e.g. can't do it with support, can't pay for it) if you like).

> Repeal Rule 2397 (The Envoy).

Add the Envoy's duties to the Ambassador's duties.

> Amend Rule 1023 (Common Definitions) to read:
>
>   The following terms are defined:
>
>   (a) The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days".

Can we add "in a timely manner"? I never know which one it is.

Also add "without unreasonable delay" == "within 4 days".

> [Speed also really needs to go.]

Agreed, but can we tweak the timings of a few things? I'd like voting
periods to be five days, w/o objection wait to be three days and a few
key SHALLs to be within 4 days (resolving decisions, initiating
elections after end of nominations, responding to CoEs).

>   * A list of co-authors (which must be persons other than the
> author).

Get rid of co-authors.

I haven't looked at the details of the judicial stuff, but I agree
with the general idea.

DIS: proto

[omd]

Proto: I Am Wearing A Unicorn Horn (AI=3, PF=100)

aka Unnecessary Nebulous Intricacies & Complexities Oblige Repeal Now

Amend Rule 101 (The Rights of Agorans) by removing item i., and
renumbering the following items accordingly.  [Meaningless.]

Repeal Rule 2125 (Regulation Regulations).

Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by prepending:

  Please do not violate the rules.

[For ais523, replace the last clause of 2125.]

Amend Rule 1586 (Definition and Continuity of Entities) by removing:

  A rule referring to an entity by name refers to the entity that
  had that name when the rule first came to include that
  reference, even if the entity's name has since changed.

[Not necessary to state explicitly.]

[Simplify Power and make it only persistent for rules, as it's
annoying to have what's effectively an untracked switch.]

Repeal Rule 1688 (Power).

Change the title of Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) to Security,
and amend it to read:

  A Rule that secures a change, action, or value (hereafter the
  securing Rule) thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that
  change or action, or to set or modify that value, except as
  allowed by an entity with Power greater than or equal to the
  change's Power Threshold.  This Threshold defaults to the
  minimum of the securing Rule's Power and 3, but CAN be lowered
  as allowed by that Rule (including by the Rule itself).

  Setting an entity's Power to a value is secured with a Power
  Threshold of that value.

[One side effect is that a rule can now authorize someone to
personally amend a rule, rather than making it amend itself or
whatever.  Not much advantage in requiring that.]

Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) to read:

  A rule is a type of document with the capacity to govern the
  game generally.  Each rule has a Power between one and four
  inclusive.

  Each rule should have an ID number and title to aid in
  identification and conflict resolution.  When a rule does not
  have either of these, the Rulekeepor CAN assign one by
  announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion; new rule ID
  numbers must be greater than the ID numbers of all existing
  rules.

  Setting or modifying any aspect of a rule is secured with a
  Power Threshold of that rule's Power.  A preexisting entity
  cannot be made into a rule.

[Moving on.]

Amend Rule 1030 (Precedence between Rules) by removing:

  - If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their
precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for
determining precedence relations, then the determinations of
the precedence-determining Rule shall be used to resolve the
conflicts; otherwise,

[Can add it back if needed.]

Change the title of Rule 105 (Rule Changes) to read "Unambiguity of
Rule Changes", and amend it to read:

  Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.

  Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
  change to be void and without effect.  An inconsequential
  variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not
  constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any
  other variation does.

[The rest of the rule is meaningless.]

[This proposal also removes second-class persons.  Sorry, it's been
too long... and Parties really don't need to be persons.]

Amend Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) by replacing "Citizenship
is an entity switch" with "Citizenship is a person switch", by
replacing "first-class person" with "person", and by replacing:

  A non-person CANNOT be registered (or created in a Registered
  state), rules to the contrary notwithstanding.

  A player CAN deregister by announcement.  A person CANNOT
  register within thirty days after being deregistered, unless
  rules define the method of deregistration as passive.

  A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class
  person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.

with:

  A non-person CANNOT be registered (or created in a Registered
  state), rules to the contrary notwithstanding.

  A player CAN deregister by announcement.  A person CANNOT
  register within thirty days after deregistering this way.

Amend Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) by removing:

  A player SHALL NOT select a confusing nickname.

and:

  The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who
  sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be
  sent.  (Upon a judicial finding that the Executor of a public
  message cannot otherwise be determined within reasonable effort,
  the judge SHOULD attempt to ratify a document specifying eir
  identity.) The executor of an action performed by announcement
  is the executor of the announcement.

