Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer sells Justice YOU can afford! Buy MORE Justice: Today! [Ad]

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 23 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> Want to know if a certain mechanic of your scam is viable? Don't risk 
> getting your WHOLE method vulnerable to the consideration of other players.
> BAM, Super CFJ it and you'll get your doubts cleared in a jiffy.

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1346

DIS: humble agoran farmer sells Justice YOU can afford! Buy MORE Justice: Today! [Ad]

[CuddleBeam]

Hello, I am Beamy Mays and I'm here for Super CFJs, the Justice specialist,
powered by other
organisms-that-are-generally-capable-of-freely-originating-and-
communicating-independent-thoughts-and-ideas just like you, activated by
Announcements that you and I employ. It's Tautology-approved! You might
think "well damn, that's about as good as it gets!" - but wait, there's
more.

Ever needed to be more equal than others? Just BAM, get a Super CFJ and get
that extra justice presto. It's that easy.

Want to know if a certain mechanic of your scam is viable? Don't risk
getting your WHOLE method vulnerable to the consideration of other players.
BAM, Super CFJ it and you'll get your doubts cleared in a jiffy.

Don't get only get *just* justice, get SUPER Justice.

And for JUST $2.99*, you too can get that extra justice YOU need! Accept no
imitations, these are the AUTHENTIC CFJs from Cuddlebeam, the Super CFJs,
fresh from the formal abstract formal space generated by the ruleset.

Declare by announcement NOW to get your Super CFJs for JUST $2.99, and you
too can get your Super Justice. And if you do so in a Timely Manner, we'll
even toss in a Point a Finger - absolutely free.

Don't wait! Declare by announcement NOW to get your Super CFJs and Point a
Finger for just $2.99*!

*shinies, rounded to the nearest integer.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No Sneakiness

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Why? There are other excuses for having long messages (scam attempts, 
for example), and we don’t want people trying to sneak things by in 
those either.


Hiding scams in scam attempts? What gall!

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: No Sneakiness

[CuddleBeam]

I think making an (informal) table of contents would be good if you need to
make a hugeass message but you're not trying to deliberately hide content.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Would the following proposal be valid?  I'm unsure if the subvoting 
> mechanism i'm suggesting will work.

Yes, we've used conditionals like this in proposals before, and no-one
said they *didn't* work, as long as the conditionals were clearly
resolvable.  I might be worried slightly about the missing quotation
mark, given its placement.

> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges, with options, (BBoRWCDaPWDaLoEWSWW)" AI=1.7 
> Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris, 天火狐'
> 
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
>     Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
> 
>     If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do 
> something,
>     without providing a time limit, then e SHALL do so in a timely manner in 
> order to not
>     break said pledge.
>   }}}
> 
>   If more players, who vote FOR this proposal, indicate they want 'Further 
> Constriction then append the following paragraph
> to Rule 2450:
>   {{{
>     A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for any 
> other person or office, without the other
> party's explicit consent.
>   }}}
> 
>   otherwise append the following paragraph to Rule 2450:
>   {{{
>     A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for any 
> other person.
>   }}}
> }}}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 18:36 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>   >     A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations
>   > for any other person or office, without the other party's explicit 
> consent.
> 
>   He he - and you've reinstated contracts.
>   (not that this is bad).
> 
>   The alternate reading is that pledges remain single-person (by common
>   definition), but you can write one for someone else if they later 
> consent.
> 
>   Ambiguity worth leaving IMO...
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Josh T]

Regardless if the Pink Slip is valid, I get the feeling that a Red Card of
some sort ought to be coming forthwith given the level of ire incited, but
my gauge on that front may be inaccurate. Personally, I think Gaelan should
not be trusted with the office of Rulekeepor, and should be removed from it
in addition to being barred from other report-generating offices, but it is
my understanding that Rulekeepor is an intensive duty that Agora cannot go
without, and there is no other candidate who wishes to take the mantle,
including myself.

天火狐

On 22 May 2017 at 21:30, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid.
>
> Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses
> of official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless
> the reason indicates the specific office or offices whose power was abused.”
>
> The only reason being Rulekeepor aided me in this attempt at victory is
> that I had an excuse to publish a huge message; the ability to publish huge
> amounts of text is not a power given to the Rulekeepor by the rules. I
> could have, for example, hidden the attempt to win by Apathy in a
> written-out version of my Agency scam. There was no abuse of a specific
> power exclusive to the Rulekeepor.
>
> Gaelan
> > On May 21, 2017, at 10:46 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >
> >> The following section is not a portion of the report:
> >> For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend,
> >> without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.”
> >> I execute The Sentence, substituting [word] for a word
> >> beginning with “ap” that is a synonym for “not caring.”
> >
> > This appears to be an attempt to abuse the office of Rulekeepor for
> personal gain, in the form of initiating a victory by Apathy for Gaelan
> while hiding it within the voluminous reports required of eir office. That
> the attempt may not succeed does not justify eir intentions. Accordingly, I
> issue Gaelan a Pink Slip for abuse of the office of Rulekeepor for the
> crime of Forgery.
> >
> > Gaelan: in spite of this censure, you remain Rulekeepor. I leave it to
> the discretion of Agora as a whole whether you should hold that office in
> light of this serious offence. Within the next seven days, any player may,
> with two support, take over an office which you hold. I stand aside, and
> will not support usurpation, but neither will I object. The office of
> Rulekeepor is essential to the functioning of Agora as a Nomic, and by
> abusing your authority to publish reports and compromising the trust
> players place in their content, you have put the integrity of the game at
> risk.
> >
> > -o
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No Sneakiness

[Quazie]

I'm more likely to look at a long message that isn't a report vs one that
is.  I think it's valid to be sneaky in long messages, but it's a jerk move
to exploit an office to do so.

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 6:39 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Why? There are other excuses for having long messages (scam attempts, for
> example), and we don’t want people trying to sneak things by in those
> either.
>
> Gaelan
>
> On May 22, 2017, at 6:35 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>
> I'd be pro this if it was only disallowed within official duties.
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 18:34 Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
>> I create the power-1 proposal “No Sneakiness” by Gaelan: {
>>
>> Create a rule “No Sneakiness” with the following text: {
>>
>> If the rules specify that an action may be performed by sending a message
>> to a public forum, any attempts to perform the action in a way that is
>> clearly intended to prevent others from detecting the action (such as by
>> embedding it in another, longer message) are INEFFECTIVE.
>>
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Quazie]

Would the following proposal be valid?  I'm unsure if the subvoting
mechanism i'm suggesting will work.

Proposal: "Betterer Pledges, with options, (BBoRWCDaPWDaLoEWSWW)" AI=1.7
Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris, 天火狐'

{{{
  Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
  {{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.

If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
something,
without providing a time limit, then e SHALL do so in a timely manner
in order to not
break said pledge.
  }}}

  If more players, who vote FOR this proposal, indicate they want 'Further
Constriction then append the following paragraph to Rule 2450:
  {{{
A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for
any other person or office, without the other party's explicit consent.
  }}}

  otherwise append the following paragraph to Rule 2450:
  {{{
A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for
any other person.
  }}}
}}}





On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 18:36 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations
> > for any other person or office, without the other party's
> explicit consent.
>
> He he - and you've reinstated contracts.
> (not that this is bad).
>
> The alternate reading is that pledges remain single-person (by common
> definition), but you can write one for someone else if they later consent.
>
> Ambiguity worth leaving IMO...
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No Sneakiness

[Gaelan Steele]

Why? There are other excuses for having long messages (scam attempts, for 
example), and we don’t want people trying to sneak things by in those either.

Gaelan
> On May 22, 2017, at 6:35 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> I'd be pro this if it was only disallowed within official duties.
> 
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 18:34 Gaelan Steele  > wrote:
> I create the power-1 proposal “No Sneakiness” by Gaelan: {
> Create a rule “No Sneakiness” with the following text: {
> If the rules specify that an action may be performed by sending a message to 
> a public forum, any attempts to perform the action in a way that is clearly 
> intended to prevent others from detecting the action (such as by embedding it 
> in another, longer message) are INEFFECTIVE.
> }
> }
> 
> Gaelan



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

DIS: Re: BUS: No Sneakiness

[Quazie]

I'd be pro this if it was only disallowed within official duties.

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 18:34 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I create the power-1 proposal “No Sneakiness” by Gaelan: {
>
> Create a rule “No Sneakiness” with the following text: {
>
> If the rules specify that an action may be performed by sending a message
> to a public forum, any attempts to perform the action in a way that is
> clearly intended to prevent others from detecting the action (such as by
> embedding it in another, longer message) are INEFFECTIVE.
>
> }
>
> }
>
> Gaelan
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>     A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations 
> for any other person or office, without the other party's explicit consent.

