DIS: Sort-of random question

[Josh T]

Random question: Is there a way to formalize the fact that I do not want my
name (as opposed to y nickname) to be an acceptable way to refer to me?

天火狐

DIS: proto: stopping timing scams

[Kerim Aydin]

Many voting scams in the past have end up in a race condition,
dependent on voting on the last minute.  Here's a proto to address 
that in general (and maybe even make it an interesting endgame).

Just phrased generally to get feedback, need to figure out which rules
it needs to overrule, etc.

Rule:  Last-Minute Voting Policy

   If a player, who is not in Timeout on a particular decision, casts, 
   withdraws, or otherwise changes, or clearly attempts to cast, 
   withdraw, or otherwise or change a ballot on a decision, within 
   30min before the end of its voting period, then;

  1.  The voting period is extended 30 min.  It is considered In
  Overtime during this extension period;
  2.  That player goes into Timeout on that decision.

   A player who is in timeout on a decision CANNOT cast, withdraw, or
   otherwise change a ballot on that decision when its voting period
   is In Overtime, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Implication; if you vote at the very end of a decision period, it
extends 30min, but you can't do any more voting (or further extend
it).

Implication:  If a scam depends on "who posts closest to the end of
the voting period", your success depends on the size of your 
coalition.  The scammer has to reveal eir scam, which gives people 
a 30min chance to respond.  If someone responds, then e is also knocked
out, then a co-conspirator can counter-respond, etc.

Winner is last coalition with a counter-responder.
]

Re: DIS: Confused

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 14 May 2017, tmanthe2nd . wrote:
> I understand that, I just don't understand what's going on in this case, 
> and I thought the voting had already ended.

The loophole ais523 found was that anyone can "withdraw" anyone else's 
vote. You can only cast your own vote, but ais523 found that this phrase
in R683 allows players to withdraw *anyone's* ballot.
   A valid ballot is a ballot, correctly submitted, that has not
   been withdrawn. A player CAN withdraw a ballot by announcement
   during the voting period of the decision on which it was cast.
(note it doesn't say a player can only withdraw eir own ballot; e can
withdraw any ballot).

So just before the voting period ended, e withdrew *other* players votes
on ballots so eir scam proposal could go through.

Unfortunately, he gave a little too much time window, and Aris noticed,
and managed (maybe) to withdraw ais523's votes.

Then the voting period ended, and there were maybe a couple more attempts 
to vote (that failed because the voting period had definitely ended).

-G.

Re: DIS: Confused

[tmanthe2nd .]

I understand that, I just don't understand what's going on in this case,
and I thought the voting had already ended.

On Sunday, May 14, 2017, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Sun, 2017-05-14 at 19:13 -0700, tmanthe2nd . wrote:
> > What is going on with all these votes?
>
> In general, one of the main activities of the game is voting on
> proposals to change the rules. Agora's a game where the rules can be
> changed by its players, and we tend to do that a lot.
>
> In specific, over the last few hours there was the end of a voting
> period on a scam proposal, and so people were trying to help out and/or
> disrupt the scam. (A scam is a situation where you exploit the letter
> of the rules to do something that wasn't intended to be possible.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Confused

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-05-14 at 19:13 -0700, tmanthe2nd . wrote:
> What is going on with all these votes?

In general, one of the main activities of the game is voting on
proposals to change the rules. Agora's a game where the rules can be
changed by its players, and we tend to do that a lot.

In specific, over the last few hours there was the end of a voting
period on a scam proposal, and so people were trying to help out and/or
disrupt the scam. (A scam is a situation where you exploit the letter
of the rules to do something that wasn't intended to be possible.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Counter-scam

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
 wrote:
> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 4:03 AM Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> ID Author(s)  AI   Title  Pender Pend fee (sh.)
>> -
>> 7849+  Aris   3.0  Scam Stopper   Aris   5
> AGAINST
>
> ~ Roujo

I believe the voting period ended yesterday.
-Aris

DIS: Confused

[tmanthe2nd .]

What is going on with all these votes?

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7850-7851

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 15 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-05-14 at 18:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 14 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > For each ballot on the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal
> > > 7851, if that ballot was not submitted by ais523, Josh T, o, or Quazie,
> > > I withdraw that ballot.
> > 
> > FWIW, 7851 would have no effect on the ruleset, as it doesn't specify
> > the order of necessarily sequential rules repeals and is thus 
> > ambiguously void (this is why at least a few people were happy to vote 
> > FOR, because it didn't matter).
> 
> I'm not 100% sure that's the case (although there are plenty of other
> reasons why the proposal probably doesn't work). 105 says that rule
> changes always occur sequentially, but it doesn't state that proposals
> need to specify the order. It could be that it sequentialises them
> itself.

