Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Josh T  wrote:
>> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>> document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>> existence.
> So no organization can define and issue assets, for example?
No, although they're free to pretend they can for their own internal
purposes. I'm waiting for contracts to come back in full. I'm actually
planning to bring them back myself, after this and regulations, unless
someone beats me too it. I have ideas on how to make them work with
organizations and agencies.
>
>> If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of
>> entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity
>> outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside
>> that class (except for Agora, in which case any player CAN transfer or
>> destroy it without objection).
> How is this different from "An asset's backing document may forbid its
> ownership from a class of entities, but it CANNOT forbid Agora from owning
> that asset. Any action done which would result in an entity gaining an asset
> which it is forbidden to own is IMPOSSIBLE. If an asset is owned by an
> entity which is forbidden from owning that asset, the asset is destroyed. If
> Agora owns an asset, any player CAN transfer or destroy it without
> objection" (adopting this phrasing may require rewording some later parts so
> that they still work, but for the purpose of this question, that is
> irrelevant).
>
> PS: I think the default should be that an asset is transferable only via a
> mechanism specified in the backing document. I probably would support a rule
> which gives the record-keeper of assets to destroy abandoned Agora-owned
> assets without objection.
I think assets should be transferable by default. That will come up
more often, and the backing document can override it anyway.
>> An organization's charter CAN specify whether or not that organization is
>> willing receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, an organization
>> CANNOT be given assets its charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
> This seems ambiguous. A charter which says nothing about assets neither
> specifies if it is willing or unwilling to receive them, so would not fall
> under either sentence.
> Say if a hypothetical organization says something like "At the beginning of
> each Agoran month, this organization distributes as many of its Shinies
> evenly to each member, with the organization holding the remainder," but
> doesn't explicitly say that it can receive Shinies, where does it stand?
Good catch. I'll probably add something about whether the charter
appears to anticipate being given shinies, unless that sounds to
vague.
> Does this change if the backing document is a rule with higher power than
> the one for organizations?
It shouldn't, unless that rule is more powerful than this one and
overrides it. I may may make this rule have a power of 3.0, just in
case.
>
>> [The] entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
>> their owners.
> Do you perhaps mean all extant or existent instances of that class, or we
> can't have a theoretically unbounded asset class? (Example: "A floorb is an
> asset with a name switch which is valid with any string. Any player who has
> never previously made a floorb may create a new floorb and set its name
> switch" might be impossible to record.)
The rules can require anyone to do anything. This doesn't raise any
new concerns that I can see.
>> A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT
>> be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
> Is this for ease of access in terms of terminology?
That and standardization.
>> Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance", without any currency modifiers,
>> [...]
> I think you need a comma "ambiguity".
Fixed.
>
> I finally managed to have time to look at this proposal. Seems good so far;
> I would like to hear your thoughts about my remarks / concerns.
>
> 天火狐
Thanks, and I appreciate the help.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> On 05/23/2017 11:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current
>> Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would
>> have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have
>> trouble convincing people to implement another system once we have one
>> up and running, despite the possible advantages.
>
> Any specific concerns? You've thought about this more, so I'm probably being
> naive.
They're not very specific. I just feel like the version I'm working
from (which was mostly borrowed from a past version in the ruleset)
has considered some possibilities more, such as contract based assets.
Whenever someone tries to suggest a "minimal" implementation, I get
concerned it will be underspecified. That's no comment on your
proposal writing ability, just on the difficulty of making something
like this work. Look, for instance, at all the trouble we had with
rule re-enactment.
>>
>> I do agree about the
>> lost and found department though. If someone writes new text for "you
>> can't take it with you" that fits with assets, I'd be more than happy
>> to include it (with appropriate credit of course).
>
> I'd be willing to pick it up if no one else, but right now I'm prioritizing
> working on a win condition and a few smaller adjustments.
>>
>> Here's my current draft of Assets v4:
>
> Glad to see you're still working on this, kudos!
>
> Here's some comments (and some proof-reading, assuming the formating works
> out).
>>
>> {{Title: Assets v4
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-authors: o, nichdel
>>
>> Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:
>>
>>An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>>document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>>existence.
>>
>>Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
>>lack an owner, it is owned by *~the~* Agora. If
>>an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
>>of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
>>to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
>>by an entity outside that class (except for Agora,
>>in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it
>>without objection).
>
> Backing documents should be able to over-ride this CAN, right? Agora owns
> estates by default, and it seems undesirable to allow people to conspire to
> transfer or destroy them.
They probably should, but keep in mind this is without objection. You
can already do this by ratification without objection or a proposal,
this just makes it simpler.
>>
>>Unless modified by an *assets* backing document, ownership of an asset
>> is
>>restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations. An organization's
>> charter
>>CAN specify whether or not that organization is willing *^to^* receive
>> assets or a
>>
>>class of assets. Generally, an organization CANNOT be given assets its
>>charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
>>
>>The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
>>defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  That
>>entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
>>and their owners.  This portion of that entity's report is
>>self-ratifying.
>>
>>An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
>>announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.
>>To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's
>>possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it
>>from that entity's possession.
>>
>>An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed) by its owner to
>> another
>>entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
>>document.  A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
>>document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
>>
>>A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
>>document.  Instances of a currency with the same owner are
>>fungible.
>>
>>The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x
>> that
>>entity possesses. If a rule or proposal attempts to increase or
>> decrease the
>>balance of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then
>> the
>>currency is created or destroyed. Where it resolves ambiguity
>> "Balance",
>>without any currency modifiers, refers to an entity's balance of
>> whichever
>>currency is designated as "Agora's official currency", if there is one.
>>
>>Assets are always public. [To provide for private contract based assets
>> later]
>>
>> Change the rule "Economics" to read in full:
>>
>>Shinies (sg. shiny) are a liquid currency, and the official currency of
>> Agora.
>>They may be owned by Agora, any player, or any organization. The
>> Secretary is
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Josh T]

> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing 
> document),
and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence.
So no organization can define and issue assets, for example?

> If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of
entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity
outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside
that class (except for Agora, in which case any player CAN transfer or
destroy it without objection).
How is this different from "An asset's backing document may forbid its
ownership from a class of entities, but it CANNOT forbid Agora from owning
that asset. Any action done which would result in an entity gaining an
asset which it is forbidden to own is IMPOSSIBLE. If an asset is owned by
an entity which is forbidden from owning that asset, the asset is
destroyed. If Agora owns an asset, any player CAN transfer or destroy it
without objection" (adopting this phrasing may require rewording some later
parts so that they still work, but for the purpose of this question, that
is irrelevant).

PS: I think the default should be that an asset is transferable only via a
mechanism specified in the backing document. I probably would support a
rule which gives the record-keeper of assets to destroy abandoned
Agora-owned assets without objection.

> An organization's charter CAN specify whether or not that organization is
willing receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, an organization
CANNOT be given assets its charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
This seems ambiguous. A charter which says nothing about assets neither
specifies if it is willing or unwilling to receive them, so would not fall
under either sentence.

Say if a hypothetical organization says something like "At the beginning of
each Agoran month, this organization distributes as many of its Shinies
evenly to each member, with the organization holding the remainder," but
doesn't explicitly say that it can receive Shinies, where does it stand?

Does this change if the backing document is a rule with higher power than
the one for organizations?

> [The] entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
their owners.
Do you perhaps mean all extant or existent instances of that class, or we
can't have a theoretically unbounded asset class? (Example: "A floorb is an
asset with a name switch which is valid with any string. Any player who has
never previously made a floorb may create a new floorb and set its name
switch" might be impossible to record.)

> A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT
be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
Is this for ease of access in terms of terminology?

> Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance", without any currency modifiers,
[...]
I think you need a comma "ambiguity".

I finally managed to have time to look at this proposal. Seems good so far;
I would like to hear your thoughts about my remarks / concerns.

天火狐

On 24 May 2017 at 00:01, Aris Merchant 
wrote:

> I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current
> Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would
> have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have
> trouble convincing people to implement another system once we have one
> up and running, despite the possible advantages. I do agree about the
> lost and found department though. If someone writes new text for "you
> can't take it with you" that fits with assets, I'd be more than happy
> to include it (with appropriate credit of course).
>
> Here's my current draft of Assets v4:
>
> {{Title: Assets v4
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: o, nichdel
>
> Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:
>
>   An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>   document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>   existence.
>
>   Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
>   lack an owner, it is owned by the Agora.  If
>   an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
>   of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
>   to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
>   by an entity outside that class (except for Agora,
>   in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it
>   without objection).
>
>   Unless modified by an assets backing document, ownership of an asset is
>   restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations. An organization's
> charter
>   CAN specify whether or not that organization is willing receive assets
> or a
>   class of assets. Generally, an organization CANNOT be given assets its
>   charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
>
>   The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
>   defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  That
>   entity's report includes a 

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

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 23, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ?  Eir 
> conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the 
> summoned judge.

Hang on, I don’t think that matters. The pledges, reproduced here for 
convenience, were

CuddleBeam's:

> I pledge to grant one Shiny (if I have at least one and I am capable of such 
> a transfer) to the Judge of the CFJ summoned via the content above as long as 
> rules relevant to CFJs haven't changed since I have announced this pledge and 
> the barring attempt above had barred someone.

Yours:

> If CuddleBeam has no Shinies, and I am the judge summoned to judge CFJ 3505, 
> and the conditional in the pledge would mean CuddleBeam has to pay me a 
> shiney if e has one, then I transfer one Shiny to CuddleBeam so that they 
> will transfer it back to me (so they don't break eir pledge).

CuddleBeam’s syntax is ambiguous, which I’m sure is going to come back to haunt 
someone, but I read eir pledge as if it were

{{{

I pledge that, if

1. rules relevant to CFJs haven't changed since I have announced this pledge, 
and
2. the barring attempt above had barred someone, and
3. I have at least one and I am capable of such a transfer

then

* I will pay 1 shiny to whatever judge is summoned via this CFJ.
}}}

In turn, I read your action, in the same fomat, as if it were

{{{
If

1. CuddleBeam has no Shinies, and
2. I am the judge summoned to judge CFJ 3505, and
3. CuddleBeam’s pledge compels em to pay me 1 shiny,

then

* I pay CuddleBeam 1 shiny.
}}}

The barring attempt mentioned in CuddleBeam’s pledge is this:

> I also opt to bar one person from such procedure. That person is the person 
> who would successfully become the first Judge of the Call for Judgement 
> submitted by this message.

If this barring attempt is not successful - and I don’t think it is, then the 
condition in eir pledge does not apply and e is not compelled to pay you one 1 
Shiny. Therefore, the condition in your action does not hold (clause 3 is 
false, and the clauses are joined by ands), so your action can be resolved and 
does not take place.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re the judge summoned via the attempt at 
paradoxical barring or whether you’re the judge summoned by the Arbitor’s 
assignment. It does matters whether the paradoxical barring worked - and I 
don’t think it did.

I’m off the hook!

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Article 5 invokation

[Quazie]

Has it been 30 days since e deregistered? It'd be a great registration if
it has been, one of my more recent favorites
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 20:49 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> The words spell UNDEAD - that’s probably important in some way
> > On May 23, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We at least deserve a hint. I looked briefly, but couldn't find the
> > purported 2012 occurrence.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >> That would be telling.
> >>
> >> -o
> >>
> >> On May 23, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> What is this?
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Nic Evans]

On 05/23/2017 11:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current
Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would
have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have
trouble convincing people to implement another system once we have one
up and running, despite the possible advantages.
Any specific concerns? You've thought about this more, so I'm probably 
being naive.

I do agree about the
lost and found department though. If someone writes new text for "you
can't take it with you" that fits with assets, I'd be more than happy
to include it (with appropriate credit of course).
I'd be willing to pick it up if no one else, but right now I'm 
prioritizing working on a win condition and a few smaller adjustments.

Here's my current draft of Assets v4:

Glad to see you're still working on this, kudos!

Here's some comments (and some proof-reading, assuming the formating 
works out).

{{Title: Assets v4
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: o, nichdel

Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:

   An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
   document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
   existence.

   Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
   lack an owner, it is owned by *~the~* Agora. If
   an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
   of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
   to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
   by an entity outside that class (except for Agora,
   in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it
   without objection).
Backing documents should be able to over-ride this CAN, right? Agora 
owns estates by default, and it seems undesirable to allow people to 
conspire to transfer or destroy them.