He he - and you've reinstated contracts.
(not that this is bad).

The alternate reading is that pledges remain single-person (by common
definition), but you can write one for someone else if they later consent.

Ambiguity worth leaving IMO...

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Gaelan Steele]

I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid.

Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses of 
official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless the 
reason indicates the specific office or offices whose power was abused.”

The only reason being Rulekeepor aided me in this attempt at victory is that I 
had an excuse to publish a huge message; the ability to publish huge amounts of 
text is not a power given to the Rulekeepor by the rules. I could have, for 
example, hidden the attempt to win by Apathy in a written-out version of my 
Agency scam. There was no abuse of a specific power exclusive to the Rulekeepor.

Gaelan
> On May 21, 2017, at 10:46 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
> On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
>> The following section is not a portion of the report:
>> For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend,
>> without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.”
>> I execute The Sentence, substituting [word] for a word
>> beginning with “ap” that is a synonym for “not caring.”
> 
> This appears to be an attempt to abuse the office of Rulekeepor for personal 
> gain, in the form of initiating a victory by Apathy for Gaelan while hiding 
> it within the voluminous reports required of eir office. That the attempt may 
> not succeed does not justify eir intentions. Accordingly, I issue Gaelan a 
> Pink Slip for abuse of the office of Rulekeepor for the crime of Forgery.
> 
> Gaelan: in spite of this censure, you remain Rulekeepor. I leave it to the 
> discretion of Agora as a whole whether you should hold that office in light 
> of this serious offence. Within the next seven days, any player may, with two 
> support, take over an office which you hold. I stand aside, and will not 
> support usurpation, but neither will I object. The office of Rulekeepor is 
> essential to the functioning of Agora as a Nomic, and by abusing your 
> authority to publish reports and compromising the trust players place in 
> their content, you have put the integrity of the game at risk.
> 
> -o
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Josh T]

> A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for any
other person.

I think this should be changed to "A player CANNOT make any pledge that
would create new obligations for any other person or office, without the
other party's explicit consent."

天火狐

On 22 May 2017 at 20:47, Aris Merchant 
wrote:

>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:38 PM Quazie  wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges, but because of reasons we can't define a
>> pledge without doing a lot of extra work, so we won't" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.,
>> Gaelan, Aris'
>> {{{
>>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>>   {{{
>> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
>>
>> If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
>> something,
>> without providing a time limit, then e SHALL do so in a timely manner
>> in order to not
>> break said pledge.
>>
>> A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for
>> any other person.
>>   }}}
>> }}}
>>
>> Me: Looks good! I'm happy you came up with such a nice proposal!
>
> Promotor: The office of the Promotor is officially displeased with you,
> for submitting a proposal with an overly long name. We would appreciate it
> if you could make it an annotation or something.
>
>  -Aris & The Office of the Promotor
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:36 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> > {{{
> >   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> >   {{{
> > A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.
>
> So this single statement is a definition, which means it takes the term
> 'pledge'
> out of common definition (where it's clearly made by the person who's
> bound by it)
> and gives it new meaning, which, oddly, makes the mechanism less clear.
> E.g. to
> me, this sentence seems to imply that 'Agora' must somehow be involved
> with or
> consent to the agreement...?

I agree with most of what you said, but I think Agora agrees to all pledges
anyway. This rule specifies what a pledge is, and the procedure for making
one. Agora is it's rules, or a nomic (a game with binding and amendable
rules), or perhaps even a democracy, where the people express their will
through the rules. Whichever it is, I'd think a rule saying something means
Agora agrees with it (as long as it is consistent with the other rules etc.)

-Aris

>

DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:38 PM Quazie  wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges, but because of reasons we can't define a
> pledge without doing a lot of extra work, so we won't" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.,
> Gaelan, Aris'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
>
> If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
> something,
> without providing a time limit, then e SHALL do so in a timely manner
> in order to not
> break said pledge.
>
> A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for
> any other person.
>   }}}
> }}}
>
> Me: Looks good! I'm happy you came up with such a nice proposal!

Promotor: The office of the Promotor is officially displeased with you, for
submitting a proposal with an overly long name. We would appreciate it if
you could make it an annotation or something.

 -Aris & The Office of the Promotor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
>     A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.

So this single statement is a definition, which means it takes the term 'pledge'
out of common definition (where it's clearly made by the person who's bound by 
it)
and gives it new meaning, which, oddly, makes the mechanism less clear. E.g. to
me, this sentence seems to imply that 'Agora' must somehow be involved with or
consent to the agreement...?

Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but I think (unfortunately!) if you go this route
you might be forced to go the whole hog, specifying:  that you can make a pledge
by announcement, that it binds only yourself, the time limit of course, that you
can rescind it under certain conditions, yadda yadda yadda.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
> A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.
>
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
>
> If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
> something,
> without providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely manner in order
> to not
> break said pledge.
>
> A player SHALL NOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for
> any other person.
>   }}}
> }}}
>

I'm not sure of what other people will think about the "between a
player and Agora" bit, and its possible effects. I'd change that last
"SHALL NOT" to a "CANNOT", which is more secure. The only reason I
didn't do that in my pledge is because pledges can't limit possible
actions in that way. Other than that, looks great. Thanks for the
proposal, and for being so responsive!

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
{{{
  Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
  {{{
A pledge is an agreement between a player and Agora.

Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.

If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
something,
without providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely manner in
order to not
break said pledge.

A player SHALL NOT make any pledge that would create new obligations
for any other person.
  }}}
}}}

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:22 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 22 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>
> >> I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
> >> really need to Trap any Mice?
> >>
> >> Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
> >> binding on someone else (e.g. Pledge: Quazie will give me all of eir
> >> shinies).
> >
> > Not that we shouldn't fix the wording, but that's stopped by R869:
> >The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a
> >person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful
> >consent.
> > (assuming we use the same common-language interpretation we have in
> > the past, that a pledge is a type of unilateral agreement).
> >
> That's a relief. Still, it should be in the rule itself.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
>> really need to Trap any Mice?
>>
>> Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
>> binding on someone else (e.g. Pledge: Quazie will give me all of eir
>> shinies).
>
> Not that we shouldn't fix the wording, but that's stopped by R869:
>The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a
>person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful
>consent.
> (assuming we use the same common-language interpretation we have in
> the past, that a pledge is a type of unilateral agreement).
>
That's a relief. Still, it should be in the rule itself.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> > Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> > {{{
> >   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> >   {{{
> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
> > publicly-made pledge
> > says that a person will do something, without providing a time limit,
> > then e SHALL in
> > a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
> >   }}}
> > }}}
> >
> > That clears things up a bit, yeah?
> 
> I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
> really need to Trap any Mice?
> 
> Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
> binding on someone else (e.g. Pledge: Quazie will give me all of eir
> shinies).

Not that we shouldn't fix the wording, but that's stopped by R869:
   The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a
   person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful
   consent.
(assuming we use the same common-language interpretation we have in
the past, that a pledge is a type of unilateral agreement).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

Proposal: "Better Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
{{{
  Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
  {{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
publicly-made pledge
says that the creator of a pledge will do something, without providing
a time limit,
then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.  A
player SHALL NOT
make any pledge that would create new obligations for any other person.
  }}}
}}}

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:04 PM Quazie  wrote:

> Proposal: "Timely Pledges v.Lots" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
> publicly-made pledge
> says that a the creator of a pledge will do something, without
> providing a time limit,
> then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
>   }}}
> }}}
>
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:02 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>> > Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
>> > {{{
>> >   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>> >   {{{
>> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
>> > publicly-made pledge
>> > says that a person will do something, without providing a time
>> limit,
>> > then e SHALL in
>> > a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
>> >   }}}
>> > }}}
>> >
>> > That clears things up a bit, yeah?
>>
>> I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
>> really need to Trap any Mice?
>>
>> Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
>> binding on someone else (e.g. Pledge: Quazie will give me all of eir
>> shinies).
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

Proposal: "Timely Pledges v.Lots" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris'
{{{
  Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
  {{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
publicly-made pledge
says that a the creator of a pledge will do something, without
providing a time limit,
then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
  }}}
}}}


On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:02 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> > Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> > {{{
> >   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> >   {{{
> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
> > publicly-made pledge
> > says that a person will do something, without providing a time limit,
> > then e SHALL in
> > a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
> >   }}}
> > }}}
> >
> > That clears things up a bit, yeah?
>
> I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
> really need to Trap any Mice?
>
> Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
> binding on someone else (e.g. Pledge: Quazie will give me all of eir
> shinies).
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
> publicly-made pledge
> says that a person will do something, without providing a time limit,
> then e SHALL in
> a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
>   }}}
> }}}
>
> That clears things up a bit, yeah?