I know/recall at least 2 explicit precedents supporting my statement (this
is something I checked up on a while ago when I became rulekeepor).  Not
able to dig them up this evening, but will if it comes to court.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7850-7851

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-05-14 at 18:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 14 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > For each ballot on the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal
> > 7851, if that ballot was not submitted by ais523, Josh T, o, or Quazie,
> > I withdraw that ballot.
> 
> FWIW, 7851 would have no effect on the ruleset, as it doesn't specify
> the order of necessarily sequential rules repeals and is thus 
> ambiguously void (this is why at least a few people were happy to vote 
> FOR, because it didn't matter).

I'm not 100% sure that's the case (although there are plenty of other
reasons why the proposal probably doesn't work). 105 says that rule
changes always occur sequentially, but it doesn't state that proposals
need to specify the order. It could be that it sequentialises them
itself.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7850-7851

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 14 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> For each ballot on the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal
> 7851, if that ballot was not submitted by ais523, Josh T, o, or Quazie,
> I withdraw that ballot.

FWIW, 7851 would have no effect on the ruleset, as it doesn't specify
the order of necessarily sequential rules repeals and is thus 
ambiguously void (this is why at least a few people were happy to vote 
FOR, because it didn't matter).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7850-7851

[Quazie]

The Coe will not affect passing - if it's correct it's another vote for.

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 16:44 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Sun, 2017-05-14 at 16:38 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > By the way, I'd welcome technical arguments about the timing from
> > other players. I'm afraid I don't have the technical expertise needed
> > to interpret the headers in a meaningful way. Also, proposal 7848
> > passed, which creates an additional obstacle. Any 3 players can stop
> > a proposal from being distributed. Unless I was on their side, and
> > that would require violating a rule.
>
> 7848's been CoEd. If it passed, that's good news though.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7850-7851

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-05-14 at 16:38 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> By the way, I'd welcome technical arguments about the timing from
> other players. I'm afraid I don't have the technical expertise needed
> to interpret the headers in a meaningful way. Also, proposal 7848
> passed, which creates an additional obstacle. Any 3 players can stop
> a proposal from being distributed. Unless I was on their side, and
> that would require violating a rule.

7848's been CoEd. If it passed, that's good news though.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7850-7851

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-05-14 at 16:26 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> What about quorum? See CFJ 1562, which indicates that canceled votes
>> do not count towards quorum. Also Rule 683 "A valid ballot is a
>> ballot, correctly submitted, that has not been withdrawn." and Rule
>> 955 "If there is more than one option, and the number of valid
>> ballots is less than quorum, the outcome is instead FAILED QUORUM."
>> Quorum is 4 right now, I believe, as of the resolution of proposal
>> 7848 (or perhaps 5, if that resolution was in error). I'll confess, I
>> was just counting time by what the mail site says in the web
>> interface, not by the mail headers.
>
> I'll have more to say on the matter of quorum later. For now, working
> out how to deal with quorum is the only potential obstacle in the path
> of people submitting their own dictatorship proposals and hoping to be
> more precise on the timing than your or me, so I'm not about to give
> out tips on how to carry it out.
>
> --
> ais523

By the way, I'd welcome technical arguments about the timing from
other players. I'm afraid I don't have the technical expertise needed
to interpret the headers in a meaningful way. Also, proposal 7848
passed, which creates an additional obstacle. Any 3 players can stop a
proposal from being distributed. Unless I was on their side, and that
would require violating a rule.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7850-7851

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-05-14 at 16:26 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> What about quorum? See CFJ 1562, which indicates that canceled votes
> do not count towards quorum. Also Rule 683 "A valid ballot is a
> ballot, correctly submitted, that has not been withdrawn." and Rule
> 955 "If there is more than one option, and the number of valid
> ballots is less than quorum, the outcome is instead FAILED QUORUM."
> Quorum is 4 right now, I believe, as of the resolution of proposal
> 7848 (or perhaps 5, if that resolution was in error). I'll confess, I
> was just counting time by what the mail site says in the web
> interface, not by the mail headers.