   Unless modified by an *assets* backing document, ownership of an asset is
   restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations. An organization's charter
   CAN specify whether or not that organization is willing *^to^* receive 
assets or a
   class of assets. Generally, an organization CANNOT be given assets its
   charter states that it is unwilling to receive.

   The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
   defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  That
   entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
   and their owners.  This portion of that entity's report is
   self-ratifying.

   An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
   announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.
   To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's
   possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it
   from that entity's possession.

   An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed) by its owner to another
   entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
   document.  A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
   document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.

   A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
   document.  Instances of a currency with the same owner are
   fungible.

   The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x that
   entity possesses. If a rule or proposal attempts to increase or decrease the
   balance of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
   currency is created or destroyed. Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance",
   without any currency modifiers, refers to an entity's balance of whichever
   currency is designated as "Agora's official currency", if there is one.

   Assets are always public. [To provide for private contract based assets 
later]

Change the rule "Economics" to read in full:

   Shinies (sg. shiny) are a liquid currency, and the official currency of 
Agora.
   They may be owned by Agora, any player, or any organization. The Secretary is
   the recordkeepor for Shinies.

   The Secretary CAN cause Agora to pay any player or organization by
   announcement if doing so is specified by a rule.

   Shinies cannot be destroyed, except as allowed by rules specifically
   addressing the destruction of Shinies. Any attempt to destroy Shinies instead
   transfers them to Agora.
I think this paragraph might allow anyone to 'attempt to destroy someone 
else's shinies', and therefore transfer them to Agora.

Amend Rule 2459, Organizations, by adding as a paragraph at the end:

   A member of an Organization can perform any action the rules authorize that
   Organization to perform, if the Organization's charter states that doing so
   is Appropriate.

For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system continue
to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new shinies
are created to replace them.


Amend the rule "The Surveyor" to have the folowing text:

   The Surveyor 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Aris Merchant]

I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current
Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would
have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have
trouble convincing people to implement another system once we have one
up and running, despite the possible advantages. I do agree about the
lost and found department though. If someone writes new text for "you
can't take it with you" that fits with assets, I'd be more than happy
to include it (with appropriate credit of course).

Here's my current draft of Assets v4:

{{Title: Assets v4
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: o, nichdel

Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:

  An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
  document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
  existence.

  Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
  lack an owner, it is owned by the Agora.  If
  an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
  of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
  to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
  by an entity outside that class (except for Agora,
  in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it
  without objection).

  Unless modified by an assets backing document, ownership of an asset is
  restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations. An organization's charter
  CAN specify whether or not that organization is willing receive assets or a
  class of assets. Generally, an organization CANNOT be given assets its
  charter states that it is unwilling to receive.

  The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
  defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  That
  entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
  and their owners.  This portion of that entity's report is
  self-ratifying.

  An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
  announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.
  To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's
  possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it
  from that entity's possession.

  An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed) by its owner to another
  entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
  document.  A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
  document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.

  A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
  document.  Instances of a currency with the same owner are
  fungible.

  The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x that
  entity possesses. If a rule or proposal attempts to increase or decrease the
  balance of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
  currency is created or destroyed. Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance",
  without any currency modifiers, refers to an entity's balance of whichever
  currency is designated as "Agora's official currency", if there is one.

  Assets are always public. [To provide for private contract based assets later]

Change the rule "Economics" to read in full:

  Shinies (sg. shiny) are a liquid currency, and the official currency of Agora.
  They may be owned by Agora, any player, or any organization. The Secretary is
  the recordkeepor for Shinies.

  The Secretary CAN cause Agora to pay any player or organization by
  announcement if doing so is specified by a rule.

  Shinies cannot be destroyed, except as allowed by rules specifically
  addressing the destruction of Shinies. Any attempt to destroy Shinies instead
  transfers them to Agora.

Amend Rule 2459, Organizations, by adding as a paragraph at the end:

  A member of an Organization can perform any action the rules authorize that
  Organization to perform, if the Organization's charter states that doing so
  is Appropriate.

For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system continue
to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new shinies
are created to replace them.


Amend the rule "The Surveyor" to have the folowing text:

  The Surveyor is an office, and the recordkeepor of estates.

Amend the rule "Estates" to have the following text:

  An Estate is a type of liquid asset, which can be owned by players,
  orginizations, and Agora. The following changes are secured:
  creating, modifying, or destroying an Estate; and causing an
  entity to become an Estate or cease to be an Estate.

  Estates cannot be destroyed, except as allowed by rules specifically
  addressing the destruction of Estates. Any attempt to destroy an
Estate instead
  transfers it to Agora.

Amend the rule "Estate Auctions" by changing the paragraph beginning "During
an auction..." to read "During an auction, any player or organization may bid
any number of Shinies by announcement." and removing the break between that
and the nex

DIS: Re: BUS: Prime Minister Takes a Dive... well, probably not

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 23, 2017, at 8:21 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> I issue the Cabinet Order of Dive:
> {{{
>  I award myself a Green Card for attempting a known IMPOSSIBLE action 
> (This very attempt at issuing the Cabinet Order: Dive).
> }}}
> 
> The above action is impossible, as issuing cards is secured at Power 1.7, and 
> Executive orders is a Power 1 rule.

Initial opinion:

> I'm fairly certain I did not succeed at issuing a card.

I believe you did not succeed.

> I'm pretty sure I used up my single Executive order for the week.

I believe you did. I tend to interpret the “and” in r. 2451’s “the Prime 
Minister CAN issue a Cabinet Order and perform the action(s) authorized by that 
Order” so as to mean that issuing the order is separate from performing the 
ordered action. You issued the order… but it wasn’t very effective.

> I'm unsure if I commited the crime of violating the rule `No Faking`.

I can’t see any intention to deceive here, given how clearly you indicated not 
only what you were attempting but why you were attempting it and why it likely 
doesn’t work.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[Owen Jacobson]

On May 23, 2017, at 6:57 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 12:59 -0600, Sprocklem S wrote:
>> Proposal: Ruleset Ratification
>> {{{
>> Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following
>> paragraph at the end:
>> 
>> The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting the substantive
>> aspects of the rules, as defined in Rule 2141, are self-ratifying. The
>> Rulekeepor SHALL NOT knowingly publish an SLR or FLR where the
>> self-ratifying portion is incorrect.
>> }}}
>> 
>> [I don't think making the whole thing self-ratifying would cause any
>> problems, but there's a lot in the FLR, so I limited it to just
>> rule-specific stuff.]
> 
> I'm *strongly* opposed to this. Rulekeepors sometimes make
> (unintentional) errors, and sometimes these errors are things that
> could seriously break the game. Having rules changes limited to methods
> with much more oversight (e.g. making full-Ruleset ratifications rare,
> with many players looking over the purported ruleset for loopholes and
> omissions) is much safer for Agora's ongoing existence.
> 
> Note also that we never ratify the FLR, only the SLR. This means that
> if a rule *was* misstated, we can then place an "amended by
> ratification" in the FLR to explain what happened to it, thus making
> the rule history an accurate reflection of reality. If we ratified the
> FLR, we'd also be ratifying an incorrect history of how the rule got to
> where it did.

I won’t go so far as to suggest making it a rule, for a variety of reasons, but 
it might be worth our while to build a tradition of ratifying the FLR during 
Read The Ruleset Week.

This year’s RTRW went unmarked and uncelebrated, as no players were 
meaningfully active during February.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Article 5 invokation

[Gaelan Steele]

The words spell UNDEAD - that’s probably important in some way
> On May 23, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> We at least deserve a hint. I looked briefly, but couldn't find the
> purported 2012 occurrence.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> That would be telling.
>> 
>> -o
>> 
>> On May 23, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> What is this?



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3471-3472

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 23, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> CFJ 3472:  白票 yields "a white paper".  This is clearly not a valid vote.
> I judge 3472 FALSE.

I’m surprised at this. I had assumed this was meant to translate as PRESENT - 
it’s an unmarked, but cast, ballot.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

[CuddleBeam]

"is that many players value being involved in a win even if

they don't win themselves, and it's not uncommon to have some subset of
players who will therefore intentionally sabotage their own victory
chances to help somebody else's."


Very much this.


There could also be people who get a massive boner from finding out
what other people's wincon is and then harass them by thwarting them
trying to achieve the wincon.


The person harassed won't be able to publicly announce that they're
being harassed unless they surrender the secrecy of their wincon,
which depending on how much they've invested into that wincon, they
might not do and just endure the bullying.


...Until they perhaps accuse them much later of being a harasser, but
even then, the bully can just lie that their harassment was entirely
unintentional because they didn't know that the victim had that secret
wincon in the first place, and proving that the bully actually knew
about the secret wincon would be extremely difficult if not
impossible, depending on the circumstances.


This is obviously pretty pessimistic/paranoid, but it could
potentially happen, and if it does, that player is premium fucked.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Article 5 invokation

[Aris Merchant]

We at least deserve a hint. I looked briefly, but couldn't find the
purported 2012 occurrence.

-Aris

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> That would be telling.
>
> -o
>
> On May 23, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>
> What is this?

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup on Aisle 869

[Gaelan Steele]

Remind me not to sign the message where I resolve this.

Gaelan
> On May 23, 2017, at 8:27 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On May 23, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Gaelan Steele > > wrote:
>> 
>> Fast Resolution doesn’t work if there are lots of non-voting players sitting 
>> around.
>> 
>> For each player below, I intend to deregister them without objection:
>> 
>> aranea
>> Charles
>> Henri
>> omd
>> Sci_Guy12
>> Tekneek
>> The Warrigal
>> Yally
>> 
>> Gaelan
> 
> I object to the deregistration of omd and to the deregistration of Gaelan.
> 
> -o
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On May 23, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Aris Merchant 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a
>> rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self
>> ratify unless the rules say they do, so I don't think there was any
>> real risk.
>
> Then I need to fix the rule defining the Surveyor’s report, at minimum. I 
> might as well review all of the reporting rules and make sure the offices 
> that should ratify actually do.
>
> I had been assuming that all reports self-ratify, but, of course, you’re 
> right. This means I may have incorrectly rejected some claims of error 
> recently…
>
> -o
>
Rule 2162 states that rules regarding switches self-ratify by default.
The Surveyor’s report is set up such that it falls within this rule.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Bounty

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:

If Quazie did not successfully pay themselves a shiny, I pay Quazie a 
shiny and identify myself as the last person to pay them a shiny.


Given the conditionalness, I'm not sure that is "clearly". :P

Greetings,
Ørjan.


On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 20:00 Nic Evans mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I pledge to pay 2 shinies to the first person who can clearly and
correctly identify the last person to pay Quazie a shiny, as long as e
does so by the end of tomorrow.

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

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 23, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a
> rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self
> ratify unless the rules say they do, so I don't think there was any
> real risk.

Then I need to fix the rule defining the Surveyor’s report, at minimum. I might 
as well review all of the reporting rules and make sure the offices that should 
ratify actually do.

I had been assuming that all reports self-ratify, but, of course, you’re right. 
This means I may have incorrectly rejected some claims of error recently…

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

[Gaelan Steele]

I feel like limiting it to one mechanic makes it less interesting—something 
like what you propose would just make all shiny moves suspicious, as everyone 
would have a shiny-related goal of some sort. I’m starting to reconsider the 
idea—it may not work as well as I imagined it would.

Still, I think we need some reform on the topic of winning. Currently there 
isn’t really any competition in the game—people win out of the blue; there is 
no chance to realize that someone is about to win and prevent that, nor any 
reason to prevent a win. I think we need one single method of victory, with a 
mechanic that causes everybody but the winner to lose their progress towards a 
win when one is achieved.