I smell cheese. Lots of cheese. We already have cuttlefish, do we
really need to Trap any Mice?

Obscure history references aside, this allows someone to make a pledge
binding on someone else (e.g. Pledge: Quazie will give me all of eir
shinies).

-Aris

DIS: Report Event History Ordering

[Quazie]

Does this ordering look correct:
2017-05-22 - Quazie establishes WTQ
2017-05-22 - CuddleBeam establishes ACP
2017-05-22 - CuddleBeam establishes BGW
2017-05-21 - Quazie changes GOD
2017-05-20 - Quazie establishes QPS
2017-05-20 - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus establishes SSP
2017-05-20 - Gaelan establishes MKD
2017-05-20 - Quazie establishes GOD
2017-05-18 - Superintendent's Monthly Report Published
2017-05-18 - Superintendent's Weekly Report Published
2017-04-23 - Aris revokes PDA
2017-04-16 - Superintendent's Monthly Report Published
2017-02-13 - Aris establishes PDA

Or would y'all rather have Older events First?

Working on my SuperIntendent script, and am unsure which I prefer

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
{{{
  Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
  {{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
publicly-made pledge
says that a person will do something, without providing a time limit,
then e SHALL in
a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
  }}}
}}}

That clears things up a bit, yeah?

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:34 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Good point.  In common language terms and current legal effect, "I pledge
> to do X" is synonymous with "Pledge:  I SHALL do X", so why bother with
> the latter, as it's more confusingly written?
>
> On the flip side, maybe "I pledge to do X" would be judged (in current
> ruleset) to contain an implicit SHALL.
>
> Putting this amendment in would make the two explicitly different though,
> so that "I pledge to do X" would not invoke the time limit, but "I SHALL
> do X" would (maybe).  Not sure if that's bug or feature...
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > I don't know if I've ever seen someone use all-caps SHALL in a pledge.
> >
> > On May 22, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> >
> >   Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> > {{{
> >   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
> >   {{{
> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
> publicly-made pledge
> > says a person SHALL do something, without providing a time limit,
> then e SHALL in
> > a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
> >   }}}
> > }}}
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

Good point.  In common language terms and current legal effect, "I pledge
to do X" is synonymous with "Pledge:  I SHALL do X", so why bother with
the latter, as it's more confusingly written?

On the flip side, maybe "I pledge to do X" would be judged (in current
ruleset) to contain an implicit SHALL.

Putting this amendment in would make the two explicitly different though,
so that "I pledge to do X" would not invoke the time limit, but "I SHALL
do X" would (maybe).  Not sure if that's bug or feature...

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I don't know if I've ever seen someone use all-caps SHALL in a pledge. 
> 
> On May 22, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
>   Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
>     Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a 
> publicly-made pledge 
>     says a person SHALL do something, without providing a time limit, then e 
> SHALL in 
>     a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
>   }}}
> }}}

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Gaelan Steele]

I don't know if I've ever seen someone use all-caps SHALL in a pledge. 

> On May 22, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
> {{{
>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>   {{{
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a 
> publicly-made pledge 
> says a person SHALL do something, without providing a time limit, then e 
> SHALL in 
> a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
>   }}}
> }}}
> 
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:08 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Phrase it as the default if no time limit is supplied, not a hard-coded
>> only option.  Like: "if a pledge says a person SHALL do something, without
>> providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to keep
>> the pledge").
>> 
>> The problem with your phrasing:  Think about SHALL NOTs instead of SHALLs.
>> If someone pledges to NOT do something, do you really want to hard-code that
>> they only have to refrain for a week, then they've fulfilled their pledge?
>> 
>> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>> > I can't figure out the right way to note that a pledge SHALL be fulfilled 
>> > in a timely manner, but I only want to imply that the pledge
>> > maker SHALL fulfil their end of the pledge, once the conditional is met, 
>> > but i want to do that without being overly perscriptive on
>> > pledges.{{{
>> >
>> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  A pledge SHALL be 
>> > fulfilled in a timely manner
>> >
>> > }}}
>> >
>> > The above seems to not quite imply what I want.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:24 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >   On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>> >   > Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges?  I assume in a 
>> > timely manner for
>> >   > general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.
>> >
>> >   There's no Rules-specified time limit and the question's never been 
>> > asked
>> >   for pledges.  For Rules-based SHALLs, if there's no explicit time 
>> > limit, I
>> >   don't think there is one.  A fun example is this one:
>> >  Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision
>> >  SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who
>> >  have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible...
>> >   I think I've seen someone issue a reminder long after it was too 
>> > late!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >

Re: DIS: Streched Too Thin A.K.A. Woah there CuddleBeam, that's a lot of Agencies

[Nic Evans]

I wouldn't feel bad about doing things - even potentially nnoying things
- unless they actually adversely affect someone. If the rules let you do
a troublesome thing, then it just illustrates we should change the rules.


On 05/22/17 17:27, CuddleBeam wrote:
> Ah, OK. Then if that formats preferable then I don't mind just
> switching to that. Sorry for the bother.
>
> I'll restructure my stuff to that then. 
>
> (I think I'll divide it into an Agency of "Novelty" Sub-Agencies and
> another of "Self-Enhancement" Sub-Agencies).




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RE: Re: DIS: Streched Too Thin A.K.A. Woah there CuddleBeam, that's a lot of Agencies

[CuddleBeam]

Ah, OK. Then if that formats preferable then I don't mind just switching to
that. Sorry for the bother.

I'll restructure my stuff to that then.

(I think I'll divide it into an Agency of "Novelty" Sub-Agencies and
another of "Self-Enhancement" Sub-Agencies).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning (fwd)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> > Now, sometimes I read things 100% wrong, so I'll take advice from others 
> > reading
> > that; if most of you took it as a currently-empty (but forward-looking) set,
> > I'm happy to withdraw the CFJ because that's on me.  If it's a split 
> > opinion,
> > it's probably too ambiguous to clearly indicate the options :).
> Has a victory election ever happened before?

No - the rule was only made in Dec 2016 and I was the only other Herald
since then.

I think there's a few times in the past where options changed during the
voting period.  For example, valid options for Officers are "the players",
and I'll bet at least once there's been a registration or deregistration
during an election, with no one thinking twice about it.  (I'm browsing for
cases but haven't turned up anything yet).

Re: DIS: Streched Too Thin A.K.A. Woah there CuddleBeam, that's a lot of Agencies

[Nicholas Evans]

That'd still be preferable because all those sub agencies would have the
same 24 hour delay for modification, so it'd slow activitu down some.

On May 22, 2017 16:59, "CuddleBeam"  wrote:

> Agencies are Turing Complete currently (using its creator as output, the
> Power's text as memory and natural language as operators), so even if the
> amount of Agencies were limited, I would still be able to create
> "Sub-Agencies" within those Agencies, and then still have an arbitrary
> amount of things which are functionally equivalent to having a bazillion
> agencies.
>
> Here's an example template of an Agency which can emulate any arbitrary
> amount of Agencies (via Sub-Agencies):
>
> ---*---
>
> Name: Name here
> Agents: All persons
> Powers: For the purpose of this document, there exists "Sub-Agencies", as
> described within this Powers section, which is made up of a Name, Agents
> and Powers section which can be filled with text content. Only Agents which
> are part of the subset which Sub-Agency's Agents section refers to can
> employ the abilities described in the Powers section of that Sub-Agency.
>
> The following is a Sub-Agency:
> * Name: Sub-Agency 1
> * Agents: [Set of persons here]
> * Power: [Set of Powers here]
>
> The following is another Sub-Agency:
> * Name: Sub-Agency 2
> * Agents: [Set of persons here]
> * Power: [Set of Powers here]
>
> The following is another Sub-Agency:
> * Name: Sub-Agency 3
> * Agents: [Set of persons here]
> * Power: [Set of Powers here]
>
> etc
>
> ---*---
>
> So even if there were limitations to the amount of Agencies a person can
> have, I could still have the exact same thing (functionally), just written
> differently.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

Proposal: "Pledge Timelines" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.'
{{{
  Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
  {{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  If a
publicly-made pledge
says a person SHALL do something, without providing a time limit, then
e SHALL in
a timely manner in order to not break said pledge.
  }}}
}}}