Amend Rule 2150 (Personhood) to read:

  A person is a biological organ

DIS: Lots of judges these days

[Aaron Goldfein]

There are actually a lot of judges in the rotation these days, so being in
the rotation at the normal rate is not too much effort. So, for the time
being, I'll stop recusing myself from every other case, but I reserve the
right to start doing this again if the number of judges decreases or I get
busy.

-Yally

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3386 assigned to Fool

[Tanner Swett]

On Aug 5, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
> ==  CFJ 3386  ==
> 
>Providing an audio version of the ruleset is a reasonable way to
>allow vision-impaired persons to play.

Arguments: I don't think the word "reasonable" is clear enough to allow this 
CFJ to have a reasonable judgement. Are we asking whether or not, if someone 
created an audio version of the ruleset, then vision-impaired persons would 
reasonably be able to play it? Or, perhaps, whether or not, if there were a 
requirement to produce an audio version of the ruleset, then it would be 
considered a reasonable requirement for the purpose of judging culpability?

—Machiavelli

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census

[Charles Walker]

On 5 August 2013 21:35, omd  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, omd  wrote:
>>> Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created,
>>> switches have their default values" == "new switches have their
>>> default values"?
>>
>> Rule 1586.
>
> By the way, the rules didn't actually say "when created, switches have
> their default values".  The original version was explicit:
>
>   Whenever a switch is created, or becomes associated with a class
>   of entities, then each entity in the class that had previously
>   been in a state that is now a state of the switch shall continue
>   to be in that state; all other entities in the class shall be in
>   the default state of the switch.
>
> and the modern version, though more vague, has always read:
>
>   If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to
>   have a possible value, it comes to have its default value.
>
> which does not explicitly limit how the possible value might be obtained.

Ah, okay. I can rest easy now.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census

[omd]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM, omd  wrote:
>> Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created,
>> switches have their default values" == "new switches have their
>> default values"?
>
> Rule 1586.

By the way, the rules didn't actually say "when created, switches have
their default values".  The original version was explicit:

  Whenever a switch is created, or becomes associated with a class
  of entities, then each entity in the class that had previously
  been in a state that is now a state of the switch shall continue
  to be in that state; all other entities in the class shall be in
  the default state of the switch.

and the modern version, though more vague, has always read:

  If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to
  have a possible value, it comes to have its default value.

which does not explicitly limit how the possible value might be obtained.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census

[omd]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Charles Walker
 wrote:
> On 5 August 2013 20:49, omd  wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear  wrote:
>>> An alternate viewpoint:
>>
>> CoE since ratification will probably be fixed in the next week: in the
>> normal universe, this is incorrect for obvious reasons.
>
> Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created,
> switches have their default values" == "new switches have their
> default values"?

Rule 1586.

http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg26317.html

Re: Fwd: DIS: Ambassador's Survey - Your Chance To Win Great Prizes!

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:


If I'm not mistaken, this hasn't gone through yet.


I distinctly recall seeing it before.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census

[Craig Daniel]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Charles Walker
 wrote:
> On 5 August 2013 20:49, omd  wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear  wrote:
>>> An alternate viewpoint:
>>
>> CoE since ratification will probably be fixed in the next week: in the
>> normal universe, this is incorrect for obvious reasons.
>
> Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created,
> switches have their default values" == "new switches have their
> default values"?

The only one I can see is that the publicity switch was not ever newly
created, merely newly defined as being a switch.

 - teucer

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Possibly Registrar] Census

[Charles Walker]

On 5 August 2013 20:49, omd  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear  wrote:
>> An alternate viewpoint:
>
> CoE since ratification will probably be fixed in the next week: in the
> normal universe, this is incorrect for obvious reasons.

Can someone please give me a counterargument to "When created,
switches have their default values" == "new switches have their
default values"?

Fwd: DIS: Ambassador's Survey - Your Chance To Win Great Prizes!

[Tanner Swett]

If I'm not mistaken, this hasn't gone through yet.