Some ideas:
An old-fashioned point system
A global “current goal.” When some achieves the goal, they pick a new goal 
(without 3 objections to avoid “be Gaelan” as a goal; probably best to disallow 
earning two goals in a row). First person to have achieved 5-ish goals wins, 
and everyone starts from 0 goals achieved.
Gaelan
> On May 23, 2017, at 8:02 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 24 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 19:36 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>> I feel that this would create some interesting gameplay where we
>>> would be second-guessing everybody’s moves, wondering if they are
>>> part of a win condition.
>> 
>> What's to prevent players just not trying to hide their motives? In
>> general, talking to other people about your aims benefits you, because
>> they can then offer to be bribed to help achieve them.
>> 
>> It might potentially work if this is a victory condition that can only
>> be achieved once ever (in which case it should probably be in an
>> ephemeral rule),
> 
> The whole rule doesn't have to be ephemeral - the game state surrounding
> the wins can be ephemeral.  If you limit it to a set of wins having to do
> with a certain type of gameplay (e.g. shiny holdings, or this works 
> well with card decks and hands), and reset all of that category when
> someone wins, you'll at least have incentive to keep others from winning
> so as not to remove your own progress.
> 
> There's always an issue with people who don't care about that particular
> game at all, but that's true with any win condition.
> 
> That also helps constrain the randomness; if all the win options have to
> do with one category of thing, it's more level to start then if one person
> has to sneak words in proposals (and is dependent on the obviousness of the
> word) while one person just has to make normal-looking shiny moves.
> 
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

DIS: Re: BUS: Bounty

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 24 May 2017, Quazie wrote:


Correction:

I pay myself 1 Shiny.

I identify myself as the last person to pay me a Shiny.


Heh doing that was my first thought too but I'm not a player and I have no 
Shinies.


However, I'm afraid you're the only player with Shinies who _cannot_ do 
this - payments must be to another player.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Article 5 invokation

[Owen Jacobson]

That would be telling.

-o

> On May 23, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> What is this?
> 
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Kerim Aydin  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Unicorn  NalgeneDissolution
> Endemic  Anemocrat  Diaspora
> 
> Usual forum please.
> 
> Last invoked: 2012 (all voting debts 0).
> 
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 22, 2017, at 9:53 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> 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

Fortunately, “ire” is not the deciding factor. A red card is appropriate:

> for serious and deliberate violations of the rules

and

> for a person who appears to be part of an attempt in bad faith to swarm Agora 
> and outpower the regular players in voting strength.

Neither appears to be the case, here. We can discard the “swarm” case entirely, 
for reasons I hope are obvious, and deal only with the “serious and deliberate 
violations of the rules” case.

R. 2152 (“Mother, May I?”) and r. 2125 (“Regulation Regulations”) together 
spell out what actions are considered to violate the rules. In the latter:

> The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.

So no actions other than those proscribed can possibly merit a Red Card. In the 
former:

> CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the described 
> action are unsuccessful.
> 
> MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing the described 
> action violates the rule in question.
> 
> NEED NOT, OPTIONAL: Failing to perform the described action does not violate 
> the rules.
> 
> SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the described action, 
> the full implications of performing it should be understood and carefully 
> weighed.
> 
> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
> 
> MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the rules.
> 
> MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the described action 
> violates the rule in question.
> 
> SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform the described 
> action, the full implications of failing to perform it should (in the 
> ordinary-language sense) be understood and carefully weighed.

So only actions that contravene a MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, or 
PROHIBITED clause, or an inaction contrary to a MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, or 
MANDATORY clause can violate the rules. NEED NOT, OPTIONAL, and MAY clauses can 
moderate that, but that still limits our search space.

I believe that Gaelan did not violate any such clause in the rules.

The closest clause I can find is in r. 2143 (“Official Reports and Duties”), 
where the clause

> A person SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or misleading while 
> performing an official duty, or within a document purporting to be part of 
> any person or office's weekly or monthly report.

appears. However, nothing was inaccurate or misleading about the intention 
buried in the FLR: it accurately and completely described an action Gaelan 
intended to take. It was made inappropriately difficult to find, but it was not 
false and it’s very hard to interpret the intention other than in the plainest 
way.

Separately, Gaelan has alleged that I deserve a Card for violating the rules. I 
think e’s got a cogent argument. From r. 2426 (“Cards”):

> A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless:
> * the reason is appropriate for the type of Card being issued;

This is a SHALL NOT, so violating it is a violation of the rules. If I 
inappropriately gave Gaelan a Pink Slip, then I deserve a card appropriate to 
breaking the rules. I hope that I’ve presented a defence that my actions were 
not “serious and deliberate,” and that that card should be a Yellow Card, but I 
cannot avoid the accusation entirely until the CFJ is settled.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 24 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 19:36 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > I feel that this would create some interesting gameplay where we
> > would be second-guessing everybody’s moves, wondering if they are
> > part of a win condition.
> 
> What's to prevent players just not trying to hide their motives? In
> general, talking to other people about your aims benefits you, because
> they can then offer to be bribed to help achieve them.
> 
> It might potentially work if this is a victory condition that can only
> be achieved once ever (in which case it should probably be in an
> ephemeral rule),

The whole rule doesn't have to be ephemeral - the game state surrounding
the wins can be ephemeral.  If you limit it to a set of wins having to do
with a certain type of gameplay (e.g. shiny holdings, or this works 
well with card decks and hands), and reset all of that category when
someone wins, you'll at least have incentive to keep others from winning
so as not to remove your own progress.

There's always an issue with people who don't care about that particular
game at all, but that's true with any win condition.

That also helps constrain the randomness; if all the win options have to
do with one category of thing, it's more level to start then if one person
has to sneak words in proposals (and is dependent on the obviousness of the
word) while one person just has to make normal-looking shiny moves.

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

[Gaelan Steele]

Was my intent discovered? My recollection was that I gave myself away; someone 
killed all attempts at victory by apathy in response to the Herald’s attempt. 
That killed mine as well, presumably by accident, so I responded with a “darn 
it all.” I’m unsure of any discovery before I mentioned it.

Gaelan
> On May 23, 2017, at 7:53 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On May 22, 2017, at 9:30 PM, 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.
> 
> The power so misused is, in fact, the power to publish that specific report.
> 
> First, long documents that are not reports are regularly scrutinized in 
> detail for exactly this sort of hidden gotcha. Long non-report documents are 
> exceptions, and they make people take notice. It had to be a long document 
> whose presence would be unsurprising, and the only such documents that happen 
> with any regularity are reports. Those pass with much less scrutiny, under 
> most circumstances. (Perhaps we should be more skeptical of reports, but 
> that’s a separate discussion.)
> 
> Second, a short report would have shown up your attempt fairly easily. So 
> would a less prose-heavy report. There aren’t many long, prose-structured 
> reports in the game[0], and the FLR is longer than any other report by a very 
> large factor. Both its length and its prose-heavy structure are uniquely 
> suited to hiding mid-report actions and announcements.
> 
> Third, only the Rulekeepor can publish that report without arousing 
> suspicion. Had any other player published the Full Logical Ruleset to a 
> public forum, it would not be a report. Furthermore, it would be an action so 
> obviously suspicious that I doubt you would have believed you could pull it 
> off.
> 
> Because your attempt likely could not have worked even as well as it did with 
> any other report, I believe that you were specifically abusing the 
> Rulekeepor’s power to publish the Full Logical Ruleset.
> 
> Now, you’re not on trial, and this (intentionally) wasn’t part of my 
> investigation. I’m very interested in the outcome of the CFJ on this subject, 
> because I can absolutely see your point of view, as well. I’ll happily 
> acknowledge that my argument is weakened by the fact that your intent was 
> discovered the same day that you published it. By Agoran standards, that’s 
> already quite fast; you could well argue that you simply used a report you 
> had the ability to publish, and that there isn’t anything special about that 
> report or that office.
> 
> -o
> 
> [0] The Secretary’s monthly report, the Superintendent’s report, and, soon, 
> the Surveyor’s report are the only other prose-heavy reports I can think of.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Report Event History Ordering

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 22, 2017, at 7:55 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> 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?

Surveying the other reports, those that have event lists tend to have them 
oldest-first. However, no rule requires it; if you think the report reads more 
clearly newest-first, try it and see.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

[Kerim Aydin]

Ah, when you said "players select a random item" I thought you meant random
in the sense of arbitrary. :)

Our last implementation of secret wins:  secretly specify a different player,
and a win method.  If they win by that method, you win instead!

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Harder than that. My idea was that you'd get a random goal, not a choice. 
> My idea was publishing a salted hash identifying a (near) future Bitcoin 
> block, then use the hash of the bitcoin block to determine your goal. When
> you reach the goal, you publish the block you used (and the salt), allowing
> everyone to verify that you picked a goal randomly. 
> 
> > On May 23, 2017, at 7:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Simple implementation:
> > 
> > To select a goal, you write a clear sentence stating your goal,
> > add a little salt to the sentence, and hash it. Publish the hash.
> > A recordkeepor just keeps a list of everyone's hash and submission
> > date.  When you reach the goal, publish your original sentence to
> > prove it.
> > 
> >> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> I had an interesting idea for a win condition: players privately select a 
> >> random item from a pre-defined set of goals; when they reach that goal, 
> >> they win.
> >> There would be some complex setup involved in proving that you selected a 
> >> goal randomly without revealing your selection. I have a cryptographic 
> >> solution (and,
> >> if this proposal becomes a reality, will probably provide a tool to handle 
> >> all of the complexity for you and give you a message to copypaste into the 
> >> PF), and
> >> I imagine that some of the dice services may provide a method to do this 
> >> as well. The rule would probably simply specify that the player would be 
> >> responsible
> >> for proving this. Alternatively, we could go the old-fashioned method and 
> >> let the speaker track everyone’s goals.
> >> I feel that this would create some interesting gameplay where we would be 
> >> second-guessing everybody’s moves, wondering if they are part of a win 
> >> condition.
> >> 
> >> Some ideas for goals (I feel that an optimal goal for this mechanic 
> >> requires making visible progress publicly (so that people may become 
> >> suspicions that the
> >> player is going for a certain goal) but could also conceivably be normal 
> >> gameplay.)
> >> 1. Hold some number of shinies
> >> 2. Transfer some amount of shinies per day for some period of time
> >> 3. Sneak a certain (random from some large list) word into n proposals
> >> 4. Hold a certain (random) set of estates [could generalize to 
> >> non-fungible assets]
> >> 5. Hold a certain set of ribbons (?)
> >> 
> >> Gaelan
> >> 
> >> 
>

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

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 22, 2017, at 9:30 PM, 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.

The power so misused is, in fact, the power to publish that specific report.

First, long documents that are not reports are regularly scrutinized in detail 
for exactly this sort of hidden gotcha. Long non-report documents are 
exceptions, and they make people take notice. It had to be a long document 
whose presence would be unsurprising, and the only such documents that happen 
with any regularity are reports. Those pass with much less scrutiny, under most 
circumstances. (Perhaps we should be more skeptical of reports, but that’s a 
separate discussion.)

Second, a short report would have shown up your attempt fairly easily. So would 
a less prose-heavy report. There aren’t many long, prose-structured reports in 
the game[0], and the FLR is longer than any other report by a very large 
factor. Both its length and its prose-heavy structure are uniquely suited to 
hiding mid-report actions and announcements.

Third, only the Rulekeepor can publish that report without arousing suspicion. 
Had any other player published the Full Logical Ruleset to a public forum, it 
would not be a report. Furthermore, it would be an action so obviously 
suspicious that I doubt you would have believed you could pull it off.

Because your attempt likely could not have worked even as well as it did with 
any other report, I believe that you were specifically abusing the Rulekeepor’s 
power to publish the Full Logical Ruleset.

Now, you’re not on trial, and this (intentionally) wasn’t part of my 
investigation. I’m very interested in the outcome of the CFJ on this subject, 
because I can absolutely see your point of view, as well. I’ll happily 
acknowledge that my argument is weakened by the fact that your intent was 
discovered the same day that you published it. By Agoran standards, that’s 
already quite fast; you could well argue that you simply used a report you had 
the ability to publish, and that there isn’t anything special about that report 
or that office.

-o

[0] The Secretary’s monthly report, the Superintendent’s report, and, soon, the 
Surveyor’s report are the only other prose-heavy reports I can think of.


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 19:36 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I feel that this would create some interesting gameplay where we
> would be second-guessing everybody’s moves, wondering if they are
> part of a win condition.

What's to prevent players just not trying to hide their motives? In
general, talking to other people about your aims benefits you, because
they can then offer to be bribed to help achieve them.

It might potentially work if this is a victory condition that can only
be achieved once ever (in which case it should probably be in an
ephemeral rule), which would give players incentives to stop each other
so as to not lose eir own chance, although in that case, a lot is going
to come down to the random number generator. Also, experience from
BlogNomic is that many players value being involved in a win even if
they don't win themselves, and it's not uncommon to have some subset of
players who will therefore intentionally sabotage their own victory
chances to help somebody else's.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

[Gaelan Steele]

Harder than that. My idea was that you'd get a random goal, not a choice. My 
idea was publishing a salted hash identifying a (near) future Bitcoin block, 
then use the hash of the bitcoin block to determine your goal. When you reach 
the goal, you publish the block you used (and the salt), allowing everyone to 
verify that you picked a goal randomly. 