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:08 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Phrase it as the default if no time limit is supplied, not a hard-coded
> only option.  Like: "if a pledge says a person SHALL do something, without
> providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to keep
> the pledge").
>
> The problem with your phrasing:  Think about SHALL NOTs instead of SHALLs.
> If someone pledges to NOT do something, do you really want to hard-code
> that
> they only have to refrain for a week, then they've fulfilled their pledge?
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > I can't figure out the right way to note that a pledge SHALL be
> fulfilled in a timely manner, but I only want to imply that the pledge
> > maker SHALL fulfil their end of the pledge, once the conditional is met,
> but i want to do that without being overly perscriptive on
> > pledges.{{{
> >
> > Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  A pledge SHALL
> be fulfilled in a timely manner
> >
> > }}}
> >
> > The above seems to not quite imply what I want.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:24 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> >   > Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges?  I assume in
> a timely manner for
> >   > general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.
> >
> >   There's no Rules-specified time limit and the question's never
> been asked
> >   for pledges.  For Rules-based SHALLs, if there's no explicit time
> limit, I
> >   don't think there is one.  A fun example is this one:
> >  Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision
> >  SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers
> who
> >  have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible...
> >   I think I've seen someone issue a reminder long after it was too
> late!
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Streched Too Thin A.K.A. Woah there CuddleBeam, that's a lot of Agencies

[CuddleBeam]

Agencies are Turing Complete currently (using its creator as output, the
Power's text as memory and natural language as operators), so even if the
amount of Agencies were limited, I would still be able to create
"Sub-Agencies" within those Agencies, and then still have an arbitrary
amount of things which are functionally equivalent to having a bazillion
agencies.

Here's an example template of an Agency which can emulate any arbitrary
amount of Agencies (via Sub-Agencies):

---*---

Name: Name here
Agents: All persons
Powers: For the purpose of this document, there exists "Sub-Agencies", as
described within this Powers section, which is made up of a Name, Agents
and Powers section which can be filled with text content. Only Agents which
are part of the subset which Sub-Agency's Agents section refers to can
employ the abilities described in the Powers section of that Sub-Agency.

The following is a Sub-Agency:
* Name: Sub-Agency 1
* Agents: [Set of persons here]
* Power: [Set of Powers here]

The following is another Sub-Agency:
* Name: Sub-Agency 2
* Agents: [Set of persons here]
* Power: [Set of Powers here]

The following is another Sub-Agency:
* Name: Sub-Agency 3
* Agents: [Set of persons here]
* Power: [Set of Powers here]

etc

---*---

So even if there were limitations to the amount of Agencies a person can
have, I could still have the exact same thing (functionally), just written
differently.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning (fwd)

[Nic Evans]

I should add that either way we should probably amend the rule and have
a pre-decision period where non-players can be declared, to remove all
ambiguity.


On 05/22/17 16:33, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> While any individual ​non-player person can not begin as options, the class 
>> of
>> non-player persons who have become options by announcement is a valid option
>> from the beginning, it just begins empty.
> In recent context, "announced" non-players came across *to me* as past-tense;
> in other words, that you were saying everyone who had announced in the 
> previous
> attempt was a valid vote.
>
> Now, sometimes I read things 100% wrong, so I'll take advice from others 
> reading
> that; if most of you took it as a currently-empty (but forward-looking) set,
> I'm happy to withdraw the CFJ because that's on me.  If it's a split opinion,
> it's probably too ambiguous to clearly indicate the options :).
>
> -G.
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning (fwd)

[Nic Evans]

On 05/22/17 16:33, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> While any individual ​non-player person can not begin as options, the class 
>> of
>> non-player persons who have become options by announcement is a valid option
>> from the beginning, it just begins empty.
> In recent context, "announced" non-players came across *to me* as past-tense;
> in other words, that you were saying everyone who had announced in the 
> previous
> attempt was a valid vote.
This has been my interpretation as well. If they can be announced after
it's started, I can't see how you the initiation could ever 'clearly'
identify the set; it'd be literally unresolvable until the decision ends.
>
> Now, sometimes I read things 100% wrong, so I'll take advice from others 
> reading
> that; if most of you took it as a currently-empty (but forward-looking) set,
> I'm happy to withdraw the CFJ because that's on me.  If it's a split opinion,
> it's probably too ambiguous to clearly indicate the options :).
Has a victory election ever happened before?
> -G.
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning (fwd)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> While any individual ​non-player person can not begin as options, the class of
> non-player persons who have become options by announcement is a valid option
> from the beginning, it just begins empty.

In recent context, "announced" non-players came across *to me* as past-tense;
in other words, that you were saying everyone who had announced in the previous
attempt was a valid vote.

Now, sometimes I read things 100% wrong, so I'll take advice from others reading
that; if most of you took it as a currently-empty (but forward-looking) set,
I'm happy to withdraw the CFJ because that's on me.  If it's a split opinion,
it's probably too ambiguous to clearly indicate the options :).

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Wait, do I seriously not have a Blue Ribbon?

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 08:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 22 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > - Orange from Proposal 7850;
> > > - Blue from CFJ 3504;
> > > - Violet from earlier in this message;
> > > - Ultraviolet from my recent scam win;
> > > - and Cyan from deputising for Tailor last Thursday.
> > 
> > How many ribbons from one scam?  Just give yourself the damn ribbon
> > win and be done with it.
> 
> Two, Violet and Transparent. That doesn't seem excessive. (Most of the
> Ribbons listed are ones I already had, and I'm only re-listing them for
> Transparent purposes.)

Ah, my apologies: with your phrasing I thought ultraviolet was this scam,
not last scam.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

Phrase it as the default if no time limit is supplied, not a hard-coded
only option.  Like: "if a pledge says a person SHALL do something, without
providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely manner in order to keep
the pledge").

The problem with your phrasing:  Think about SHALL NOTs instead of SHALLs.
If someone pledges to NOT do something, do you really want to hard-code that
they only have to refrain for a week, then they've fulfilled their pledge?

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> I can't figure out the right way to note that a pledge SHALL be fulfilled in 
> a timely manner, but I only want to imply that the pledge
> maker SHALL fulfil their end of the pledge, once the conditional is met, but 
> i want to do that without being overly perscriptive on
> pledges.{{{
> 
> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  A pledge SHALL be 
> fulfilled in a timely manner
> 
> }}}
> 
> The above seems to not quite imply what I want.
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:24 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>   > Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges?  I assume in a 
> timely manner for
>   > general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.
> 
>   There's no Rules-specified time limit and the question's never been 
> asked
>   for pledges.  For Rules-based SHALLs, if there's no explicit time 
> limit, I
>   don't think there is one.  A fun example is this one:
>          Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision
>          SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who
>          have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible...
>   I think I've seen someone issue a reminder long after it was too late!
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

I can't figure out the right way to note that a pledge SHALL be fulfilled
in a timely manner, but I only want to imply that the pledge maker SHALL
fulfil their end of the pledge, once the conditional is met, but i want to
do that without being overly perscriptive on pledges.
{{{

Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.  A pledge SHALL
be fulfilled in a timely manner

}}}


The above seems to not quite imply what I want.



On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:24 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges?  I assume in a
> timely manner for
> > general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.
>
> There's no Rules-specified time limit and the question's never been asked
> for pledges.  For Rules-based SHALLs, if there's no explicit time limit, I
> don't think there is one.  A fun example is this one:
>Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision
>SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who
>have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible...
> I think I've seen someone issue a reminder long after it was too late!
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Wait, do I seriously not have a Blue Ribbon?

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 08:12 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > - Orange from Proposal 7850;
> > - Blue from CFJ 3504;
> > - Violet from earlier in this message;
> > - Ultraviolet from my recent scam win;
> > - and Cyan from deputising for Tailor last Thursday.
> 
> How many ribbons from one scam?  Just give yourself the damn ribbon
> win and be done with it.