Begin forwarded message:
> From: Tanner Swett 
> Date: August 3, 2013 4:25:43 PM EDT
> To: "Agora Nomic discussions \(DF\)" 
> Subject: Re: DIS: Ambassador's Survey - Your Chance To Win Great Prizes!
> 
> On Aug 3, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
>> On 3 Aug 2013, at 15:38, Tanner Swett  wrote:
 - Where is it appropriate to advertise Agora? What kind of fora? Any
 specific sites?
>>> 
>>> Anywhere where there are lots of people who would enjoy playing Agora. I 
>>> don't know where such people are.
>> 
>> What other corners of the Internet do current Agorans hang out in? 
> 
> Probably mostly stuff related to math and programming, I guess.
> 
>>> Not sure. Agora's pretty complicated. Currently, it seems like most of our 
>>> appeal is in "pure nomic fun": memorizing mechanics, figuring out how they 
>>> apply in various situations (and how to convince others you're right), and 
>>> figuring out how to make them work in your favor. I imagine most people 
>>> don't find "pure nomic fun" all that fun.
>> 
>> Would you say that "pure nomic fun" = "rules lawyering"?
> 
> Yeah, I think so.
> 
>>> Oh, and also publish reports online in a prominent place. Probably make all 
>>> the Agoran sites subdomains of agoranomic.org, in order to make them seem 
>>> more like a single site rather than a collection of unrelated sites.
>> 
>> Agora has (well-founded) worries about centralised recordkeeping. Still, 
>> it's a good idea to compile reports in one place. Is the H. Distributor 
>> willing to make this happen? We could make an office (the Compilor?) for the 
>> task.
>> 
>> What about a wiki?
> 
> If I understand correctly, the main worry about centralized recordkeeping is 
> that if it goes down for some reason, we lose all our records. And yeah, that 
> makes sense.
> 
> The domain name thing wouldn't really be centralized recordkeeping, though. 
> We could just do something like making rules.agoranomic.org/xyz a transparent 
> redirect to www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~charles/agora/xyz. When the Rulekeepor 
> changes, point the domain name somewhere else. Likewise with 
> cotc.agoranomic.org. (By the way, is the source code for the CotC site 
> publicly available somewhere?)
> 
> I really liked B Nomic's wiki, and BlogNomic's seems really useful as well. I 
> see no good reason for an Agora wiki not to merely exist.
> 
>> What we need is gameplay that isn't separate from Agora without just being 
>> voting games. Probably the best way to do this is to make the sub-game a 
>> source/sink for Yaks, although there are other ways. 
> 
> Gameplay is good.
> 
> Why did we get rid of contests? The thing about proposals in Agora is that 
> the turnaround time is really long: if you submit a proposal on Tuesday the 
> 6th, it'll probably get distributed on Monday the 12th, and the voting period 
> will last until Monday the 19th, and perhaps the Assessor will resolve it on 
> Wednesday the 21st, for a typical turnaround time of about fifteen days. 
> Contests, in their most recent incarnation, could be amended "without 3 
> objections", which only takes four days.
> 
> I also see no good reason to disallow contests from amending themselves.
> 
> (Compare BlogNomic, which has a *maximum* voting period of two days.)
> 
>> Regarding the glossary and rules summaries, should these be added to an 
>> existing office (Registrar?) or should we make a new one?
> 
> I dunno. What reasons are there not to make a new office?
> 
> —Machiavelli

DIS: Re: BUS: Defense in R. v. Fool, CFJ 3383

[Charles Walker]

On 5 August 2013 19:30, Fool  wrote:
> The Crown cited the precedent of CFJ 2515 against me, where it is said that
> bringing Agora into severe disrepute could constitute an R101 violation.

Clearly bringing Agora into severe disrepute is not the only way of
failing to treat Agora right good forever.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: May as well REALLY settle this

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Jonathan Rouillard <
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Can one intent to deputize on an action that hasn't reached its time
> limit yet? I know I've been slow (haven't been home in a while) and
> it's an unfortunate time to be slow, but as far as I know I haven't
> missed any deadline yet.
>
> ~ Roujo
>

It's ok, the office of the CotC has been vacant for 6 years, you're off the
hook.


-- 
Wooble

DIS: Re: BUS: May as well REALLY settle this

[Jonathan Rouillard]

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Craig Daniel  wrote:
> It's been suggested that it may be useful for me to repeat these intents. So:
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:41 PM, John Smith  wrote:
>> In case of emergency:
>>
>> I intend to deputize for the CotC to assign this CfJ.
>> I intend to deputize for the CotC to rotate the bench.
>
> I intend to deputize for the CotC to assign omd's playerhood CFJ.
> I intend to deputize for the CotC to rotate the bench.
>
>  - teucer

Can one intent to deputize on an action that hasn't reached its time
limit yet? I know I've been slow (haven't been home in a while) and
it's an unfortunate time to be slow, but as far as I know I haven't
missed any deadline yet.

~ Roujo

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7548-7564

[Charles Walker]

On 5 Aug 2013, at 04:30, woggle  wrote:
>> 7553 3   20 O omd  Remove useless vote protection
> If G. casts a vote on this proposal, ENDORSE G. x my voting limit on it;
> otherwise, AGAINST x my voting limit on it.

G.'s vote was cast by me on this proposal, using the Summer Votes promise, and 
I endorsed omd, so this might not have the effect you desire.