> On May 23, 2017, at 7:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple implementation:
> 
> To select a goal, you write a clear sentence stating your goal,
> add a little salt to the sentence, and hash it. Publish the hash.
> A recordkeepor just keeps a list of everyone's hash and submission
> date.  When you reach the goal, publish your original sentence to
> prove it.
> 
>> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> I had an interesting idea for a win condition: players privately select a 
>> random item from a pre-defined set of goals; when they reach that goal, they 
>> win.
>> There would be some complex setup involved in proving that you selected a 
>> goal randomly without revealing your selection. I have a cryptographic 
>> solution (and,
>> if this proposal becomes a reality, will probably provide a tool to handle 
>> all of the complexity for you and give you a message to copypaste into the 
>> PF), and
>> I imagine that some of the dice services may provide a method to do this as 
>> well. The rule would probably simply specify that the player would be 
>> responsible
>> for proving this. Alternatively, we could go the old-fashioned method and 
>> let the speaker track everyone’s goals.
>> I feel that this would create some interesting gameplay where we would be 
>> second-guessing everybody’s moves, wondering if they are part of a win 
>> condition.
>> 
>> Some ideas for goals (I feel that an optimal goal for this mechanic requires 
>> making visible progress publicly (so that people may become suspicions that 
>> the
>> player is going for a certain goal) but could also conceivably be normal 
>> gameplay.)
>> 1. Hold some number of shinies
>> 2. Transfer some amount of shinies per day for some period of time
>> 3. Sneak a certain (random from some large list) word into n proposals
>> 4. Hold a certain (random) set of estates [could generalize to non-fungible 
>> assets]
>> 5. Hold a certain set of ribbons (?)
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

[Kerim Aydin]

Simple implementation:

To select a goal, you write a clear sentence stating your goal,
add a little salt to the sentence, and hash it. Publish the hash.
A recordkeepor just keeps a list of everyone's hash and submission
date.  When you reach the goal, publish your original sentence to
prove it.

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I had an interesting idea for a win condition: players privately select a 
> random item from a pre-defined set of goals; when they reach that goal, they 
> win.
> There would be some complex setup involved in proving that you selected a 
> goal randomly without revealing your selection. I have a cryptographic 
> solution (and,
> if this proposal becomes a reality, will probably provide a tool to handle 
> all of the complexity for you and give you a message to copypaste into the 
> PF), and
> I imagine that some of the dice services may provide a method to do this as 
> well. The rule would probably simply specify that the player would be 
> responsible
> for proving this. Alternatively, we could go the old-fashioned method and let 
> the speaker track everyone’s goals.
> I feel that this would create some interesting gameplay where we would be 
> second-guessing everybody’s moves, wondering if they are part of a win 
> condition.
> 
> Some ideas for goals (I feel that an optimal goal for this mechanic requires 
> making visible progress publicly (so that people may become suspicions that 
> the
> player is going for a certain goal) but could also conceivably be normal 
> gameplay.)
>  1. Hold some number of shinies
>  2. Transfer some amount of shinies per day for some period of time
>  3. Sneak a certain (random from some large list) word into n proposals
>  4. Hold a certain (random) set of estates [could generalize to non-fungible 
> assets]
>  5. Hold a certain set of ribbons (?)
> 
> Gaelan
> 
>

DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

[Gaelan Steele]

I had an interesting idea for a win condition: players privately select a 
random item from a pre-defined set of goals; when they reach that goal, they 
win. There would be some complex setup involved in proving that you selected a 
goal randomly without revealing your selection. I have a cryptographic solution 
(and, if this proposal becomes a reality, will probably provide a tool to 
handle all of the complexity for you and give you a message to copypaste into 
the PF), and I imagine that some of the dice services may provide a method to 
do this as well. The rule would probably simply specify that the player would 
be responsible for proving this. Alternatively, we could go the old-fashioned 
method and let the speaker track everyone’s goals.

I feel that this would create some interesting gameplay where we would be 
second-guessing everybody’s moves, wondering if they are part of a win 
condition.

Some ideas for goals (I feel that an optimal goal for this mechanic requires 
making visible progress publicly (so that people may become suspicions that the 
player is going for a certain goal) but could also conceivably be normal 
gameplay.)
Hold some number of shinies
Transfer some amount of shinies per day for some period of time
Sneak a certain (random from some large list) word into n proposals
Hold a certain (random) set of estates [could generalize to non-fungible assets]
Hold a certain set of ribbons (?)

Gaelan

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: I'd like to write an essay, seeking input

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 24 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> -"Sticky" versus "Illusion" Continuum: http://i.imgur.com/a3hRJS6.png 
> [i.imgur.com] .

Really like the cartoon!  A good addition to the literature alongside 
those theses.

> Eventually add secrecy and the player’s own subjective satisfactions 
> too which redefine “winning” (for example, only winning in a certain way
> counts as “winning” for them), Eventually add in Scams too, related to 
> secrecy.

Looking forward to reading the next draft!  ais523 and I have had a few
discussion of the fact that I like to win the game in order to gain political
power, and e likes to gain political power in order to win the game.

DIS: Re: I'd like to write an essay, seeking input

[CuddleBeam]

I'll appreciate IT a fuckload.*

typo, sorry

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I'll appreciate IT a fuckload.*
>
> typo, sorry
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:18 AM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
>
>> Alternate title: humble agoran farmer attempts to make food for thought
>> Agora's #1 produce!
>>
>> I personally find essays to be the apex of achievement in nomic.
>>
>> Consider the following as a cover letter of a sort
>>
>> I really like novelty and experimentation, even more so if they reveal
>> new possibilities and insights that haven't been found before (as I often
>> enjoy attempting to do, with for example my novelty Agencies to attempt to
>> create fractal sub-nomics within Agora or run Doom, the videogame, on
>> Agora's Platonist formal space). And that kind of endeavor goes extremely
>> well with essays.
>>
>> I basically really love essays.
>>
>> I've even made a few comics for BlogNomic (as a casual replacement of
>> "essays", because it's much more appropriate so given BN's tempo) to
>> illustrate certain ideas which I've found interesting and wanted to discuss
>> during the game. For example:
>>
>> -"Sticky" versus "Illusion" Continuum: http://i.imgur.com/a3hRJS6.png .
>> This is basically the exact same issue illustrated in Vanyel's "Pragmatism
>> and Platonism: Two Approaches to Nomic" and especially Steve's "Breaking
>> the Rules", but I wasn't aware of these great treasures at the time when I
>> made this unfortunately so oh well.
>>
>> I know I'm very new to Agora, but I'm not new at all to Nomic and the
>> desire to write essays about Nomic. I've found Agora to be an extremely
>> fertile area for activities pertaining to scholarly essays, which, goddamn,
>> is a huge source of relief and excitement for me.
>>
>> I have a draft of an essay I'd like to submit later on here. Please give
>> me your input as well as any other info which may be useful to me for this
>> kind of stuff. I'll appreciate a fuckload.
>>
>> Thank you in advance!
>>
>> (and thank you, THANK YOU Sprocklem for posting all of those >2007
>> essays, I appeciate it so much)
>>
>> [The general idea for the essay is that I start with a rule-based formal
>> entity (the potato) with no abilities which "plays" a simple nomic. As I
>> give it more abilities to play the nomic with as a bot of a sort, I analyze
>> what its choices are (and the optimal ones) and then make parallelisms now
>> and then to how actual real life nomic plays out. For example, the
>> formation of blocs and the sort, and use the potato-bot to explain them.]
>>
>> Here's the essay (It's a rough rough draft though. I haven't written
>> essays since a good while ago too so I'm very likely missing
>> formatting/structure stuff):
>>
>> Nomic Victory: A journey from Potatoes to People.
>>
>>-
>>
>>By Cuddlebeam
>>
>>
>>
>> The goal of Nomic is to “win” - by each person’s subjective measure. And
>> persons are really complicated things - and this will get to that.
>>
>>
>>
>> This essay will get to the top and analyze victory itself as a personal
>> experience of achieving a certain pattern (for example, explicit formal
>> victory) in formal and informal space, how Nomic is a tool for that goal
>> which the players use to manipulate others to achieve those certain
>> patterns, and what emergent strategies and tactics arise as tools to
>> achieve those means, all from a formal, rule-based analysis of
>> decision-making.
>>
>>
>>
>> But let’s start at the bottom, and work ourselves up, from a Potato all
>> the way up to a Person.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let’s start with a Potato. With a capital P, to make it special and
>> distinct. Like potatoes, it can’t do much in regards to a Nomic. Nothing,
>> actually. Our Potato currently just exists as an abstract entity with just
>> a name.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let’s give the potato a simple Nomic to play with.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1 - This is a Nomic, and players must obey this ruleset at all times.
>> This ruleset has rules which are numbered in order.
>>
>> 2 - Players can create proposals at-will to modify, add or remove these
>> rules, except for rules 1, 2, 3 and 4. No contradiction in the ruleset is
>> allowed to be created by virtue of this rule.
>>
>> 3 - Players must vote on these proposals with either For or Against in a
>> reasonable amount of time. If all Players have voted and there is a
>> majority of For, the proposal’s proposed effects are applied to the rules.
>>
>> 4 - Rules 1, 2 3 and 4 have precedence over all other rules and no event
>> is be allowed change this nature.
>>
>> 5- Players can Win.
>>
>>
>>
>> That’s all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now our potato can’t do anything in regards to this, because e can’t do
>> anything yet, so lets give e the following abilities, to model em to be
>> more or less a very simplified Nomic player.
>>
>>
>>
>> P1: The Potato can choose among predefined choices granted to em by the
>> ruleset.
>>
>> P2: When the Potato makes choices, e always chooses  (something something
>> geared to

DIS: I'd like to write an essay, seeking input

[CuddleBeam]

Alternate title: humble agoran farmer attempts to make food for thought
Agora's #1 produce!

I personally find essays to be the apex of achievement in nomic.

Consider the following as a cover letter of a sort

I really like novelty and experimentation, even more so if they reveal new
possibilities and insights that haven't been found before (as I often enjoy
attempting to do, with for example my novelty Agencies to attempt to create
fractal sub-nomics within Agora or run Doom, the videogame, on Agora's
Platonist formal space). And that kind of endeavor goes extremely well with
essays.

I basically really love essays.

I've even made a few comics for BlogNomic (as a casual replacement of
"essays", because it's much more appropriate so given BN's tempo) to
illustrate certain ideas which I've found interesting and wanted to discuss
during the game. For example:

-"Sticky" versus "Illusion" Continuum: http://i.imgur.com/a3hRJS6.png .
This is basically the exact same issue illustrated in Vanyel's "Pragmatism
and Platonism: Two Approaches to Nomic" and especially Steve's "Breaking
the Rules", but I wasn't aware of these great treasures at the time when I
made this unfortunately so oh well.

I know I'm very new to Agora, but I'm not new at all to Nomic and the
desire to write essays about Nomic. I've found Agora to be an extremely
fertile area for activities pertaining to scholarly essays, which, goddamn,
is a huge source of relief and excitement for me.

I have a draft of an essay I'd like to submit later on here. Please give me
your input as well as any other info which may be useful to me for this
kind of stuff. I'll appreciate a fuckload.

Thank you in advance!

(and thank you, THANK YOU Sprocklem for posting all of those >2007 essays,
I appeciate it so much)

[The general idea for the essay is that I start with a rule-based formal
entity (the potato) with no abilities which "plays" a simple nomic. As I
give it more abilities to play the nomic with as a bot of a sort, I analyze
what its choices are (and the optimal ones) and then make parallelisms now
and then to how actual real life nomic plays out. For example, the
formation of blocs and the sort, and use the potato-bot to explain them.]

Here's the essay (It's a rough rough draft though. I haven't written essays
since a good while ago too so I'm very likely missing formatting/structure
stuff):

Nomic Victory: A journey from Potatoes to People.

   -

   By Cuddlebeam



The goal of Nomic is to “win” - by each person’s subjective measure. And
persons are really complicated things - and this will get to that.