Two, Violet and Transparent. That doesn't seem excessive. (Most of the
Ribbons listed are ones I already had, and I'm only re-listing them for
Transparent purposes.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning (fwd)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

While any individual ​non-player person can not begin as options, the class
of non-player persons who have become options by announcement is a valid
option from the beginning, it just begins empty.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > It is also unclear if the election is limited to "announced" non-players,
> > given R2482:  "non-player persons can also become valid options during
> the
> > voting period by announcement."  If this clause is non-functional due to
> > conflicts with R107, it would be good to identify the problem and correct
> > R2482.  If the clause is *not* non-functional, then the announcement
> > limiting options to "announced" players is simply incorrect and therefore
> > invalid.
>
> Sorry, an addition to the arguments, which may override the previous
> arguments a bit:
>
> Rule 2482 reads in part:
>On such
>a decision, all players are valid options; non-player persons
>can also become valid options during the voting period by
>announcement.
>
> This implies that non-player persons CANNOT be options at the beginning
> of the voting period, they can only be added during the voting period.
> This means that *any* initiation announcement specifying that *any* non-
> players are valid options is incorrect.
>
> Whether they can be added *during* the voting period is a separate
> question, although if the judge wishes to opine on that and save a
> separate CFJ, it would be much appreciated.
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Also - What's the time scale on fulfilling pledges?  I assume in a timely 
> manner for 
> general pledges like this one, but I am unsure.

There's no Rules-specified time limit and the question's never been asked
for pledges.  For Rules-based SHALLs, if there's no explicit time limit, I
don't think there is one.  A fun example is this one:
   Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision
   SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who
   have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible...
I think I've seen someone issue a reminder long after it was too late!

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fast resolution 2.0

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I create this proposal "Fast Resolution" by Gaelan with AI 3.1 {
>
> Create rule "Fast Resolution" (Power 3.1) {
>
> For the purposes of this rule, an Agoran Decision's Pertinent Information is 
> the set of all information that the vote collector must use to determine the 
> result of the decision.
>
> If, for an Agoran Decison:
>
> 1. It has enough votes so that its result cannot be changed by any 
> combination of votes from players that have not yet voted (assuming no new 
> players register and no votes are withdrawn), and
> 2. None of its Pertinent Information has changed in the past 24 hours,
>
> Then any player may cause its voting period to end immediately by 
> announcement.
>
> }
> }
>
> This shouldn't help timing scams; any timing scam will, by definition, change 
> the pertinent information.
>
> Gaelan
I have some comments on minor edits to this. I'll write them up later.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Getting in on Agencies

[Josh T]

Here's a picture from my client for reference:

https://goo.gl/k21bMf

天火狐

On 22 May 2017 at 15:41, CuddleBeam  wrote:

> I think that's a very good idea!
>
> When I read this on the archives or attempt to see the message in my gmail
> interface I see boxes instead of certain characters tho
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning

[caleb vines]

I believe, according to 2127, the first half is a valid condition. It is
determinable by information readily available to all players and the value
of the condition will be determinable at the end of voting.

That said, a closer reading of 2127 tells me that the "else" statement
probably has to be a valid vote or voting option. Therefore I withdraw my
vote and submit the following vote:

If my vote for grok would cause grok to win the Victory Election, I vote
for grok. Else, I vote PRESENT.


On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I don't believe this is a valid condition.
>
> Gaelan
>
> On May 22, 2017, at 12:34 PM, caleb vines  wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> True, the CoE having been successful, I hereby initiate a Victory
>> Election with all players, announced non-players, and PRESENT as valid
>> options and the Herald as the vote collector. I would be in favor of all
>> watchers (Ørjan and others) and G. putting emselves into the race. The
>> ballots should be cast in an instant runoff format.
>>
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>
>
> If my vote for grok would cause grok to win the Victory Election, I vote
> for grok. Else, I do not vote.
>
>
> -grok
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Getting in on Agencies

[Josh T]

That's right. Specifically, this is an agency that allows people to refer
to it by another name consequence-free.

天火狐

On 22 May 2017 at 15:39, Quazie  wrote:

> So this is an agency that allows you to refer to this agency?
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:33 Josh T  wrote:
>
>> I intend to establish the following Agency after 24 hours:
>>
>> Name: ⌑≌⋻ შეესაბამება एजेन्सी (⌑შए)
>> Agents: All persons
>> Powers: Any person may refer to this Agency by another name, provided
>> that it is unambiguous. Given that the transliteration of the name, UShE is
>> recommended.
>>
>> Additional notes: This agency is effectively the Unicode compliance
>> agency, and exists to make sure that any system that we wring things
>> through won't break due to surface-level Unicode problems.
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Getting in on Agencies

[CuddleBeam]

I think that's a very good idea!

When I read this on the archives or attempt to see the message in my gmail
interface I see boxes instead of certain characters tho

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning

[Gaelan Steele]

I don't believe this is a valid condition. 

Gaelan

> On May 22, 2017, at 12:34 PM, caleb vines  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>  wrote:
>> True, the CoE having been successful, I hereby initiate a Victory Election 
>> with all players, announced non-players, and PRESENT as valid options and 
>> the Herald as the vote collector. I would be in favor of all watchers (Ørjan 
>> and others) and G. putting emselves into the race. The ballots should be 
>> cast in an instant runoff format.
>> 
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 
> If my vote for grok would cause grok to win the Victory Election, I vote for 
> grok. Else, I do not vote.
> 
> 
> -grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning

[Kerim Aydin]

Given my recent attempt to "announce" OscarMeyr, I wonder if this is
ambiguous?  Also, in past, listing "all members of set S" without specifying
the individual set members has been seen as ambiguous, IF it is beyond a 
reasonable effort of an average player to dig back and find that list
(as opposed to the officer doing it, as it's eir job) or IF there's some
uncertainty on membership (e.g. OscarMeyr).

For players, there's a handy Registrar's report to refer to, so it's not
beyond a reasonable effort for average players to find that.  For non-players,
not so much.

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> True, the CoE having been successful, I hereby initiate a Victory Election 
> with all players, announced non-players, and PRESENT as valid
> options and the Herald as the vote collector. I would be in favor of all 
> watchers (Ørjan and others) and G. putting emselves into the
> race. The ballots should be cast in an instant runoff format.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
>   On 05/22/17 14:03, Josh T wrote:
>   > > I hereby initiate a Victory Election with all players or announced
>   > non-players as valid options and the Herald as the vote collector. I
>   > would be in favor of all watchers (Ørjan and others) and G. putting
>   > emselves into the race. The ballots should be cast in an instant
>   > runoff format.
>   >
>   > I vote for the set of persons who has transferred me, during a time
>   > period starting from now until the closing of the voting window, a
>   > number of Shinies greater than ten percent of eir Shiny balance as of
>   > the previous Secretary report. In the event no persons will have had
>   > transferred me at least one Shiny, my vote is PRESENT.
>   >
>   Is there a reason everyone is still voting on this? It's definitely
>   invalid and I CoE'd it already:
>   https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28287.html
> 
> 
> 
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning

[Nic Evans]

On 05/22/17 14:03, Josh T wrote:
> > I hereby initiate a Victory Election with all players or announced
> non-players as valid options and the Herald as the vote collector. I
> would be in favor of all watchers (Ørjan and others) and G. putting
> emselves into the race. The ballots should be cast in an instant
> runoff format.
>
> I vote for the set of persons who has transferred me, during a time
> period starting from now until the closing of the voting window, a
> number of Shinies greater than ten percent of eir Shiny balance as of
> the previous Secretary report. In the event no persons will have had
> transferred me at least one Shiny, my vote is PRESENT. 
>
Is there a reason everyone is still voting on this? It's definitely
invalid and I CoE'd it already:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28287.html



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 05/22/17 12:36, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Is there consensus that "A person can... by announcement" means that
> > only that person can announce for emself?  Or that anyone can announce
> > for anyone else?
> I'm fairly certain that they'd have to be announced at the beginning of
> decision, or the decision initiation fails (by not specifying all
> possible options in an unambiguous way).

This is another one of those "I think we had a past case [where options 
changed during the voting period], but I can't remember if it worked or not
and I don't remember the context enough to search".

Hmm, that's a typically useless researcher copout I just wrote:  
"Conclusions: more studies are necessary."

Re: DIS: Trivial Proposals

[Quazie]

Aris - As Promotor do you have any issue with this Proposal?  If not I'm
gonna make it a proper proposal.

