DIS: Re: BUS: Re: イエローカード発表
Woops. This just made me realize that I haven't been including the pending list price in my reports. I will in future, and apologize for forgetting. I believe it defaults to 5, as no proposals were pended last month. -Aris On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Josh T wrote: > I figured it was fair game given that you had been posting recently, and I > wanted to test out the system. It works indeed. > > 天火狐 >
Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017, Quazie wrote: > But I thought the aforementioned CFJs noted that ratification doesn't ratify > incidental information? How could ratification make me a player in that case? I didn't say it did. I said that if you consented to be a player, you consented regardless of the legal mechanism used to make you one. Ratification was just an example of a *possible* method (which might work under limited circumstances as per 3455).
Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sat, 22 Apr 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I'm saying that the action takes effect because you said that you > > wanted it to take effect, and that due to the weird way registrations > > work, a wish to be registered is self fulfilling upon public > > expression. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Quazie wrote: > > > So, are you saying I'm a player regardless of Muphy's actions? That will > > > be > > > an interesting CFJ conclusion. > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:36 PM Aris Merchant > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> From what you've said, you appear to have consented conditionally, > > >> wishing to be registered iff Murphy makes a speech act intended to > > >> make you a player. As e has made such an act, I would think your > > >> consent has become active, regardless of whether eir speech act > > >> succeeded. > > This one's an interesting case. One could argue that e consented > to be a player when e made the deal with Murphy, even if e became > a player by other means (like ratification). > > One could also argue that e only gave consent conditional on the > registration via Murphy working. But that's problematic, because > if e consented, e consented to follow the Rules. And if e consented > to follow the rules, e did so even if the rules tell em e registered > in a different way than intended. > > If someone attempted to register by publishing "I consent to be bound > by all the Rules EXCEPT RULE X, and I register given those conditions" > it likely wouldn't work, as there's no scope for negotiations there. Sorry, sent this too early. Thus it's possible that, if eir consent was conditional (as e stated), then it fails entirely to be consent, and therefore eir registration method through Murphy failed due to lack of consent, not because contracts don't work.
Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report
On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 3:17 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sat, 22 Apr 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I'm saying that the action takes effect because you said that you > > wanted it to take effect, and that due to the weird way registrations > > work, a wish to be registered is self fulfilling upon public > > expression. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Quazie wrote: > > > So, are you saying I'm a player regardless of Muphy's actions? That > will be > > > an interesting CFJ conclusion. > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:36 PM Aris Merchant > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> From what you've said, you appear to have consented conditionally, > > >> wishing to be registered iff Murphy makes a speech act intended to > > >> make you a player. As e has made such an act, I would think your > > >> consent has become active, regardless of whether eir speech act > > >> succeeded. > > This one's an interesting case. One could argue that e consented > to be a player when e made the deal with Murphy, even if e became > a player by other means (like ratification). > But I thought the aforementioned CFJs noted that ratification doesn't ratify incidental information? How could ratification make me a player in that case? > One could also argue that e only gave consent conditional on the > registration via Murphy working. But that's problematic, because > if e consented, e consented to follow the Rules. And if e consented > to follow the rules, e did so even if the rules tell em e registered > in a different way than intended. > > If someone attempted to register by publishing "I consent to be bound > by all the Rules EXCEPT RULE X, and I register given those conditions" > it likely wouldn't work, as there's no scope for negotiations there. > > -G. > > > >
Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > I'm saying that the action takes effect because you said that you > wanted it to take effect, and that due to the weird way registrations > work, a wish to be registered is self fulfilling upon public > expression. > > -Aris > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Quazie wrote: > > So, are you saying I'm a player regardless of Muphy's actions? That will be > > an interesting CFJ conclusion. > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:36 PM Aris Merchant > > wrote: > >> > >> From what you've said, you appear to have consented conditionally, > >> wishing to be registered iff Murphy makes a speech act intended to > >> make you a player. As e has made such an act, I would think your > >> consent has become active, regardless of whether eir speech act > >> succeeded. This one's an interesting case. One could argue that e consented to be a player when e made the deal with Murphy, even if e became a player by other means (like ratification). One could also argue that e only gave consent conditional on the registration via Murphy working. But that's problematic, because if e consented, e consented to follow the Rules. And if e consented to follow the rules, e did so even if the rules tell em e registered in a different way than intended. If someone attempted to register by publishing "I consent to be bound by all the Rules EXCEPT RULE X, and I register given those conditions" it likely wouldn't work, as there's no scope for negotiations there. -G.
Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report
I'm saying that the action takes effect because you said that you wanted it to take effect, and that due to the weird way registrations work, a wish to be registered is self fulfilling upon public expression. -Aris On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Quazie wrote: > So, are you saying I'm a player regardless of Muphy's actions? That will be > an interesting CFJ conclusion. > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:36 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: >> >> From what you've said, you appear to have consented conditionally, >> wishing to be registered iff Murphy makes a speech act intended to >> make you a player. As e has made such an act, I would think your >> consent has become active, regardless of whether eir speech act >> succeeded. >> >> -Aris >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Quazie wrote: >> > And as of this moment I have only willfully consented to being made a >> > player >> > if Murphy has made me a player - at least I believe that's all i've >> > consented to. >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 09:44 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> > > This leaves open the question of what happens if a person does >> >> > > consent without registering (might be hard to do, as a statement of >> >> > > consent is generally taken to be a registration attempt). >> >> > >> >> > What about consent to a foreign forum? It seems like common sense >> >> > that >> >> > you can't change Agora's gamestate like that (otherwise we'd have a >> >> > ton >> >> > of inaccurate reports based on behaviour away from the Agoran lists), >> >> > but also seems plausible that it could at least specify consent >> >> > (private contracts often used to be agreed over non-nomic-related IRC >> >> > channels). >> >> >> >> Actually, that's probably ok, and probably even our Discussion forum >> >> would >> >> work. I thought the prohibition against binding said "explicit, wilful >> >> consent". But the "explicit" part is gone (I checked - it used to be >> >> in >> >> the >> >> Rights version of R101, maybe it's been gone a while). So it's likely >> >> that >> >> a variety of ways could be used to infer wilful consent. >> >> >> >> >> >
Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report
So, are you saying I'm a player regardless of Muphy's actions? That will be an interesting CFJ conclusion. On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:36 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > From what you've said, you appear to have consented conditionally, > wishing to be registered iff Murphy makes a speech act intended to > make you a player. As e has made such an act, I would think your > consent has become active, regardless of whether eir speech act > succeeded. > > -Aris > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Quazie wrote: > > And as of this moment I have only willfully consented to being made a > player > > if Murphy has made me a player - at least I believe that's all i've > > consented to. > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > >> > On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 09:44 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > > This leaves open the question of what happens if a person does > >> > > consent without registering (might be hard to do, as a statement of > >> > > consent is generally taken to be a registration attempt). > >> > > >> > What about consent to a foreign forum? It seems like common sense that > >> > you can't change Agora's gamestate like that (otherwise we'd have a > ton > >> > of inaccurate reports based on behaviour away from the Agoran lists), > >> > but also seems plausible that it could at least specify consent > >> > (private contracts often used to be agreed over non-nomic-related IRC > >> > channels). > >> > >> Actually, that's probably ok, and probably even our Discussion forum > would > >> work. I thought the prohibition against binding said "explicit, wilful > >> consent". But the "explicit" part is gone (I checked - it used to be in > >> the > >> Rights version of R101, maybe it's been gone a while). So it's likely > >> that > >> a variety of ways could be used to infer wilful consent. > >> > >> > > >
Re: DIS: Draft Referee's Report
>From what you've said, you appear to have consented conditionally, wishing to be registered iff Murphy makes a speech act intended to make you a player. As e has made such an act, I would think your consent has become active, regardless of whether eir speech act succeeded. -Aris On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Quazie wrote: > And as of this moment I have only willfully consented to being made a player > if Murphy has made me a player - at least I believe that's all i've > consented to. > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> > On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 09:44 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > > This leaves open the question of what happens if a person does >> > > consent without registering (might be hard to do, as a statement of >> > > consent is generally taken to be a registration attempt). >> > >> > What about consent to a foreign forum? It seems like common sense that >> > you can't change Agora's gamestate like that (otherwise we'd have a ton >> > of inaccurate reports based on behaviour away from the Agoran lists), >> > but also seems plausible that it could at least specify consent >> > (private contracts often used to be agreed over non-nomic-related IRC >> > channels). >> >> Actually, that's probably ok, and probably even our Discussion forum would >> work. I thought the prohibition against binding said "explicit, wilful >> consent". But the "explicit" part is gone (I checked - it used to be in >> the >> Rights version of R101, maybe it's been gone a while). So it's likely >> that >> a variety of ways could be used to infer wilful consent. >> >> >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: イエローカード発表
I figured it was fair game given that you had been posting recently, and I
wanted to test out the system. It works indeed.