This essay will get to the top and analyze victory itself as a personal
experience of achieving a certain pattern (for example, explicit formal
victory) in formal and informal space, how Nomic is a tool for that goal
which the players use to manipulate others to achieve those certain
patterns, and what emergent strategies and tactics arise as tools to
achieve those means, all from a formal, rule-based analysis of
decision-making.



But let’s start at the bottom, and work ourselves up, from a Potato all the
way up to a Person.



Let’s start with a Potato. With a capital P, to make it special and
distinct. Like potatoes, it can’t do much in regards to a Nomic. Nothing,
actually. Our Potato currently just exists as an abstract entity with just
a name.



Let’s give the potato a simple Nomic to play with.



1 - This is a Nomic, and players must obey this ruleset at all times. This
ruleset has rules which are numbered in order.

2 - Players can create proposals at-will to modify, add or remove these
rules, except for rules 1, 2, 3 and 4. No contradiction in the ruleset is
allowed to be created by virtue of this rule.

3 - Players must vote on these proposals with either For or Against in a
reasonable amount of time. If all Players have voted and there is a
majority of For, the proposal’s proposed effects are applied to the rules.

4 - Rules 1, 2 3 and 4 have precedence over all other rules and no event is
be allowed change this nature.

5- Players can Win.



That’s all.



Now our potato can’t do anything in regards to this, because e can’t do
anything yet, so lets give e the following abilities, to model em to be
more or less a very simplified Nomic player.



P1: The Potato can choose among predefined choices granted to em by the
ruleset.

P2: When the Potato makes choices, e always chooses  (something something
geared towards “winning”)



…….



….Eventually write to include the informal level and informal trust to the
potato (to create meta-rules), but no deception just yet, include that in
those circumstances, the best course of action becomes a race to create a
bloc of at least a quorum amount, roll a dice to determine who in that bloc
will win, and quorum it forwards (and Against vote any possible opposition).



At some moment, add that “winning” needs some counterweight to not make it
completely trivial to just have everyone win (for exampl

Re: DIS: Conditional Upon The Future

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 24 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 01:16 +, Quazie wrote:
> > It's been noted many times that actions can't be conditional upon
> > future actions:
> [snip]
> > But i'm not sure if that's where the precedence comes from.
> > 
> > Any assistance would be grand.
> 
> As it happens, I'm rereading my thesis in which I judged CFJ 3381, and
> there's a discussion of future conditionals there. It also mentions CFJ
> 2926 as another relevant precedent (it's probably also worth reading
> the appeal, 2926a).

Unfortunately, 2926 just relies on precedent as well:
  Agoran precedence has long held that no entity can set up a
  delayed effect of this form, so there is no reason that ratification
  would suddenly be able to do so.

CFJ 2316 takes it on directly in a more specific situation, so it may
apply (as objecting to future intents - the matter of CFJ 2316 - is the
same as the conditional "If someone posts intent to do X, then I Object").
Though it relies someone on the level of specificity required for
dependent actions.

It may be worth deriving it on first principles again (left as an
exercise) and saying the derivation is consistent with game custom,
if no precedent can be found.

Re: DIS: Conditional Upon The Future

[Quazie]

Thanks for the pointers.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:35 PM Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 01:16 +, Quazie wrote:
> > It's been noted many times that actions can't be conditional upon
> > future actions:
> [snip]
> > But i'm not sure if that's where the precedence comes from.
> >
> > Any assistance would be grand.
>
> As it happens, I'm rereading my thesis in which I judged CFJ 3381, and
> there's a discussion of future conditionals there. It also mentions CFJ
> 2926 as another relevant precedent (it's probably also worth reading
> the appeal, 2926a).
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Conditional Upon The Future

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 01:16 +, Quazie wrote:
> It's been noted many times that actions can't be conditional upon
> future actions:
[snip]
> But i'm not sure if that's where the precedence comes from.
> 
> Any assistance would be grand.

As it happens, I'm rereading my thesis in which I judged CFJ 3381, and
there's a discussion of future conditionals there. It also mentions CFJ
2926 as another relevant precedent (it's probably also worth reading
the appeal, 2926a).

-- 
ais523

DIS: Conditional Upon The Future

[Quazie]

It's been noted many times that actions can't be conditional upon future
actions:

{{{I pay grok a shiny if e sends a message saying "i want a shiny"}}} seems
to not work, but I can't find the legal precedence for that, and I'd like
to include a reference to it in an upcoming CFJ judgement.

I know R1023 states:

  (c) If a regulated value, or the value of a conditional, or a
  value otherwise required to determine the outcome of a
  regulated action, CANNOT be reasonably determined (without
  circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
  available, or if it alternates instantaneously and
  indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to

be Indeterminate, otherwise it is Determinate.

But i'm not sure if that's where the precedence comes from.

Any assistance would be grand.

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

[Quazie]

I told you o, at all times I will have some Shiny in dispute, you
encouraged me to do it.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:10 PM Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On May 23, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> >
> > If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ?  Eir
> conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the
> summoned judge.
>
> Oh, hell.
>
> -o
>
>

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

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 23, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ?  Eir 
> conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the 
> summoned judge.

Oh, hell.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[Quazie]

If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ?  Eir
conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the
summoned judge.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:07 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I agree with o's interpretation.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> So, in order:
>>
>> 1. I’m pretty sure Cuddlebeam’s condition is invalid, and thus no judges
>> are barred.
>>
>> 2. Therefore, the final proviso “as long as … the barring attempt above
>> had barred someone” in eir pledge does not hold.
>>
>> 3. Therefore, the pledge does not hold.
>>
>> 4. Therefore, the condition “the conditional in the pledge would mean
>> Cuddlebeam has to pay me a shiney [sic] if e has one” does not hold.
>>
>> 5. Therefore, you did not pay Cuddlebeam a shiny.
>>
>> Which is good, because it means I don’t have to track this.
>>
>> -o
>>
>> On May 22, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>> If CuddleBeam has no Shinies, and I am the judge summoned to judge CFJ
>> 3505, and the conditional in the pledge would mean CuddleBeam has to pay me
>> a shiney if e has one, then I transfer one Shiny to CuddleBeam so that they
>> will transfer it back to me (so they don't break eir pledge).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM Alex Smith 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2017-05-21 at 05:27 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
>>> > Employing the power of Rule 991/17, I submit a Call for Judgement for
>>> the following statement:
>>> >
>>> > "Can this statement have a Judge?"
>>> >
>>> > I also opt to bar one person from such procedure. That person is the
>>> person
>>> > who would successfully become the first Judge of the Call for Judgement
>>> > submitted by this message.
>>>
>>> This is CFJ 3505. I assign it to Quazie. (My own current understanding
>>> is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
>>> action based on information that will only be available in the future;
>>> presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this
>>> understanding.)
>>>
>>> See also this message:
>>> <
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg35262.html
>>> >
>>>
>>> > 
>>> >
>>> > I pledge to grant one Shiny (if I have at least one and I am capable of
>>> > such a transfer) to the Judge of the CFJ summoned via the content
>>> above as
>>> > long as rules relevant to CFJs haven't changed since I have announced
>>> this
>>> > pledge and the barring attempt above had barred someone.
>>> >
>>> > (I dunno, could be fun lol, and I'm very curious about how this might
>>> turn
>>> > out.)
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523
>>> Arbitor
>>>
>>
>>
>

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I agree with o's interpretation.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> So, in order:
>
> 1. I’m pretty sure Cuddlebeam’s condition is invalid, and thus no judges
> are barred.
>
> 2. Therefore, the final proviso “as long as … the barring attempt above
> had barred someone” in eir pledge does not hold.
>
> 3. Therefore, the pledge does not hold.
>
> 4. Therefore, the condition “the conditional in the pledge would mean
> Cuddlebeam has to pay me a shiney [sic] if e has one” does not hold.
>
> 5. Therefore, you did not pay Cuddlebeam a shiny.
>
> Which is good, because it means I don’t have to track this.
>
> -o
>
> On May 22, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>
> If CuddleBeam has no Shinies, and I am the judge summoned to judge CFJ
> 3505, and the conditional in the pledge would mean CuddleBeam has to pay me
> a shiney if e has one, then I transfer one Shiny to CuddleBeam so that they
> will transfer it back to me (so they don't break eir pledge).
>
> 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.
>
> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2017-05-21 at 05:27 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
>> > Employing the power of Rule 991/17, I submit a Call for Judgement for
>> the following statement:
>> >
>> > "Can this statement have a Judge?"
>> >
>> > I also opt to bar one person from such procedure. That person is the
>> person
>> > who would successfully become the first Judge of the Call for Judgement
>> > submitted by this message.
>>
>> This is CFJ 3505. I assign it to Quazie. (My own current understanding
>> is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
>> action based on information that will only be available in the future;
>> presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this
>> understanding.)
>>
>> See also this message:
>> > org/msg35262.html>
>>
>> > 
>> >
>> > I pledge to grant one Shiny (if I have at least one and I am capable of
>> > such a transfer) to the Judge of the CFJ summoned via the content above
>> as
>> > long as rules relevant to CFJs haven't changed since I have announced
>> this
>> > pledge and the barring attempt above had barred someone.
>> >
>> > (I dunno, could be fun lol, and I'm very curious about how this might
>> turn
>> > out.)
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>> Arbitor
>>
>
>

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

[Owen Jacobson]

So, in order:

1. I’m pretty sure Cuddlebeam’s condition is invalid, and thus no judges are 
barred.

2. Therefore, the final proviso “as long as … the barring attempt above had 
barred someone” in eir pledge does not hold.

3. Therefore, the pledge does not hold.

4. Therefore, the condition “the conditional in the pledge would mean 
Cuddlebeam has to pay me a shiney [sic] if e has one” does not hold.

5. Therefore, you did not pay Cuddlebeam a shiny.

Which is good, because it means I don’t have to track this.

-o

> On May 22, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> If CuddleBeam has no Shinies, and I am the judge summoned to judge CFJ 3505, 
> and the conditional in the pledge would mean CuddleBeam has to pay me a 
> shiney if e has one, then I transfer one Shiny to CuddleBeam so that they 
> will transfer it back to me (so they don't break eir pledge).
> 
> 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.
> 
> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM Alex Smith  > wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-05-21 at 05:27 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
> > Employing the power of Rule 991/17, I submit a Call for Judgement for the 
> > following statement:
> >
> > "Can this statement have a Judge?"
> >
> > I also opt to bar one person from such procedure. That person is the person
> > who would successfully become the first Judge of the Call for Judgement
> > submitted by this message.
> 
> This is CFJ 3505. I assign it to Quazie. (My own current understanding
> is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
> action based on information that will only be available in the future;
> presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this
> understanding.)
> 
> See also this message:
>  >
> 
> > 
> >
> > I pledge to grant one Shiny (if I have at least one and I am capable of
> > such a transfer) to the Judge of the CFJ summoned via the content above as
> > long as rules relevant to CFJs haven't changed since I have announced this
> > pledge and the barring attempt above had barred someone.
> >
> > (I dunno, could be fun lol, and I'm very curious about how this might turn
> > out.)
> 
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer reunites with long-lost twins, becomes immortal and sells CFJ slots for only $2.99

[Owen Jacobson]

In case it’s not obvious, I suspect that

> Powers: Agents may post a message on Cuddlebeam's behalf

grants no powers whatsoever, and that such a message would in fact be posted on 
the Agent’s own behalf, even if it purported to be posted on Cuddlebeam’s 
behalf.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal judges sought

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 22, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> 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?

A fantastic question. Having reviewed the literature and the other responses: 
yes.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Nic Evans]

Looking back at Assets v3 and forward to current events, I think we should:

-Define Assets very simply, distinguishing fungible and nonfungible

-Replace balance with a more generic asset switch (which applies to 
organizations, agora, and *persons*)


-Redefine trade and heirs to work for all assets. I did a quick take on 
this below [1].


-Make assets go to Agora or heirs as appropriate, skipping the concept 
of a Lost and Found (which I feel was the most problematic part of 
Assets v3)


[1] {

"Agora, *a person*, or an organization (Payer) can 'pay' X to Agora, a 
player, or an organization (Payee) as long as:


-X is a set of assets where every nonfungible asset is clearly 
identified and every fungible asset is listed as a non-negative amount.


-Payor currently has in eir Pockets* every nonfungible asset in X, and 
at least as much of each nonfungible asset as specified in X.