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:21 PM Quazie  wrote:

> Proto: Trivial Proposals
>
> Create a new rule entitled Trival Proposals AI=1.1 with the following text
> {{{
> Complexity is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by
> proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "trivial" or
> "standard" (default).
>
> When a player creates a proposal, they may flip its Complexity to
> "trivial" without objection.
>
> A proposal with a Complexity of "trivial" may have its Imminence
> flipped to "pending" by paying agora 1 Shiny.
> }}}
>
> 
> Proposals like the flipping of Director to Head in relation to Agencies,
> and a few other small bits and pieces i've noticed lately while combing the
> rules, aren't really worth 4+ shinies to pend as they are making the
> ruleset a better place in small increments, and usually in
> non-controversial ways.  This concept used to exist in some form, so I'm
> aiming to bring it back in the current economy.
>

DIS: Streched Too Thin A.K.A. Woah there CuddleBeam, that's a lot of Agencies

[Quazie]

Proto-Proposal "Stretched Too Thin"

If at any point a player is the Head of more agencies than twice the number
of registered players [Note, i'd like feedback on this limit] then they are
Stretched Too Thin.  If a player is Stretched Too Thin, any attempt by that
player to create a new Agency is Ineffective.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer tends crops

[Nic Evans]

The ability to intend to do a thing on someone's behalf is entirely
separate from the ability to do it. So even if that was the intended
procedure, nothing in the power enables declaration of intent on
CuddleBeam's behalf.


On 05/22/17 13:40, Quazie wrote:
> If nichdel believes it's unclear that the 24 hour notice was implied
> by the fact that it was changing a power, is that unclear enough to
> actually make it ineffective?
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:36 AM Nic Evans  > wrote:
>
>
>
> On 05/22/17 12:44, CuddleBeam wrote:
>>
>> Powers: Any Agent may add additional characters to the text content of 
>> the Powers of this agency as long as such changes keep these Powers 
>> functionally synonymous to the Powers that this agency had at its creation.
>>
> This power is ineffective. The powers of the agency are a
> property, and can only be amended with notice.
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning

[Nic Evans]

On 05/22/17 12:36, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> People can stop objecting because it is already dead.
> People can remove objections, so it's prudent not to rely on a single
> person's (I only saw one person object to every one of them, though
> maybe I missed some).
In fact I intended to Support my own right before the end of the period,
which would've succeeded if only one person had Objected. Even still it
can succeed if I convince people to withdraw eir Objections.
>> As to the Victory Election, G. is not yet an option.
> I'm curious about the wording of victory elections:
>   non-player persons
>can also become valid options during the voting period by
>announcement. 
> Is there consensus that "A person can... by announcement" means that
> only that person can announce for emself?  Or that anyone can announce
> for anyone else?
I'm fairly certain that they'd have to be announced at the beginning of
decision, or the decision initiation fails (by not specifying all
possible options in an unambiguous way).
> I'm also curious about what happens to vote cast for an option when
> it's only added as a valid option after the vote is cast, so:
>
> I hereby make myself a valid option for the current Victory Election.
>
> To test the above question:
>
> I hereby make OscarMeyr a valid option for the current Victory Election.
>
>
>





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer tends crops

[Quazie]

If nichdel believes it's unclear that the 24 hour notice was implied by the
fact that it was changing a power, is that unclear enough to actually make
it ineffective?

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:36 AM Nic Evans  wrote:

>
>
> On 05/22/17 12:44, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
>
> Powers: Any Agent may add additional characters to the text content of the 
> Powers of this agency as long as such changes keep these Powers functionally 
> synonymous to the Powers that this agency had at its creation.
>
>
> This power is ineffective. The powers of the agency are a property, and
> can only be amended with notice.
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer tends crops

[caleb vines]

>
> Title: Big Grafitti Wall (BGW)
>
> Agents: All Players
> Powers: Any Agent may add additional characters to the text content of the 
> Powers of this agency as long as such changes keep these Powers functionally 
> synonymous to the Powers that this agency had at its creation.
>
>
> Cuddlebeam was here.
>
>
Functional question: if an Agent adds additional characters to the powers
of BGW, are ey acting on behalf of Cuddlebeam to do so?


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning

[Quazie]

Wow - super weird, e-mail client did something super funny there - sorry.

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:56 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Er, according to both by sent-mail and inbox return, it went to
> Business...  Can
> someone confirm?
> > Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Kerim Aydin 
> > To: Agora Business 
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > Not a public forum - Please resend G.
> >
> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:40 AM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >   > People can stop objecting because it is already dead.
> >
> >   People can remove objections, so it's prudent not to rely on a
> single
> >   person's (I only saw one person object to every one of them, though
> >   maybe I missed some).
> >
> >   > As to the Victory Election, G. is not yet an option.
> >
> >   I'm curious about the wording of victory elections:
> > non-player persons
> >  can also become valid options during the voting period by
> >  announcement.
> >   Is there consensus that "A person can... by announcement" means
> that
> >   only that person can announce for emself?  Or that anyone can
> announce
> >   for anyone else?
> >
> >   I'm also curious about what happens to vote cast for an option when
> >   it's only added as a valid option after the vote is cast, so:
> >
> >   I hereby make myself a valid option for the current Victory
> Election.
> >
> >   To test the above question:
> >
> >   I hereby make OscarMeyr a valid option for the current Victory
> Election.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning

[Kerim Aydin]

Er, according to both by sent-mail and inbox return, it went to Business...  Can
someone confirm?
> Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Kerim Aydin 
> To: Agora Business 

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Not a public forum - Please resend G.
> 
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:40 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>   > People can stop objecting because it is already dead.
> 
>   People can remove objections, so it's prudent not to rely on a single
>   person's (I only saw one person object to every one of them, though
>   maybe I missed some).
> 
>   > As to the Victory Election, G. is not yet an option.
> 
>   I'm curious about the wording of victory elections:
>                                                 non-player persons
>          can also become valid options during the voting period by
>          announcement.
>   Is there consensus that "A person can... by announcement" means that
>   only that person can announce for emself?  Or that anyone can announce
>   for anyone else?
> 
>   I'm also curious about what happens to vote cast for an option when
>   it's only added as a valid option after the vote is cast, so:
> 
>       I hereby make myself a valid option for the current Victory 
> Election.
> 
>   To test the above question:
> 
>       I hereby make OscarMeyr a valid option for the current Victory 
> Election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning

[Quazie]

Not a public forum - Please resend G.

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:40 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > People can stop objecting because it is already dead.
>
> People can remove objections, so it's prudent not to rely on a single
> person's (I only saw one person object to every one of them, though
> maybe I missed some).
>
> > As to the Victory Election, G. is not yet an option.
>
> I'm curious about the wording of victory elections:
>   non-player persons
>can also become valid options during the voting period by
>announcement.
> Is there consensus that "A person can... by announcement" means that
> only that person can announce for emself?  Or that anyone can announce
> for anyone else?
>
> I'm also curious about what happens to vote cast for an option when
> it's only added as a valid option after the vote is cast, so:
>
> I hereby make myself a valid option for the current Victory Election.
>
> To test the above question:
>
> I hereby make OscarMeyr a valid option for the current Victory
> Election.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

People can stop objecting because it is already dead. As to the Victory
Election, G. is not yet an option.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 3:10 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I hereby initiate a Victory Election with all players or announced
>> non-players as valid options and the Herald as the vote collector. I would
>> be in favor of all watchers (Ørjan and others) and G. putting emselves into
>> the race. The ballots should be cast in an instant runoff format.
>>
>
> I vote for [Quazie, G. Peter Suber] in the Victory Election.
>
>
>> For each player, I declare Apathy without objection with em as the set of
>> players. If no objections are heard in the next four days, I will resolve
>> this and many players will win.
>>
>
> I object to all intentions to Declare Apathy that don't include Quazie in
> the winning set. [When I was originally chatting with you PSS i was
> assuming you'd make 1 attempted decleration for us all, but i do like the
> way you phrased this attempt]
>
>
>> Finally, with Agoran Consent, I intend to grant the badge, "Badge of the
>> Great Agoran Revival" to all persons who have sent a message to any Agoran
>> Public Forum or agora-discussion@agoranomic.org in the month of May.
>> This may be resolved as soon as four days from now. Also, I pledge to
>> announce intent to award this badge to any person posting to any of the
>> previously listed lists before May ends, but after this point.
>>
>
> I support any intentions to grant badges that include granting me a badge.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Let us begin the winning

[Quazie]

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 3:10 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I hereby initiate a Victory Election with all players or announced
> non-players as valid options and the Herald as the vote collector. I would
> be in favor of all watchers (Ørjan and others) and G. putting emselves into
> the race. The ballots should be cast in an instant runoff format.
>

I vote for [Quazie, G. Peter Suber] in the Victory Election.


