Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A pact
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:03 AM, omd wrote: > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Sean Hunt > wrote: >> I will commit to holding exactly one office, of Agora's choice, and to >> completing its duties on time, provided that all other offices are >> held and the duties completed on time. > > So, for about a week? ;p The idea here is that: a) Agora needs people to hold its offices b) Doing one office when other offices aren't being done is no fun c) I don't have time for more than one a) is universally true, I assume that b) applies to everyone else and that c) applies to enough other people, otherwise the offices would be getting done. The Nash equilibrium is that the offices don't get done, which is where we are. If enough people agree to a similar pact, then we can hopefully reach the unstable equilibrium of offices getting done long enough to see new developments. And we may get more players, if everyone is able to commit to just one office. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: A pact
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I will commit to holding exactly one office, of Agora's choice, and to > completing its duties on time, provided that all other offices are > held and the duties completed on time. So, for about a week? ;p
DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Slightly Late Full Logical Ruleset
(I'm not up to date on the discussion threads, but H. ais523, please note that the RCS log linked in the header provides a comprehensive/continuous log of past rulesets and should be preferred to grabbing SLRs from email archives. Honestly, I think the lack of published rulesets has mostly been based on it not changing for ages at a time, though of course that's no excuse for me not performing my assigned duties.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 17:10:18 -0600 Sprocklem wrote: > On 2014-08-31 17:08, Luis Ressel wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:59:08 + > > woggle wrote: > > > >> [...] > > > > Thanks for the background, I hadn't looked up the full CFJ. Perhaps > > the note referring to it should be removed from the FLR then? > > > > On a related note: When was the last FLR published? > Quite some time ago, it seems. I read the FLR at http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.txt, but there hasn't been an official publication this year if I read the archives right. -- aranea
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deputisation clarification
On 2014-08-31 17:06, Luis Ressel wrote: > On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:59:25 -0600 > Sprocklem wrote: > >> On 2014-08-31 16:53, Luis Ressel wrote: >>> Remark: As I noted on the -discussion list, I think the replacement >>> text represents the current situation anyway. >>> >> I believe the rule was changed to how it is currently with the >> intention that the change be permanent. The deputizing agent could >> then resign it at the end if their intention was just to publish the >> report. >> > > Okay. I guess that makes sense. > But feel free to keep pointing out potential errors. We need more stuff happening. -- Sprocklem
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deputisation clarification
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 23:53:39 +0100 Luis Ressel wrote: > I'd like to submit the following proposal: > > Title: Deputisation clarification > Adoption index: 3 > > Change the following text in Rule 2160 (Deputisation) > > When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the > holder of that office. > > to: > > While a player deputises for an elected office, e temporarily > becomes the holder of that office. > > . > > [End of proposal] > > Remark: As I noted on the -discussion list, I think the replacement > text represents the current situation anyway. > I withdraw this proposal. -- aranea
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On 2014-08-31 17:08, Luis Ressel wrote: > On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:59:08 + > woggle wrote: > >> [...] > > Thanks for the background, I hadn't looked up the full CFJ. Perhaps the > note referring to it should be removed from the FLR then? > On a related note: When was the last FLR published? -- Sprocklem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:59:08 + woggle wrote: > > > On 08/31/14 22:45, Luis Ressel wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:33:13 + > > woggle wrote: > > > >> Rule 2160/12 (Power=3) > >> Deputisation > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the > >> holder of that office. > >> > >> - woggle > > > > I disagree. > > You disagree with the text of the rule?? > > > I also initially thought so when reading that rule some > > days go. (And wrote down an to-do item to fix it.) But then I > > discovered that CFJ: > > > > [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally > > treated as if the deputy gained the office immediately before the > > action, and lost it immediately after.] > > > > In my opinion, the rule text is unclear in this aspect, the rule is > > therefore to be interpreted as the cited CFJ states. > > At the time of that CFJ, Rule 2160 did not contain the text about > gaining the office. It read: > > Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a > particular office (deputise for that office) if: > > (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of > holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the > office is vacant, would so require if the office were > filled); and > > (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be > performed has expired; and > > (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier > that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes > of the particular action; and > > (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, > other than by deputisation, if e held the office. > > > If you look up CFJ 2400 (http://cfj.qoid.us/2400 ), you'll see that > the CFJ was about whether "as if e held a particular office" was > powerful enough to make the deputy continue to pseudo-hold the office > for the purpose of obligations resulting for eir deputisation. > > - woggle > > Thanks for the background, I hadn't looked up the full CFJ. Perhaps the note referring to it should be removed from the FLR then? -- aranea
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deputisation clarification
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:59:25 -0600 Sprocklem wrote: > On 2014-08-31 16:53, Luis Ressel wrote: > > Remark: As I noted on the -discussion list, I think the replacement > > text represents the current situation anyway. > > > I believe the rule was changed to how it is currently with the > intention that the change be permanent. The deputizing agent could > then resign it at the end if their intention was just to publish the > report. > Okay. I guess that makes sense. -- aranea
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deputisation clarification
On 2014-08-31 16:53, Luis Ressel wrote: > Remark: As I noted on the -discussion list, I think the replacement > text represents the current situation anyway. > I believe the rule was changed to how it is currently with the intention that the change be permanent. The deputizing agent could then resign it at the end if their intention was just to publish the report. -- Sprocklem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On 08/31/14 22:45, Luis Ressel wrote: > On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:33:13 + > woggle wrote: > >> Rule 2160/12 (Power=3) >> Deputisation >> >> [...] >> >> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the >> holder of that office. >> >> - woggle > > I disagree. You disagree with the text of the rule?? > I also initially thought so when reading that rule some > days go. (And wrote down an to-do item to fix it.) But then I > discovered that CFJ: > > [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated > as if the deputy gained the office immediately before the action, > and lost it immediately after.] > > In my opinion, the rule text is unclear in this aspect, the rule is > therefore to be interpreted as the cited CFJ states. At the time of that CFJ, Rule 2160 did not contain the text about gaining the office. It read: Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if: (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled); and (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired; and (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action; and (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office. If you look up CFJ 2400 (http://cfj.qoid.us/2400 ), you'll see that the CFJ was about whether "as if e held a particular office" was powerful enough to make the deputy continue to pseudo-hold the office for the purpose of obligations resulting for eir deputisation. - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Luis Ressel wrote: > I disagree. I also initially thought so when reading that rule some > days go. (And wrote down an to-do item to fix it.) But then I > discovered that CFJ: > > [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated > as if the deputy gained the office immediately before the action, > and lost it immediately after.] > > In my opinion, the rule text is unclear in this aspect, the rule is > therefore to be interpreted as the cited CFJ states. That CFJ predates the rule by several years and is no longer applicable. -scshunt > -- > aranea >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:33:13 + woggle wrote: > Rule 2160/12 (Power=3) > Deputisation > > [...] > > When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the > holder of that office. > > - woggle I disagree. I also initially thought so when reading that rule some days go. (And wrote down an to-do item to fix it.) But then I discovered that CFJ: [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated as if the deputy gained the office immediately before the action, and lost it immediately after.] In my opinion, the rule text is unclear in this aspect, the rule is therefore to be interpreted as the cited CFJ states. -- aranea
Re: DIS: Fwd: On the compability of the Speaker and Prime Minister Offices
On 2014-08-31 15:31, Luis Ressel wrote: > On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:43:08 -0600 > Okay. I had assumed standard practice was to discuss things informally > before going official. > For some things it is, such as when adding features to the game someone will often post the idea or a proto-proposal to the discussion forum to get input on and to see what people think of it, but for a simple bug fix like this there's not much point in discussing it beforehand. -- Sprocklem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On 08/31/14 22:26, Luis Ressel wrote: > On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:12:02 + > woggle wrote: > >> - woggle, Registrar and Clerical Error Generator > > I'd appreciate some clarification here. In yesterday's Registrar Report > you referred to yourself as a Deputy Registrar, but in todays report > and also in the above signature you didn't. Rule 2160/12 (Power=3) Deputisation [...] When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that office. - woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:12:02 + woggle wrote: > - woggle, Registrar and Clerical Error Generator I'd appreciate some clarification here. In yesterday's Registrar Report you referred to yourself as a Deputy Registrar, but in todays report and also in the above signature you didn't. -- aranea