If any part of a payment is incorrect, none of the payment occurs. If a 
payment succeeds then:


-For every nonfungible asset listed, it is no longer in Payer's Pockets 
and is now in Payee's Pockets.


-For every fungible asset listed, Payer's Pockets contain Y (the 
specified amount) less, and Payee's Pockets contain Y more.


}


On 05/23/2017 07:01 PM, Quazie wrote:
Sorry to not get on this until now.  I'd be down with a rule that 
defined a word "Assets" perhaps, and note that Shinies and Estates are 
both considered Assets.  Then the amendments would be easier to make 
in the future, we would just have to edit the concept of 'Assets' and 
the two rules would catch up.


I know Aris is working on something of that sort, and I've heard 
rumors that others are interested in proposals about the state of the 
economy - but it seems like an easy way to say what you want in a way 
that is better handled in the future.


On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:49 PM Owen Jacobson > wrote:


As nobody had anything to say about the draft, I submit the
following proposal.

Proposal: Deregistration and Assets
Adoption index: 2
Authors: o
Co-authors: Aris

Amend rule 2485, "You can't take it with you", by changing its
title to
"You Can't Take It With You", then by changing the text to read, in
full:

   "Heir" is a person switch, tracked by the Registrar, whose value is
   either Agora (the default value), or a player other than emself, or
   an Organization. A player may flip eir Heir by announcement.

   When a player is deregistered, e automatically pays all of eir
   Shinies and transfers all of eir Estates to eir Heir, immediately
   before deregistration.

Amend rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations") by changing its
power to 2, then by adding the following paragraph between the
paragraph beginning "If an Organization's Income is ever lower [...]"
and the paragraph beginning "If a player's Expenditure is at most
[...]":

   Immediately before an Organization is destroyed, it automatically
   pays all of its Shinies to Agora, and transfers all of its Estates
   to Agora.

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


  "Heir" is a person switch, tracked by the Registrar, whose value is
  either Agora (the default value), or a player other than emself, or
  an Organization. A player may flip eir Heir by announcement.


That "emself" seems to be a bit fishy grammar with unclear referent.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3469 judged DISMISS

[caleb vines]

Is that a pledge?


-grok


On May 23, 2017 7:04 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

I think you did, but I am willing to let it go, if it is resolved
definitely as a payment, I will pay you back.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> Er. Whups. Do I need to do anything about the fact that the below-quoted
> message is a dup, or did I just pay PSS twice?
>
> -o
>
> On May 23, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
> TTttPF.
>
> On May 22, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>
> On May 20, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I judge CFJ 3469 DISMISS because of the typo.
>
>
> In final and complete satisfaction of my pledge, if I inherited G.’s
> Shinies, I pay Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 20 shinies for rendering
> judgement on one of the listed CFJs while it remained unjudged.
>
> Well done to our judges Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, nichdel, and
> Gaelan. Your service is much appreciated.
>
> -o
>
>
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3469 judged DISMISS

[Quazie]

Just conditionally pay em back "If the quoted message paid me 20 shinies,
and I had already been paid 20 shinies in this other quoted message, I give
20 shinies to o" - boom, the end state is accurate and we don't have to CFJ
unless someone cares.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:04 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I think you did, but I am willing to let it go, if it is resolved
> definitely as a payment, I will pay you back.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> Er. Whups. Do I need to do anything about the fact that the below-quoted
>> message is a dup, or did I just pay PSS twice?
>>
>> -o
>>
>> On May 23, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>> TTttPF.
>>
>> On May 22, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On May 20, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I judge CFJ 3469 DISMISS because of the typo.
>>
>>
>> In final and complete satisfaction of my pledge, if I inherited G.’s
>> Shinies, I pay Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 20 shinies for rendering
>> judgement on one of the listed CFJs while it remained unjudged.
>>
>> Well done to our judges Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, nichdel, and
>> Gaelan. Your service is much appreciated.
>>
>> -o
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3469 judged DISMISS

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think you did, but I am willing to let it go, if it is resolved
definitely as a payment, I will pay you back.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> Er. Whups. Do I need to do anything about the fact that the below-quoted
> message is a dup, or did I just pay PSS twice?
>
> -o
>
> On May 23, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
> TTttPF.
>
> On May 22, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>
> On May 20, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I judge CFJ 3469 DISMISS because of the typo.
>
>
> In final and complete satisfaction of my pledge, if I inherited G.’s
> Shinies, I pay Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 20 shinies for rendering
> judgement on one of the listed CFJs while it remained unjudged.
>
> Well done to our judges Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, nichdel, and
> Gaelan. Your service is much appreciated.
>
> -o
>
>
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3469 judged DISMISS

[Quazie]

You seem to have sent a message to the public forum on two separate
occasions, paying PSS.

BUT the pre-text was no longer true, though I doubt the CFJ will come back
in your favor.

If i was secretary, i'd count it as a payment until CFJed otherwise (But
that's just me)

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:00 PM Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> Er. Whups. Do I need to do anything about the fact that the below-quoted
> message is a dup, or did I just pay PSS twice?
>
> -o
>
> On May 23, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
> TTttPF.
>
> On May 22, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>
> On May 20, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I judge CFJ 3469 DISMISS because of the typo.
>
>
> In final and complete satisfaction of my pledge, if I inherited G.’s
> Shinies, I pay Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 20 shinies for rendering
> judgement on one of the listed CFJs while it remained unjudged.
>
> Well done to our judges Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, nichdel, and
> Gaelan. Your service is much appreciated.
>
> -o
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Quazie]

Sorry to not get on this until now.  I'd be down with a rule that defined a
word "Assets" perhaps, and note that Shinies and Estates are both
considered Assets.  Then the amendments would be easier to make in the
future, we would just have to edit the concept of 'Assets' and the two
rules would catch up.

I know Aris is working on something of that sort, and I've heard rumors
that others are interested in proposals about the state of the economy -
but it seems like an easy way to say what you want in a way that is better
handled in the future.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:49 PM Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> As nobody had anything to say about the draft, I submit the following
> proposal.
>
> Proposal: Deregistration and Assets
> Adoption index: 2
> Authors: o
> Co-authors: Aris
>
> Amend rule 2485, "You can't take it with you", by changing its title to
> "You Can't Take It With You", then by changing the text to read, in
> full:
>
>"Heir" is a person switch, tracked by the Registrar, whose value is
>either Agora (the default value), or a player other than emself, or
>an Organization. A player may flip eir Heir by announcement.
>
>When a player is deregistered, e automatically pays all of eir
>Shinies and transfers all of eir Estates to eir Heir, immediately
>before deregistration.
>
> Amend rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations") by changing its
> power to 2, then by adding the following paragraph between the
> paragraph beginning "If an Organization's Income is ever lower [...]"
> and the paragraph beginning "If a player's Expenditure is at most
> [...]":
>
>Immediately before an Organization is destroyed, it automatically
>pays all of its Shinies to Agora, and transfers all of its Estates
>to Agora.
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3469 judged DISMISS

[Owen Jacobson]

Er. Whups. Do I need to do anything about the fact that the below-quoted 
message is a dup, or did I just pay PSS twice?

-o

> On May 23, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> TTttPF.
> 
>> On May 22, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Owen Jacobson > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On May 20, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>> > > wrote:
>> 
>>> I judge CFJ 3469 DISMISS because of the typo.
>> 
>> In final and complete satisfaction of my pledge, if I inherited G.’s 
>> Shinies, I pay Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 20 shinies for rendering 
>> judgement on one of the listed CFJs while it remained unjudged.
>> 
>> Well done to our judges Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, nichdel, and 
>> Gaelan. Your service is much appreciated.
>> 
>> -o
>> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Superintendent proto reports

[Nic Evans]

I'm also maintaining an unofficial ~daily updated ADoP:

https://agoranomic.github.io/ADoP/Reports/next.txt

I think those of us working on the github stuff are also starting to 
converge on a structure and format, and we may see a 'grand opening' at 
some point in the next week or two.


On 05/23/2017 06:29 PM, Quazie wrote:

Just got the superintendent's upcoming report on to the web.

I'll be making the reporting scripts continually better, but if you 
want an unofficial list of currently existing Agencies, feel free to 
look here: 
https://agoranomic.github.io/Superintendent/reports/month/next.txt

DIS: Superintendent proto reports

[Quazie]

Just got the superintendent's upcoming report on to the web.

I'll be making the reporting scripts continually better, but if you want an
unofficial list of currently existing Agencies, feel free to look here:
https://agoranomic.github.io/Superintendent/reports/month/next.txt

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

[Quazie]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:57 PM Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 12:59 -0600, Sprocklem S wrote:
> > Proposal: Ruleset Ratification
> > {{{
> > Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following
> > paragraph at the end:
> >
> > The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting the substantive
> > aspects of the rules, as defined in Rule 2141, are self-ratifying. The
> > Rulekeepor SHALL NOT knowingly publish an SLR or FLR where the
> > self-ratifying portion is incorrect.
> > }}}
> >
> > [I don't think making the whole thing self-ratifying would cause any
> > problems, but there's a lot in the FLR, so I limited it to just
> > rule-specific stuff.]
>
> I'm *strongly* opposed to this. Rulekeepors sometimes make
> (unintentional) errors, and sometimes these errors are things that
> could seriously break the game. Having rules changes limited to methods
> with much more oversight (e.g. making full-Ruleset ratifications rare,
> with many players looking over the purported ruleset for loopholes and
> omissions) is much safer for Agora's ongoing existence.
>
> Note also that we never ratify the FLR, only the SLR. This means that
> if a rule *was* misstated, we can then place an "amended by
> ratification" in the FLR to explain what happened to it, thus making
> the rule history an accurate reflection of reality. If we ratified the
> FLR, we'd also be ratifying an incorrect history of how the rule got to
> where it did.
>
> --
> ais523
>

I'd go so far as to make a rule stating that the FLR CANNOT be ratified,
for reasons noted above.

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

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 12:59 -0600, Sprocklem S wrote:
> Proposal: Ruleset Ratification
> {{{
> Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following
> paragraph at the end:
> 
> The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting the substantive
> aspects of the rules, as defined in Rule 2141, are self-ratifying. The
> Rulekeepor SHALL NOT knowingly publish an SLR or FLR where the
> self-ratifying portion is incorrect.
> }}}
> 
> [I don't think making the whole thing self-ratifying would cause any
> problems, but there's a lot in the FLR, so I limited it to just
> rule-specific stuff.]

I'm *strongly* opposed to this. Rulekeepors sometimes make
(unintentional) errors, and sometimes these errors are things that
could seriously break the game. Having rules changes limited to methods
with much more oversight (e.g. making full-Ruleset ratifications rare,
with many players looking over the purported ruleset for loopholes and
omissions) is much safer for Agora's ongoing existence.

Note also that we never ratify the FLR, only the SLR. This means that
if a rule *was* misstated, we can then place an "amended by
ratification" in the FLR to explain what happened to it, thus making
the rule history an accurate reflection of reality. If we ratified the
FLR, we'd also be ratifying an incorrect history of how the rule got to
where it did.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3471-3472

[Josh T]

The following information is for the future thesis writer about translation
and history of language on Agora:

反対 is both the verb "to oppose" or "to object" and a noun which can mean
"against" or "objection". On a Japanese ballot paper, the conventional
choices are 賛成 ("support") and 反対 ("against"/"oppose"), although this is
not something I had expected people to know ahead of time.

白票 is a blank ("white") ballot. I had attempted to cast a blank ballot.

I had not expected any of those things to have worked (and indeed they
didn't, and were judged to have not), but it seems like the type of thing
that was worth trying anyway.