> For each player, I declare Apathy without objection with em as the set of
> players. If no objections are heard in the next four days, I will resolve
> this and many players will win.
>

I object to all intentions to Declare Apathy that don't include Quazie in
the winning set. [When I was originally chatting with you PSS i was
assuming you'd make 1 attempted decleration for us all, but i do like the
way you phrased this attempt]


> Finally, with Agoran Consent, I intend to grant the badge, "Badge of the
> Great Agoran Revival" to all persons who have sent a message to any Agoran
> Public Forum or agora-discussion@agoranomic.org in the month of May. This
> may be resolved as soon as four days from now. Also, I pledge to announce
> intent to award this badge to any person posting to any of the previously
> listed lists before May ends, but after this point.
>

I support any intentions to grant badges that include granting me a badge.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal judges sought

[Quazie]

Grok - you can always point a finger with similar results.

o - If someone were to abuse the power, would you be the one to get the
Pink Slip as they'd be abusing the power of the Referee on your behalf?
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 09:37 caleb vines  wrote:

> I'm not sure if I am familiar enough with carding or the rules to be
> comfortable as an agent of a Referee Agency. But I am sure that I'd rather
> have the power to do something and not use it than the inverse.
>
> I'm interested in being an Agent.
>
>
> -grok
>
> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> The office of Referee is charged with finding and penalizing
>> rule-breaking, such that Agora may proceed more smoothly and that
>> malfeasance may be caught early, before it endangers the game. This is a
>> hefty charge. As such, I intend to create an Agency, if any acronyms remain
>> available with which to do so. The Agents of this agency shall be charged
>> with the issue of Cards on behalf of the Office of the Referee.
>>
>> If you are interested in being an Agent, please let me know within the
>> next few days.
>>
>> -o
>>
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal judges sought

[caleb vines]

I'm not sure if I am familiar enough with carding or the rules to be
comfortable as an agent of a Referee Agency. But I am sure that I'd rather
have the power to do something and not use it than the inverse.

I'm interested in being an Agent.


-grok

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> The office of Referee is charged with finding and penalizing
> rule-breaking, such that Agora may proceed more smoothly and that
> malfeasance may be caught early, before it endangers the game. This is a
> hefty charge. As such, I intend to create an Agency, if any acronyms remain
> available with which to do so. The Agents of this agency shall be charged
> with the issue of Cards on behalf of the Office of the Referee.
>
> If you are interested in being an Agent, please let me know within the
> next few days.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Cards are a little broken

[Quazie]

I think due to ratification I still got my yellow card (bankruptcy), and G.
Still got eir red card (Dive)
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 00:15 Quazie  wrote:

> It turns out the following things are oddly true:
>
> 1 - The Prime Minister is unable to Dive.
>
> 2 - Bankruptcy does not lead to Yellow Cards.
>
> Both of these issues are due to the awarding of cards being in rules that
> are below 1.7 power, i'll be attempting to fix that shortly, please let me
> know if any other rules need their power boosted to 1.7 that I may have
> missed.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Wait, do I seriously not have a Blue Ribbon?

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> - Orange from Proposal 7850;
> - Blue from CFJ 3504;
> - Violet from earlier in this message;
> - Ultraviolet from my recent scam win;
> - and Cyan from deputising for Tailor last Thursday.

How many ribbons from one scam?  Just give yourself the damn ribbon win
and be done with it.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: grok's Favorite Player

[caleb vines]

I plan on amending after the first week or so to change some time values,
some numerical values, etc. as the market allows. This is a rough copy.
I'll put the grammatical note in the ol' steel trap.

also, 1 shiny is a lot of money to me. It's infinity percent more money
than I have now, at least.

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> I like this recent spat of Trust Token actions. I was intending on
> trying to repeal them, but we'll see if these agencies add some activity
> to them first.
>
>
> On 05/22/17 09:53, caleb vines wrote:
> > I intend to establish the following Agency in 24 hours:
> >
> > Name: grok's Favorite Player (gFP)
> >
> > Powers:
> > 1) gFP has a single Name switch. gFP's Name switch can only be flipped
> > by the Director of gFP. The legal values for the Name switch are the
> > name of any single registered Player as defined by Rule 869.
> Probably better worded as "are the names of each registered Player as
> defined by Rule 869" since you're intending to define a set.
> > If the text of a player's name includes the words "deregister,"
> > "de-register," "announce," "intend," or any conjugation of or direct
> > variation on those words, it is not a legal value.
> >
> > 2) Once per day, if a player either writes a Kind Message about grok
> > in any public forum or gives grok 1 shiny, that player may act on
> > behalf of grok to flip gFP's Name switch to any legal position.
> Might want to make that "1 or more shinies", unless you don't like
> having a lot of money.
> >
> > 3) If a player that has never given grok a Trust Token gives grok a
> > Trust Token, that player may act on behalf of grok to flip gFP's Name
> > switch to any legal position once.
> >
> > 4) grok is the Director and Head of gFP.
> >
> >
> > -grok
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Gaelan Steele]

One could lead to the other, at least with our ruleset now. An unknown public 
forum is an excellent place to win by apathy!

I think we need a rule against deliberately hidden announcements. 

Gaelan

> On May 22, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 01:46 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>> 
>>> The following section is not a portion of the report:
>>> For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend,
>>> without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.”
>>> I execute The Sentence, substituting [word] for a word
>>> beginning with “ap” that is a synonym for “not caring.”
>> 
>> This appears to be an attempt to abuse the office of Rulekeepor for
>> personal gain, in the form of initiating a victory by Apathy for
>> Gaelan while hiding it within the voluminous reports required of eir
>> office. That the attempt may not succeed does not justify eir
>> intentions. Accordingly, I issue Gaelan a Pink Slip for abuse of the
>> office of Rulekeepor for the crime of Forgery.
> 
> For what it's worth, I slipped an intent to create a new public forum
> into the Registrar's report once, which lead to some fun gameplay for a
> bit. I can't remember whether we decided to crack down on intents
> buried in the middle of lengthy reports in response to that, but it was
> definitely ruled to have worked at the time.
> 
> Of course, intending to make a new public forum is a rather different
> sort of action than intending to win the game.
> 
> -- 
> ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 01:46 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> > The following section is not a portion of the report:
> > For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend,
> > without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.”
> > I execute The Sentence, substituting [word] for a word
> > beginning with “ap” that is a synonym for “not caring.”
> 
> This appears to be an attempt to abuse the office of Rulekeepor for
> personal gain, in the form of initiating a victory by Apathy for
> Gaelan while hiding it within the voluminous reports required of eir
> office. That the attempt may not succeed does not justify eir
> intentions. Accordingly, I issue Gaelan a Pink Slip for abuse of the
> office of Rulekeepor for the crime of Forgery.

For what it's worth, I slipped an intent to create a new public forum
into the Registrar's report once, which lead to some fun gameplay for a
bit. I can't remember whether we decided to crack down on intents
buried in the middle of lengthy reports in response to that, but it was
definitely ruled to have worked at the time.

Of course, intending to make a new public forum is a rather different
sort of action than intending to win the game.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: CFJs 3502 , 3503 judged

[Ørjan Johansen]

NtTpF

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


On May 20, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:


On Sat, 2017-05-20 at 07:04 +, Quazie wrote:

I CFJ on the following Two Linked Statements:
It is possible to create an agency such that its acronym contains at least
one integer symbol (e.g. 0-9).
It is possible to create an agency such that its acronym contains at least
one non-english alphabetic character (芋, Ñ, Æ).


These are CFJ 3502 and CFJ 3503 respectively. I assign them to o.


Arguments:
Agencies might be a limited resource of (26^3) possible existing agencies.
From my reading of rule 2461, it seems like a number is likely not possible
within an agency's Acronym, as numbers aren't words, but I wouldn't be
surprised if non-english words would allow us to get to more than
(26^3) agencies [More language bits!].


Parts of 2461:
..

a) A title, which must be exactly three words, not
   counting conjunctions, articles or prepositions.

..

  An Agency, once created, SHOULD be referred to by the acronym
  formed from its title with conjunctions, articles, and
  prepositions removed. The acronym of an agency must be unique
  and any attempt to create or amend an Agency such that two
  Agencies would have the same acronym is INEFFECTIVE.

..


I find the statement

It is possible to create an agency such that its acronym contains at 
least one integer symbol (e.g. 0-9)

TRUE.

Rule 2467 sets out the vital attributes of an Agency. Most relevantly, its 
acronym:


An Agency, once created, SHOULD be referred to by the acronym formed from its 
title with conjunctions, articles, and prepositions removed.


and its title:


a) A title, which must be exactly three words, not counting conjunctions, 
articles or prepositions.


The term “word” is not restricted by the rules, and therefore has its common 
definition. Moreover, Agoran convention permits the use of numerals as words. 
See, for example, the identifier of this call for judgement. Therefore, an 
Agency may have a numeral in its title, which, being neither a conjunction, an 
article, or a preposition, would necessarily be used to form its acronym.