天火狐
On 21 April 2017 at 23:04, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2017, at 1:56 PM, Josh T wrote:
>
> > I attempt to issue a yellow card to the holder of the Office of
> Secretary for failing to publish eir monthly report in a timely manner. The
> following words shall be included in a formal apology, if any, to restore
> voting strength before 30 days after the yellow card has been issued:
> >
> > * agora
> > * flow
> > * melancholy
> > * o ("oh" is acceptable)
> > * only
> > * orchid
> > * regret
> > * smell
> > * sparrow
> > * spring
> >
> > 天火狐
>
> O sparrow,
> Light not upon my melancholy.
> In Agora, smell only orchids this spring
> as the rivers of regret flow,
> Coldly, thawing.
>
> Of course, I formally apologize for my tardiness with the Secretary’s
> reports, and beg your forbearance. I’ve got the weekly reports written up,
> to be sent Sunday night, and the monthly reports to be sent at the start of
> May. Agora is in bloom again, and the office of Secretary deserves a more
> attentive gardener than I have been.
>
> It’s difficult to remain motivated to keep the reports up, when the game
> is otherwise silent and cold. That’s no excuse, but it may be worth
> considering. As Secretary, I have quite a few reports; the Office has
> accumulated responsibilities for various sub-legislative systems, one of
> which evolves slowly even without ongoing player input. I’ve also taken on,
> perhaps unwisely, the accounting for the Agoran Credit Union, and created
> an additional Organization (with its own unofficial reports). When things
> are in motion this doesn’t seem to be a burden, but in lulls, it drags.
>
> It fills me both with chagrin and with joy that you would issue me a Card
> so soon after I threw the metaphorical book at another maybe-player, as
> well. The system works!
>
> -o
>
>
Re: DIS: Proto-lazy Sunday
I like to imagine that, as is, the proposal specifies a random set of deadlines to extend indefinitely every time. On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > This would work well with some fleshing out. > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, Quazie wrote: > >> There exists a switch on Agora representing Agora current state of >> activity - it has two values, Lazy and Happening. >> >> Agora's activity can be set to Lazy without 3 objections. >> >> Agora's activity can be set to Happening with 3 support. >> >> When Agora's activity is set to Lazy, all penalties for tardiness are >> halved, also some deadlines are extended. >> >> --- >> >> The proposal needs some fleshing out to properly do the last paragraph, >> and the proposal would also set the initial activity to Lazy. >> > > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >
Re: DIS: Robo-Ref-ideas
I also wouldn't support punishment. During slow times I've published the registrar's report roughly monthly instead of weekly. It didn't make much difference because few things currently rely on the # of players. If I was punished for that, I'd probably have just vacated the seat. If there's someone else that wants it done more frequently they can (and should) deputize. If not, then me leaving the seat would just worsen the situation. A lazy officer is better than no officer. On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Maybe allow a status in which you become the provisional office and are > not payed, but also not fined. > > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> > Good point. I suggest that we also levy a fine. Maybe their officer >> > pay from all of the months in which they didn't report, with some form >> > of fine on top of that? >> >> Just as a note, I've been trying to give the Arbitor's job away for >> a year and only come back to it because no one else picks it up. >> Under those circumstances, I don't mind not getting a salary for not >> being timely, but if there was "a fine on top of that" I'd drop it >> entirely. >> >> If there was enough competition for jobs, this would be no issue, >> but there's no one competing for these jobs as it is. >> >> -G. >> >> >> >> > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The gig economy