天火狐

On 23 May 2017 at 17:36, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > (If the context is entirely contained in the foreign language; e.g.
> > "I vote XXX on proposal YYY" is written as its own message and not in
> reply
> > to a thread, it *is* in fact unreasonable effort, as it requires each
> > officer to determine out of context whether the message is directed at
> > them or not.  That was the case in CFJ 1460, but not here).
>
> Addendum:  this portion of the argument is also proof against certain types
> of scams, e.g. submitting a message in a foreign language that attempts
> to do something bad Without Objection, in the hope it prevents people
> from objecting.  That would not clearly indicate the message contents
> beyond
> unreasonable effort (as it requires everyone interpret the message in
> order to
> understand the type of public message and response required).
>
>
>
>

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

[Josh T]

I probably should have also tested the directional control characters and a
right-to-left language, but there's only so much you can fit in three
words. Congratulations on your script being otherwise pretty much Unicode
5.0 compliant! (For reference, Unicode 10 is expected to be finalized later
this year)

天火狐

On 23 May 2017 at 17:18, Quazie  wrote:

> Note: Thanks for helping me test my script for unicode compliance -
> delighted that no changes were necessary to handle your unicode.
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM Josh T  wrote:
>
>> I resolve my quoted intention and establish the agency therein.
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>> On 22 May 2017 at 15:33, Josh T  wrote:
>>
>>> I intend to establish the following Agency after 24 hours:
>>>
>>> Name: 𒌑𒉌𒋻 შეესაბამება एजेन्सी (𒌑შए)
>>> 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

[Quazie]

Note: Thanks for helping me test my script for unicode compliance -
delighted that no changes were necessary to handle your unicode.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM Josh T  wrote:

> I resolve my quoted intention and establish the agency therein.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 22 May 2017 at 15:33, Josh T  wrote:
>
>> I intend to establish the following Agency after 24 hours:
>>
>> Name: 𒌑𒉌𒋻 შეესაბამება एजेन्सी (𒌑შए)
>> 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
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Votes, Supports, and Objections - OH MY

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I also have a few thoughts for integrating them into an expanded justice
system.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> This is the most recent proposal/discussion:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg34622.html
>
> After I resolve the current voting round I will have a slew of economic
> proposals, all in the next day or two.
>
> On 05/23/17 15:59, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > How did gigs work?
> >
> >> On May 23, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> >>
> >> With so much activity, it's hard to keep track of all the things that
> could be Supported, Objected, and Voted upon.
> >>
> >> Anyone else having trouble?
> >>
> >> I know we don't need any more officers at the moment, but if Gigs come
> back in to play (What happened to them?) then I'm going to propose a Gig
> for making a pseudo-report on events that could be supported/objected/voted
> upon.
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Votes, Supports, and Objections - OH MY

[Nic Evans]

This is the most recent proposal/discussion:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg34622.html

After I resolve the current voting round I will have a slew of economic
proposals, all in the next day or two.

On 05/23/17 15:59, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> How did gigs work?
>
>> On May 23, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>> With so much activity, it's hard to keep track of all the things that could 
>> be Supported, Objected, and Voted upon.
>>
>> Anyone else having trouble?
>>
>> I know we don't need any more officers at the moment, but if Gigs come back 
>> in to play (What happened to them?) then I'm going to propose a Gig for 
>> making a pseudo-report on events that could be supported/objected/voted upon.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Votes, Supports, and Objections - OH MY

[Quazie]

They are a proposal that hasn't been fully fleshed out yet.  And then G.
pseudo Writ Of Fage'd and so they fizzled a bit.  Nichdel said e might pick
it up though.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:00 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> How did gigs work?
>
> > On May 23, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> >
> > With so much activity, it's hard to keep track of all the things that
> could be Supported, Objected, and Voted upon.
> >
> > Anyone else having trouble?
> >
> > I know we don't need any more officers at the moment, but if Gigs come
> back in to play (What happened to them?) then I'm going to propose a Gig
> for making a pseudo-report on events that could be supported/objected/voted
> upon.
>

Re: DIS: Votes, Supports, and Objections - OH MY

[Gaelan Steele]

How did gigs work?

> On May 23, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> With so much activity, it's hard to keep track of all the things that could 
> be Supported, Objected, and Voted upon.
> 
> Anyone else having trouble?
> 
> I know we don't need any more officers at the moment, but if Gigs come back 
> in to play (What happened to them?) then I'm going to propose a Gig for 
> making a pseudo-report on events that could be supported/objected/voted upon.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7853-7857

[Quazie]

It wouldn't, I had typed something else as that vote (Because I was being
greedy and didn't want Grok to get a ribbon) but then thought against it,
and instead just voted FOR.  Forgot to take that line out.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:13 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Why would your vote on 7857 be invalid?
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>
>> I vote as follows
>>
>> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 4:54 PM Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ID Author(s) AI   Title  Pender Pend fee
>>> (sh.)
>>> -
>>> 7853*  ais5233.0  Close Ancient Loopholesais523 N/A [1]
>>>
>> FOR
>>
>>> 7854*  ais5233.0  Close Recent Loopholes v2  ais523 N/A [1]
>>
>> FOR
>>
>>> 7855*  Quazie1.0  Limited Agencies   ais523 N/A [1]
>>>
>> FOR
>>
>>> 7856*  Quazie2.0  Shiny Releveling Event ais523 N/A [1]
>>>
>> FOR
>>
>>> 7857*  grok  1.0  ALCA [2]   ais523 N/A [1]
>>>
>> FOR
>>
>> If my vote on 7857 is somehow invalid, I vote PRESENT.
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Votes, Supports, and Objections - OH MY

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

In another Nomic I play in, we have a regular every 4 days report with a
list of all matters for discussion or voting. It is very helpful.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> With so much activity, it's hard to keep track of all the things that
> could be Supported, Objected, and Voted upon.
>
> Anyone else having trouble?
>
> I know we don't need any more officers at the moment, but if Gigs come
> back in to play (What happened to them?) then I'm going to propose a Gig
> for making a pseudo-report on events that could be supported/objected/voted
> upon.
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7853-7857

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Why would your vote on 7857 be invalid?


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> I vote as follows
>
> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 4:54 PM Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ID Author(s) AI   Title  Pender Pend fee
>> (sh.)
>> -
>> 7853*  ais5233.0  Close Ancient Loopholesais523 N/A [1]
>>
> FOR
>
>> 7854*  ais5233.0  Close Recent Loopholes v2  ais523 N/A [1]
>
> FOR
>
>> 7855*  Quazie1.0  Limited Agencies   ais523 N/A [1]
>>
> FOR
>
>> 7856*  Quazie2.0  Shiny Releveling Event ais523 N/A [1]
>>
> FOR
>
>> 7857*  grok  1.0  ALCA [2]   ais523 N/A [1]
>>
> FOR
>
> If my vote on 7857 is somehow invalid, I vote PRESENT.
>

DIS: Votes, Supports, and Objections - OH MY

[Quazie]

With so much activity, it's hard to keep track of all the things that could
be Supported, Objected, and Voted upon.

Anyone else having trouble?

I know we don't need any more officers at the moment, but if Gigs come back
in to play (What happened to them?) then I'm going to propose a Gig for
making a pseudo-report on events that could be supported/objected/voted
upon.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7853-7857

[Quazie]

I vote as follows

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 4:54 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ID Author(s) AI   Title  Pender Pend fee
> (sh.)
> -
> 7853*  ais5233.0  Close Ancient Loopholesais523 N/A [1]
>
FOR

> 7854*  ais5233.0  Close Recent Loopholes v2  ais523 N/A [1]

FOR

> 7855*  Quazie1.0  Limited Agencies   ais523 N/A [1]
>
FOR

> 7856*  Quazie2.0  Shiny Releveling Event ais523 N/A [1]
>
FOR

> 7857*  grok  1.0  ALCA [2]   ais523 N/A [1]
>
FOR

If my vote on 7857 is somehow invalid, I vote PRESENT.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A.N. thesis - currencies

[Kerim Aydin]

Nope.  It's standard I Support/I Object, and you count if the 
Supporters/Objectors
ratio is over the specified number.  R2124.

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I don't believe voting strength affects it.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>   I consent.  Consent has nothing to do with voting strength, yeah?

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

[Sprocklem S]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> Why not just make it explicitly not ratifying, but a SHALL NOT to falsify
> it.

The intent is that if some error finds its way in accidentally and it's
not caught, it should be ratified, so that the latest ruleset always
remains consistent with the rules.

-- 
Sprocklem

DIS: Re: BUS: A.N. thesis - currencies

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I don't believe voting strength affects it.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> I consent.  Consent has nothing to do with voting strength, yeah?
>
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:33 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I hereby announce intent to award the degree Associate of Nomic to G.
>> with 2 Agoran Consent.
>>
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I submit the following document with the explicit intent to qualify for
>>> an A.N.
>>> (Associate of Nomic) degree.  It underwent peer review (was published and
>>> received comments) back last July.  Edits, notably adding comments from
>>> Ørjan,
>>> have been added since then (and this formed the seed for discussion of
>>> the new
>>> economy) - so it is ready for Herald's action.
>>>
>>>
>>> A Multi-Tiered, Multi-Controlled Currency System
>>> (a brief thesis by G., for an Agoran A.N. degree)
>>>
>>> This is an outline of the currency system that was in place when I
>>> began (2001) and ran until 2003, a good long time for Agora.  It was
>>> active and the source of much game play at the time.  It was installed
>>> before my time, but my understanding is that credit should go to Steve
>>> for the major points of this system.
>>>
>>> The basis of the system was a currency called Stems (from Stem cells).
>>> Every player got a basic salary in Stems, and Officers got a higher
>>> salary.  But the thing about Stems were, they were very limited in
>>> use.  You couldn't transfer them to anyone else, or buy much with
>>> them.  They just accumulated.
>>>
>>> Instead there were three currencies that were useful:
>>>Papyrii
>>>   A single Papyrus made a Proposal distributable.
>>>Indulgences
>>>   Penalties for breaking rules or other judicially-bad things were
>>>   measured in Blots.  Blots gave you game penalties (lowered
>>>   votes, kept you from winning).  An Indulgence would destroy a
>>>   Blot.
>>>Voting Entitlements (VEs)
>>>   Hold a VE, get an extra proposal vote.  Max voting power 5.
>>>
>>> How did you get these currencies?  Each month, an Auction would be
>>> held, auctioning off a certain number of each currency.  The auction
>>> currency was Stems, that was really all you could use them for.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, each player had a Role.  Scribes (papyrus), Acolytes
>>> (Indulgences), and Politicians (VEs).  Only players holding the
>>> correct role could bid on the correct currency.  And roles could only
>>> be changed once a Quarter, so you had to plan ahead.
>>>
>>> Additionally, each currency was tied to an Office: the Promotor for
>>> papyrus, the Clerk of the Courts (Arbitor) for Indulgences, and the
>>> Assessor for VEs.  Each Officer could control their own currency
>>> supply by deciding (in a fixed range) how much to auction each month,
>>> and also had the ability to tax (collect a % of everyone's holdings
>>> for that currency).  Total circulating currency was fixed; direct
>>> creation of currency was tightly-controlled and rare, mostly the
>>> currencies circulated between players and a Bank.  Power over currency
>>> supply made these offices desirable, and elections were actually
>>> fought based on monetary policies.
>>>
>>> Just by the "nature" of play, each currency had a different liquidity.
>>>
>>> - Papyrus were the bread and butter of activities (in addition to
>>>   making proposals distributable, you could use them for other
>>>   parliamentary procedures such as Chambers).  Winning at this time
>>>   was by Points (the original Nomic system), and most of the ways of
>>>   scoring were voting-related: the old Nomic Prisoner's Dilemma or
>>>   other scoring rules, which made proposal-manipulation part of the
>>>   gameplay.
>>>
>>> - Total VE supply was pegged to the # of players in the game, and
>>>   permanent votes were powerful.  So these became the real estate in
>>>   the game; precious, commanding high prices at auctions, rarely
>>>   changing hands.
>>>
>>> - Indulgences were volatile.  The judicial system allowed players to
>>>   "ticket" each other for minor infractions just by announcement, only
>>>   needing CFJs if the facts were contested.  A day late on a report?
>>>   Someone gives you a Blot.  Sometimes, when players conspired for
>>>   scams or political plays, all would break the same rule and many
>>>   would get Blots.  Then Indulgences would be priceless.  Other times,
>>>   they were nearly worthless.
>>>
>>> Some auctions were snoozers.  Some were hotly contested.  Various
>>> features made for occasionally very hotly-contested events (if a
>>> player left the game while still having currencies, all their holdings
>>> would be auctioned off as a single lot - very very valuable).
>>>
>>> What made this so successful?  Part of it was situational; for various
>>> reasons, there were

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Why not just make it explicitly not ratifying, but a SHALL NOT to falsify
it.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Sprocklem S  wrote:

> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a
> > rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self
> > ratify unless the rules say they do, so I don't think there was any
> > real risk.
>
> I'm not sure that holds up. Intentionally altering a ratifiable ruleset
> would constitute a rather grievous rule violation. On the other hand,
> infrequent or non-existent ratification of the ruleset could easily
> cause players to be unaware of the current state of the rules (through
> accidental bookkeeping mistakes, etc.). If the rulekeepor is willing to
> violate the rules anyways, they could publish a (partially) incorrect
> ruleset with the intent to deceive. They could even craft it so that
> they could later introduce a loophole using a proposal of the form:
>
> Replace the text reading "..." with "...".
>
> or similar. It would result in them getting carded, but so would
> knowingly try to publish an incorrect self-ratifying ruleset.
>
> Additionally, a rulekeepor could just add the loophole and then ratify
> it manually, with some excuse ("we haven't ratified it in a while and I
> just want to make certain the rules are consistent" or whatever).
>
> Proposal: Ruleset Ratification
> {{{
> Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following
> paragraph at the end:
>
> The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting the substantive
> aspects of the rules, as defined in Rule 2141, are self-ratifying. The
> Rulekeepor SHALL NOT knowingly publish an SLR or FLR where the
> self-ratifying portion is incorrect.
> }}}
>
> [I don't think making the whole thing self-ratifying would cause any
> problems, but there's a lot in the FLR, so I limited it to just
> rule-specific stuff.]
>
> --
> Sprocklem
>

Re: DIS: Assorted theses, from the 2007 onwards

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

As Herald, I will try to compile all of the theses, whether failed or
otherwise into my next report.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Sprocklem S  wrote:

> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Sprocklem S  wrote:
> > In the same message, there is also mention of a rejected thesis from
> > ais523, but no address was given.
>
> I found ais523's failed thesis:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg19631.html
>
> The actual attachment resolves to:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/
> msg19631/winthesiscompressed.txt.gz
>
> --
> Sprocklem
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fast resolution 2.0

[Aris Merchant]

2.0 isn't "greater than" 2.0. I think you want "greater than or equal to 2.0."