It isn’t clear how a numeral should be compressed to form part of an acronym. 
It is conceivable that the first digit of a numeral should be used in place of 
the whole numeral, and this appears to be consistent with the rules regarding 
Agency names and acronyms.

Therefore, it is possible for an Agency’s acronym to contain a digit - an 
integer symbol, as defined.

I find the statement

It is possible to create an agency such that its acronym contains at 
least one non-english alphabetic character (芋, Ñ, Æ).

TRUE.

Rule 2467 requires that the title of an Agency consist of exactly three words:


a) A title, which must be exactly three words, not counting conjunctions, 
articles or prepositions.


It does not require that those words be representable using any dialect of 
English. Russian words, for example, appear perfectly acceptable, and would be 
represented most accurately in the Cyrillic alphabet. Such a word would most 
obviously be abbreviated for the Agency’s acronym by taking its first 
character, which would be a non-english alphabetic character.

It is therefore possible for the acronym of an Agency to contain at least one 
non-english alphabetic character.

-o

DIS: CFJs 3502 , 3503 judged

[Owen Jacobson]

On May 20, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Sat, 2017-05-20 at 07:04 +, Quazie wrote:
>> I CFJ on the following Two Linked Statements:
>> It is possible to create an agency such that its acronym contains at least
>> one integer symbol (e.g. 0-9).
>> It is possible to create an agency such that its acronym contains at least
>> one non-english alphabetic character (芋, Ñ, Æ).
> 
> These are CFJ 3502 and CFJ 3503 respectively. I assign them to o.
> 
>> Arguments:
>> Agencies might be a limited resource of (26^3) possible existing agencies.
>> From my reading of rule 2461, it seems like a number is likely not possible
>> within an agency's Acronym, as numbers aren't words, but I wouldn't be
>> surprised if non-english words would allow us to get to more than
>> (26^3) agencies [More language bits!].
>> 
>> 
>> Parts of 2461:
>> ..
>> 
>> a) A title, which must be exactly three words, not
>>counting conjunctions, articles or prepositions.
>> 
>> ..
>> 
>>   An Agency, once created, SHOULD be referred to by the acronym
>>   formed from its title with conjunctions, articles, and
>>   prepositions removed. The acronym of an agency must be unique
>>   and any attempt to create or amend an Agency such that two
>>   Agencies would have the same acronym is INEFFECTIVE.
>> 
>> ..

I find the statement

It is possible to create an agency such that its acronym contains at 
least one integer symbol (e.g. 0-9)

TRUE.

Rule 2467 sets out the vital attributes of an Agency. Most relevantly, its 
acronym:

> An Agency, once created, SHOULD be referred to by the acronym formed from its 
> title with conjunctions, articles, and prepositions removed.

and its title:

> a) A title, which must be exactly three words, not counting conjunctions, 
> articles or prepositions.

The term “word” is not restricted by the rules, and therefore has its common 
definition. Moreover, Agoran convention permits the use of numerals as words. 
See, for example, the identifier of this call for judgement. Therefore, an 
Agency may have a numeral in its title, which, being neither a conjunction, an 
article, or a preposition, would necessarily be used to form its acronym.

It isn’t clear how a numeral should be compressed to form part of an acronym. 
It is conceivable that the first digit of a numeral should be used in place of 
the whole numeral, and this appears to be consistent with the rules regarding 
Agency names and acronyms.

Therefore, it is possible for an Agency’s acronym to contain a digit - an 
integer symbol, as defined.

I find the statement

It is possible to create an agency such that its acronym contains at 
least one non-english alphabetic character (芋, Ñ, Æ).

TRUE.

Rule 2467 requires that the title of an Agency consist of exactly three words:

> a) A title, which must be exactly three words, not counting conjunctions, 
> articles or prepositions.

It does not require that those words be representable using any dialect of 
English. Russian words, for example, appear perfectly acceptable, and would be 
represented most accurately in the Cyrillic alphabet. Such a word would most 
obviously be abbreviated for the Agency’s acronym by taking its first 
character, which would be a non-english alphabetic character.

It is therefore possible for the acronym of an Agency to contain at least one 
non-english alphabetic character.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3482 found FALSE.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 22, 2017, at 2:58 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 22 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> Oy. What a hash I’ve made, all by failing to search for a single term.
> 
> Yah, that rule has two fairly buried definitions; the "secured" definition
> is also pretty hidden if you ask me.

I’ve had to look up “secured” a couple of times, and I always do it through 
cmd-F.

On the upside, that got me a ribbon!

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3495 judged TRUE

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> We can address it in two parts:
> 
> 1. A non-player can hold an office.
> 
> 2. A non-player can judge judgements.
> 
> The first is trivially true. Rule 1006 sets out the requirements of an 
> Officeholder:
>
> > Officeholder is an office switch traked by the ADoP, with possible values 
> > of any person or "vacant”.
>
> As any person can hold an office, it is trivially the case that a non-player 
> person can hold an office.

Er, what about this clause in R1006:
  If the holder of an office is ever not a player, it becomes vacant.

Since a non-player CANNOT hold office for any positive length of time
(it becomes vacant instantly), a non-player CANNOT actually hold office.

This may hinge on the definition of "hold".  The switch CAN, in theory
take on the value of a non-player, but that value isn't held for any
length of time if it does.

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3482 found FALSE.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> No rule defines an “Instrument.” 
R1688 defines "Instrument" explicitly:  "An Instrument is an entity with 
positive 
Power."

> Therefore, it cannot fall under the clause allowing Rules to have non-zero 
> Power. 
No, it falls under the clause of R1688 saying entities (including possibly
repealed rules) with non-zero power are instruments.

> Therefore, I find the statement FALSE. Repealed Rule 2469 is an instrument, 
> but its Power is zero, not three.
This is in contradiction with the rules-definition of instrument.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

It does. Note the date of the report and the date of the Card.

-o

> On May 22, 2017, at 1:59 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> I take it the pink slip makes next week's report?
> 
> 
> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 22:56 Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> As Referee, I believe there are no outstanding rules violations in the
> preceding Agoran week, for which a Card has not already been issued. I
> publish the following report:
> 
> Referee's Weekly Report
> 
> Date of this report: Sun, 21 May 2017
> Date of last report: Sun, 14 May 2017
> 
> Recent events (all times UTC)
> 
> - previous report -
> - time of last report -
> Mon, 16 May 2017 03:50:10  o issued a Green Card to Publius
> Scribonius Scholasticus for Tardiness.
> Sat, 20 May 2017 04:51:32  o issued a Green Card to Publius
> Scribonius Scholasticus for Ambiguity.
> 
> 
> Green Cards:
> 
> Player  By  On Reason
> 
> P.S.S.[1]   o   May 16, 2017   Tardiness
> P.S.S.[1]   o   May 20, 2017   Ambiguity
> 
> [1] Named, in full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 
> 
> Yellow Cards:
> 
> Player   By  Until  Reason   Apology Words
> --
> Quazie   o  (Apr 26, 2017)  Bankruptcy
> o天火狐  (Apr 22, 2017)  Tardiness
> 
> Dates in (parentheses) indicate a completed apology.
> 
> 
> Red Cards: None
> 
> 
> Pink Slips: None
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

[Quazie]

I take it the pink slip makes next week's report?


On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 22:56 Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> As Referee, I believe there are no outstanding rules violations in the
> preceding Agoran week, for which a Card has not already been issued. I
> publish the following report:
>
> Referee's Weekly Report
>
> Date of this report: Sun, 21 May 2017
> Date of last report: Sun, 14 May 2017
>
> Recent events (all times UTC)
>
> - previous report -
> - time of last report -
> Mon, 16 May 2017 03:50:10  o issued a Green Card to Publius
> Scribonius Scholasticus for Tardiness.
> Sat, 20 May 2017 04:51:32  o issued a Green Card to Publius
> Scribonius Scholasticus for Ambiguity.
>
>
> Green Cards:
>
> Player  By  On Reason
> 
> P.S.S.[1]   o   May 16, 2017   Tardiness
> P.S.S.[1]   o   May 20, 2017   Ambiguity
>
> [1] Named, in full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>
> Yellow Cards:
>
> Player   By  Until  Reason   Apology Words
> --
> Quazie   o  (Apr 26, 2017)  Bankruptcy
> o天火狐  (Apr 22, 2017)  Tardiness
>
> Dates in (parentheses) indicate a completed apology.
>
>
> Red Cards: None
>
>
> Pink Slips: None
>
>