I like this a lot in theory. Bard would need careful definition to not be abused/impossible to satisfy Tour Guide reminds me that I need to fix the agora wiki... On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > (Some jobs don't need regular Offices, but should be rewarded with payoffs > as they are valuable to Agora). > > Proto: The Gig Economy > > Create the following Rule, The Gig Economy: > > If a task is defined by the rules as a Gig, then any Player > (the performer) CAN perform the task (perform the gig) if no > one has performed the task in the same Nomic Week. > > If a performer does so, clearly specifying that eir action is > intended to fulfill a particular gig, Agora SHALL pay that > player 5 shinies at the beginning of the next Nomic Week. > > If a player purports to perform a gig, then any player CAN, with > 2 Support, assert that it was a failed gig; if this occurs, the > performer is not paid. This SHOULD only be asserted if the > attempted performance clearly falls short of the required effort. > > The following Gigs are defined: > > - Reporter: Publish a report, at least 300 words in length, with > a description of events that have happened in Agora in the last > 2 months that the Reporter believes significant or interesting. > This may contain editorialization or other pieces of Agora-related > information, as long as it is neither i) factually incorrect nor > ii) disrespectful to any person or Agora itself. The goal of such > reports is to create a more informed population. > > - Research Assistant: Publish a report, at least 300 words in length, > in response to a request for information about the history of > Agora. > > - Tour Guide: Publish (including updating) a precis of Rules, a set > of resources such as web links, or information that might serve as > an entry in an Agoran FAQ. > > - Bard: Publish, or publish a link to, a substantially creative and > original Work of Art created by the Bard, relevant to and created > for Agora, with the goal of evoking enlightenment, humor, > entertainment, > challenging ideas, or thoughtful contemplation in Agorans. > > [Option: a single Officer, the Managor, whose job it is to promote > the > gig economy, track gigs (monthly report), and maintain an online > archive > of gig-produced material]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Proto-Research-Assistant
This is basically what I intended for Reportor, with different flair. I don't like the requests thing. The point is to create an easy reference point for people to use for research in the future, not to do other people's research for them. Otherwise, I'd generally support this. On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Well, I am not sure that we need the Archivist to be writing about history > because that is one of the reasons which you could receive a degree for. > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Quazie wrote: > >> That's a great name - and monthly was a time frame I was looking at - I >> might make it a switch actually that can be flipped without some objection >> - if we get into an active period again it might be nice to easily switch >> the type of reporting on a newspaper. >> >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 23:33 Aris Merchant < >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> How about Archivist? Also, may I suggest that newspaper, if it is kept, >>> should be made monthly? >>> >>> -Aris >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:25 PM Quazie wrote: >>> I was going to suggest that there be a new position of journalist or librarian or Local Blogger or something that combines the two ideas in a reasonable way - be a resource of information and possibly do some general summarizing of events with less obligation than is on the reporter - will the ability as a secondary rule for players to request some assistance from this officer given they should be more aware than others - it'll be some parts of each, not all of each. On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 23:22 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I disagree. It seems perfectly reasonable to ask the reporter to link > to resources, but requiring them to do research on request seems > unnecessary. It doesn't fit well with my conception of the reporter's job > description anyway. > > -Aris > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:17 PM Quazie wrote: > >> That's super reasonable - next draft will combine the two. >> >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 23:11 Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Quazie wrote: >>> > [...] The Research Assistant [...] >>> >>> I think this should replace or be merged/combined with the very >>> inactive (since its beginning) Reporter. >>> >>> >>> >>> >