Re: DIS: Fwd: On the compability of the Speaker and Prime Minister Offices
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:43:08 -0600 Sprocklem wrote: > If you find what you think to be an error, feel free to post a > proposal fixing it (or exploit it). Someone will speak up if they > feel it should be how it is. Okay. I had assumed standard practice was to discuss things informally before going official. > On a side note: intention and the spirit of the rule are not always > the same when it comes to nomics. Wise words. ;) -- aranea
Re: DIS: Fwd: On the compability of the Speaker and Prime Minister Offices
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 14:50:44 -0600 Sprocklem wrote: > > -- > > aranea > If you feel the urge to sign your name like this, feel free to add a > space after the second dash. Several mail clients chose to strip out a > signature after (and including) the "-- ". > Thanks for the tip! I really didn't know the space is significant. (However, a quick look at some other mailing list reveals that my normal MUA does this right, it's just a misconfiguration in the MUA I'm currently using -- I'm abroad and not using my own computers.) -- aranea
Re: DIS: Fwd: On the compability of the Speaker and Prime Minister Offices
> -- > aranea If you feel the urge to sign your name like this, feel free to add a space after the second dash. Several mail clients chose to strip out a signature after (and including) the "-- ". -- Sprocklem
Re: DIS: Fwd: On the compability of the Speaker and Prime Minister Offices
On 2014-08-31 14:14, Luis Ressel wrote: > I interpret paragraph 3 of R103 (The Speaker) > " > If the Prime Minister becomes the Speaker, e ceases to hold the > position of Prime Minister. > " > as an badly-worded attempt to declare the Offices of the Speaker and > the Prime Minster as being incompatible -- Badly-worded because is still > allows one and the same person to hold both offices by becoming the > Prime Minister while already being the Speaker (--> current situation > with omd). > > Is this possibility intentional or am I right that the word and the > spirit of the rule mismatch here? If you find what you think to be an error, feel free to post a proposal fixing it (or exploit it). Someone will speak up if they feel it should be how it is. On a side note: intention and the spirit of the rule are not always the same when it comes to nomics. -- Sprocklem
DIS: Fwd: On the compability of the Speaker and Prime Minister Offices
I interpret paragraph 3 of R103 (The Speaker) " If the Prime Minister becomes the Speaker, e ceases to hold the position of Prime Minister. " as an badly-worded attempt to declare the Offices of the Speaker and the Prime Minster as being incompatible -- Badly-worded because is still allows one and the same person to hold both offices by becoming the Prime Minister while already being the Speaker (--> current situation with omd). Is this possibility intentional or am I right that the word and the spirit of the rule mismatch here? I apologize if this matter has already been discussed in the past. I only did a quick search. -- aranea
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Registrar] Registrar's Report
On 2014-08-31 12:53, Sprocklem wrote: > On 2014-08-31 06:14, Tanner Swett wrote: >> CoE: don't forget me! > What's this in response to? > Nevermind, I found it on the archives but, for whatever reason, didn't receive it. -- Sprocklem
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Registrar] Registrar's Report
On 2014-08-31 06:14, Tanner Swett wrote: > CoE: don't forget me! What's this in response to? -- Sprocklem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy IADoP] Metareport
On Aug 30, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 09:28 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote: >> I intend, without objection, to ratify the document consisting of the >> "Office" and "Holder" columns of the table in the below report. > > They're self-ratifying (R1006 defines officeholder as a switch; why > isn't it "officeholdor", come to think of it?, and R2162c defines > anything that purports to be an officer's report about switches as > self-ratifying). That said, arguably something purporting to be a report > made via deputisation is not purporting to be an officer's report. I only announced intent manually since I didn't realize that this information was self-ratifying. The rules don't actually define what a report is, but I think common sense says that a report is the document published in the course of publishing a document containing information defined as being part of a report. In any case, I performed the action "as if I held the office", which I think means that any report published via deputisation is considered to be a report published by an officer. —the Warrigal