I'll have more to say on the matter of quorum later. For now, working
out how to deal with quorum is the only potential obstacle in the path
of people submitting their own dictatorship proposals and hoping to be
more precise on the timing than your or me, so I'm not about to give
out tips on how to carry it out.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7850-7851

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-05-07 at 15:56 -0700, qoid.us (Agora's list server) wrote:
>> Received: (qmail 13401 invoked from network); 7 May 2017 22:56:48 -
>> Received: from localhost (HELO vps.qoid.us) (127.0.0.1)
>>   by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 7 May 2017 22:56:48 -
>> > Return-Path: 
>> Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
>> Received: (qmail 13377 invoked from network); 7 May 2017 22:56:46 -
>> Received: from mail-yw0-f172.google.com (209.85.161.172)
>>  by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 7 May 2017 22:56:46 -
>
> In other words, the "voting period has started" message didn't actually
> arrive at the lists until 22:56:46.
>
>> Received: (qmail 11287 invoked from network); 14 May 2017 22:56:19 -
>> Received: from localhost (HELO vps.qoid.us) (127.0.0.1)
>>   by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 May 2017 22:56:19 -
>> > Return-Path: 
>> Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
>> Received: (qmail 11237 invoked from network); 14 May 2017 22:56:17 -
>> Received: from sun61.bham.ac.uk (147.188.128.150)
>>  by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 May 2017 22:56:17 -
>
> Here's part of the headers from the scam message to agora-official. As
> we can see, it was definitely received inside the voting period.
>
> This is the latest of the four attempted scam messages (by me and
> Aris). As such, I believe the correct vote tally on proposal 7850 is
> most likely 1 FOR, 0 AGAINST, 0 PRESENT. (It's possible that Aris'
> attempt to withdraw ballots on 7850 failed to withdraw Quazie's, which
> was cast as "endorse ais523" not "FOR", which would make it 2 FOR, 2
> AGAINST, 0 PRESENT.)
>
> --
> ais523

What about quorum? See CFJ 1562, which indicates that canceled votes
do not count towards quorum. Also Rule 683 "A valid ballot is a
ballot, correctly submitted, that has not been withdrawn." and Rule
955 "If there is more than one option, and the number of valid ballots
is less than quorum, the outcome is instead FAILED QUORUM." Quorum is
4 right now, I believe, as of the resolution of proposal 7848 (or
perhaps 5, if that resolution was in error). I'll confess, I was just
counting time by what the mail site says in the web interface, not by
the mail headers.

-Aris

DIS: Testing, please ignore

[Aris Merchant]

1... 2... 3...

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7848

[Nicholas Evans]

Admittedly I missed that. But I think ballots have to explicitly be
withdrawn before new ones are valid.

On May 14, 2017 01:55, "Quazie"  wrote:

> Claim of error - my email entitled 'votes' should've superseded my vote on
> this proposal I believe.
>
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 05:38 nichdel  wrote:
>
>> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7848 as below.
>>
>> 
>>
>> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
>>  following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
>>  Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!). If a
>>  decision's voting period is still ongoing, I end it immediately
>>  before resolving it and after resolving the previous decision.]
>>
>> ID Author(s)  AI   Title
>> 
>> *7848  ais523 1.0  Emergency Scam Fix
>>
>> |  | 7848 |
>> |--+--+
>> |ais523| F|
>> |G.| A|
>> |o | F|
>> |Quazie [1]| A|
>> |天火狐   | F|
>> |Roujo  [2]| A|
>> |Sprocklem | F|
>> |--+--+
>> |F/A   | 4/3  |
>> |AI| 1.0  |
>> |V | 7|
>> |Q | 5|
>> |P | T|
>>
>> Final quorum: 4
>>
>> [1] "If I am able to vote (see various CFJS) I endorse G."
>>
>> [2] "If I can, I vote AGAINT. If I can't, I vote FOR."
>>
>> NB: Per CFJ 1885 AGAINT means AGAINST.
>>
>> The full text of the adopted proposal(s) is included below.
>>
>> //
>>
>> ID: 7848
>> Title: Emergency Scam Fix
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>> Author: ais523
>> Co-author(s):
>>
>>
>> Amend rule 2445 by replacing
>> {{{
>>   to "pending" by announcement.
>> }}}
>> with
>> {{{
>>   to "pending" Without 3 Objections.
>> }}}
>>
>> //
>>
>>
>>