-Aris

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I retract “Fast Resolution.”
>
> I create this proposal "Fast Resolution, now weaker" by Gaelan with AI 3 {
>
> Amend rule 107 “Initiating Agoran Decisions” by replacing {
>
> The voting period lasts for 7 days. The minimum voting period for a decision
> with at least two options is five days.
>
> } with {
>
> Unless specified by another rule with power greater than 2, the voting
> period lasts for 7 days and the minimum voting period for a decision with at
> least two options is five days.
>
> }
>
>
> Create rule "Fast Resolution" (Power 2) {
>
> 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.
>
> }
>
> }
>
> On May 23, 2017, at 12:42 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:05 PM Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> I wanted to give more details, but I'll be brief because I don't have much
> time. It would be nice if you could make it less powerful. I haven't
> checked the relevant rules, but there should be a way to make this work
> without a new power 3.1 rule. If necessary, use a precedence or deference
> clause. We like to avoid having rules be more powerful than they need to be.
> We only have 4 rules that have a power higher than 3.0.
>
> -Aris
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fast resolution 2.0

[Gaelan Steele]

I retract “Fast Resolution.”

I create this proposal "Fast Resolution, now weaker" by Gaelan with AI 3 {

Amend rule 107 “Initiating Agoran Decisions” by replacing {
The voting period lasts for 7 days. The minimum voting period for a decision 
with at least two options is five days.
} with {
Unless specified by another rule with power greater than 2, the voting period 
lasts for 7 days and the minimum voting period for a decision with at least two 
options is five days.
}

Create rule "Fast Resolution" (Power 2) {
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.
}
}

> On May 23, 2017, at 12:42 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:05 PM Aris Merchant 
>  > wrote:
> 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
> I wanted to give more details, but I'll be brief because I don't have much 
> time. It would be nice if you could make it less powerful. I haven't  checked 
> the relevant rules, but there should be a way to make this work without a new 
> power 3.1 rule. If necessary, use a precedence or deference clause. We like 
> to avoid having rules be more powerful than they need to be. We only have 4 
> rules that have a power higher than 3.0.
> 
> -Aris



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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

[Aris Merchant]

I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a
rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self
ratify unless the rules say they do, so I don't think there was any
real risk.

-Aris

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> If it is like most reports it would be, but I didn't find anything specific.

Re: DIS: Assorted theses, from the 2007 onwards

[Sprocklem S]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Sprocklem S  wrote:
> In the same message, there is also mention of a rejected thesis from
> ais523, but no address was given.

I found ais523's failed thesis:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg19631.html

The actual attachment resolves to:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg19631/winthesiscompressed.txt.gz

-- 
Sprocklem

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

If it is like most reports it would be, but I didn't find anything specific.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
> > Then, you failed to publish a report that you intended to be ratified.
> >
> Where exactly do the rules make the rulekeepor's report self
> ratifying? I can't find anything to that effect, but I might be
> missing something.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Assorted theses, from the 2007 onwards

[Sprocklem S]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Sprocklem S  wrote:
> [a bunch of text]

Additionally, Thimblefox wrote:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg26242.html

However, G. suggested he resubmit it with adjustments given by
responders. I can't seem to find out if anything happened with it in the
end. It seems Thimblefox was deregistered in may 2014.

-- 
Sprocklem

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

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> Then, you failed to publish a report that you intended to be ratified.
>
Where exactly do the rules make the rulekeepor's report self
ratifying? I can't find anything to that effect, but I might be
missing something.

-Aris

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

[Aris Merchant]

Agreed. E did something wrong, and should probably be punished, but we
need em as Rulekeepor.

-Aris

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> Removing Gaelan from office, or punishing em enough that e's unwilling to
> continue, is a good way to shoot ourselves in the foot during a time of good
> momentum.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer tends crops

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:37 AM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> YES! Awesome. I'm super excited to see where this goes.
>
> However, I won't immediately raise a CFJ myself because I'm currently using
> my own limited amount of them as products (with the informal brand of "Super
> CFJs") for sale (partly for humor, partly for experimentation).
>
> I guess I could though, right at the end of the week when my stock of CFJs
> are about to expire, but until then, I'm not particularly motivated to (BUT
> I REALLY REALLY REALLY DO WANT TO SEE IT JUDGED THOUGH, BECAUSE HOLY SHIT,
> THIS IS GOOD INTERESTING STUFF)

Could you please reduce the use of all caps? They're distracting, and
all the shouting is making my ears ring. If you want to bold
something, use markdown syntax, or if you really have to use HTML
bolding. Please try to avoid using so many capital letters.

-Aris

DIS: Assorted theses, from the 2007 onwards

[Sprocklem S]

Here is the CFJ 3381 thesis:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07043.html

The following theses were cited in the Herald's message "Thesis
Archives" on 2013-08-08 (posted to help judges judge the CFJ 3381
thesis). The message claims that they compose the three qualifying
theses in the "modern era." (In contrast to the Blob's archive which
includes "all theses published before the modern era").

http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-April/019479.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg04256.html

http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-November/008357.html

In the same message, there is also mention of a rejected thesis from
ais523, but no address was given.

-- 
Sprocklem

Re: DIS: Where can I read/find other people's thesis?

[Sprocklem S]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
>> I'd love to read other people's thesis, for example "Judge's Arguments and 
>> Evidence on
>> CFJ 3381", but I can't find them, aside from the stuff from Blob's Thesis 
>> Archive (which
>> is just up to 2001).
>>
>> Where can I find the rest of this good stuff?
>
> I would like to know too - that's a significant gap in our history.

For "Judge's Arguments and Evidence on CFJ 3381", at least, I do have a
copy. I'm not sure what other theses are missing, but I can look into if
I have them when I have time.

-- 
Sprocklem

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

[Nic Evans]

Removing Gaelan from office, or punishing em enough that e's unwilling
to continue, is a good way to shoot ourselves in the foot during a time
of good momentum.


On 05/22/17 20:53, Josh T wrote:
> 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
> >
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Where can I read/find other people's thesis?

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 23 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> I'd love to read other people's thesis, for example "Judge's Arguments and 
> Evidence on 
> CFJ 3381", but I can't find them, aside from the stuff from Blob's Thesis 
> Archive (which
> is just up to 2001).
> 
> Where can I find the rest of this good stuff? 

I would like to know too - that's a significant gap in our history.

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Then, you failed to publish a report that you intended to be ratified.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I still don't buy this. I surrounded the apathy attempt in "this section
> is not part of the report"/"the report resumes below." Regardless of
> whether that worked, I think that makes it pretty clear I did not intend to
> ratify that into the ruleset.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On May 23, 2017, at 3:50 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 
>

Re: DIS: Where can I read/find other people's thesis?

[Nic Evans]

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't think there's anything more up 
to date. I did recreate Blob's archive on the wiki, at the bottom of the 
page: https://agoranomic.github.io/wiki/


If you (or someone else) finds others, adding them there would be 
greatly appreciated.



On 05/23/2017 09:44 AM, CuddleBeam wrote:
I'd love to read other people's thesis, for example "Judge's Arguments 
and Evidence on CFJ 3381", but I can't find them, aside from the stuff 
from Blob's Thesis Archive (which is just up to 2001).


Where can I find the rest of this good stuff?

DIS: Where can I read/find other people's thesis?

[CuddleBeam]

I'd love to read other people's thesis, for example "Judge's Arguments and
Evidence on CFJ 3381", but I can't find them, aside from the stuff from
Blob's Thesis Archive (which is just up to 2001).

Where can I find the rest of this good stuff?

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

[Gaelan Steele]

I still don't buy this. I surrounded the apathy attempt in "this section is not 
part of the report"/"the report resumes below." Regardless of whether that 
worked, I think that makes it pretty clear I did not intend to ratify that into 
the ruleset. 

Gaelan

> On May 23, 2017, at 3:50 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Article 5 invokation

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

What is this?


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:

>
>
> Unicorn  NalgeneDissolution
> Endemic  Anemocrat  Diaspora
>
> Usual forum please.
>
> Last invoked: 2012 (all voting debts 0).
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I don't think we should risk the mess of the conditional.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

You were attempting to add text to the ruleset by ratification for your own
personal gain.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I CFJ on these statements:
>
> “Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.” [i.e. I got
> a pink slip]
> “o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan.”
>
> I bar o from both CFJs.
>
> Arguments:
>
> I don’t believe I committed a crime. o claimed that I committed Forgery;
> there is no crime named “Forgery” in the ruleset, the only match in the SLR
> for “forgery” is the crime of Endorsing Forgery (“Ratification Without
> Objection” 2202/6). There are several problems with this:
>
>
>1. There is no crime named Forgery.
>2. I explicitly noted that the attempt at apathy was separate from the
>report, therefore (assuming that worked) it was not within a ratified
>document.
>3. Reports are self-ratified, not ratified without objection.
>
> Therefore, there is no evidence that I broke the rules. Even so, a Pink
> Slip is not appropriate. 2476/0 “Pink Slips” states that a pink slip 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 ability to send long messages to a public
> forum in which one could hide a dependent action is not a power granted to
> the Rulekeepor by the rules; it provides an alibi, but that is not a
> rule-defined power.
>
> I believe it is very clear that the issuance of the Pink Slip was against
> the rules. However, the rules regarding Cards is a mishmash of CAN NOTs and
> SHALL NOTs, and I’m not sure if any of the CAN NOTs were triggered, hence
> the two CFJs.
>
> On May 22, 2017, at 6:30 PM, 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: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

You also have not yet published a revised version of the report in response
to the CoE. I think an appropriate solution would be to have Gaelan
generate the reports but have someone else check them and publish them.
Regardless, I believe that Gaelan should be issued a red card and or
further punishment by the proposal.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Josh T  wrote:

> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: No Sneakiness

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I don't like this because if it is a not a required report, it should be
fine. I think reports are especially problematic.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:34 PM, 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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

天火狐 is right, the way it is written now, Agencies will mess with this.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Josh T  wrote:

> > 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: Proposal: fast resolution 2.0

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:05 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
I wanted to give more details, but I'll be brief because I don't have much
time. It would be nice if you could make it less powerful. I haven't
 checked the relevant rules, but there should be a way to make this work
without a new power 3.1 rule. If necessary, use a precedence or deference
clause. We like to avoid having rules be more powerful than they need to
be. We only have 4 rules that have a power higher than 3.0.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Trivial Proposals

[Aris Merchant]

I would suggest turning them into one step, which would make it
significantly easier to track. Other than that, looks good to me!

-Aris

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:58 AM Quazie  wrote:

> 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.
>>
>