Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Nic Evans]

On 05/26/2017 10:24 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:


So, "absurdity" is not meant in a formal way (non sequitur) but rather
how the consequences of the application of laws of logic feels like?


No, it _is_ formal, but from logic. "Reductio ad absurdum" (reduction 
to the absurd) is the Latin term for proof by contradiction.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


It's also worth noting that no proof via CFJs overrides rules. Given 
that many important actions are Secured (which explicitly restricts the 
mechanisms that can trigger them), these proofs couldn't grant you the 
power to perform them even if we accepted the proof.

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> You used to be able to win by paradox - I think that got boring after a 
> while which is why it's gone - but two CFJs of the type you're talking 
> still wouldn't have met the bar for a win back then methinks.

We strictly barred CFJ-logic from paradox wins because they were trivial.
We started with this (R2110):

   If the legality of an action cannot be determined with finality,
   or if by a Judge's best reasoning, not appealed within a week of
   eir Judgement, an action appears equally legal and illegal, then
   the Speaker shall award the Patent Title of Champion to the
   first Player to publicly note that condition.  The Herald shall
   record that this Title was achieved "by paradox" in eir report.

This tied it to actions, trying to keep it from straight undecidable
CFJ statements.  It did lead to a CFJ-self-paradox win or two, so we
blocked a bunch of those trivial conditions by the end:

   A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of
   a rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical, but not arising
   from that case itself, and not occurring after the initiation of
   that case) for which the question of veracity is UNDECIDABLE.

   Upon a win announcement that a tortoise has continuously been a
   tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks,
   the initiator satisfies the Winning Condition of Paradox.

Probably a bit of ennui in getting rid of it; whenever a true gamestate
paradox comes up, I think you'll want it back, so you might want to bring 
it ahead of time...

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Quazie]

You used to be able to win by paradox - I think that got boring after a
while which is why it's gone - but two CFJs of the type you're talking
still wouldn't have met the bar for a win back then methinks.
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 20:48 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> > OK so let me confirm to see if I get it and sorry for my insistence:
> >
> > So if I had:
> >
> > CFJ 1: A is True.
> > CFJ 2: A is False.
> >
> > I can reductio ad absurdum (although a really short one) CFJ 1 by just
> presenting CFJ 2, and CFJ 2 by presenting CFJ 1.
> >
> > With that, I would be barred from deducing anything from those ad
> absurdum (i.e. attempt to summon Principle of Explosion?)
>
> It would be just as if two people disagreed with each other, each
> asserting their opinion.  Then you moot one of them, and if it's
> upheld it's the guiding one, otherwise the other one is.
>
> Or, you could simply call CFJ 3.  We would go by the most recent one.
>
>
>

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> OK so let me confirm to see if I get it and sorry for my insistence:
> 
> So if I had:
> 
> CFJ 1: A is True.
> CFJ 2: A is False.
> 
> I can reductio ad absurdum (although a really short one) CFJ 1 by just 
> presenting CFJ 2, and CFJ 2 by presenting CFJ 1.
> 
> With that, I would be barred from deducing anything from those ad absurdum 
> (i.e. attempt to summon Principle of Explosion?)

It would be just as if two people disagreed with each other, each
asserting their opinion.  Then you moot one of them, and if it's
upheld it's the guiding one, otherwise the other one is.

Or, you could simply call CFJ 3.  We would go by the most recent one.

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[CuddleBeam]

OK so let me confirm to see if I get it and sorry for my insistence:

So if I had:

CFJ 1: A is True.
CFJ 2: A is False.

I can reductio ad absurdum (although a really short one) CFJ 1 by just
presenting CFJ 2, and CFJ 2 by presenting CFJ 1.

With that, I would be barred from deducing anything from those ad absurdum
(i.e. attempt to summon Principle of Explosion?)

Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: 
> >Moreover, the Principle of Explosion is the quintessence of what Rule 217's 
> >second paragraph is meant to forbid.
> 
> This, yes?
> 
>   Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be
>   applied using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an
>   absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a
>   statement about rule-defined concepts is false does not
>   constitute proof that it is true.  Definitions in lower-powered
>   Rules do not overrule common-sense interpretations or common
>   definitions of terms in higher-powered rules.
> 
> So, "absurdity" is not meant in a formal way (non sequitur) but rather how 
> the consequences of the application of laws of logic feels like?
> 
> I do honestly believe I need a better definition of the nature of CFJs too 
> though.

My personal thoughts, not everyone may agree:

CFJs are like house rules.  When the rules of a board game are unclear, there's
some general discussion about what's plausible, and eventually there's a 
decision
"well, let's interpret it this way."  It's good to be consistent (follow the
house rule once you've made it) because that's only fair in a game - so that's 
precedent.  But sometimes later on a contradiction comes up ("well if we made 
decision A, now later on it means we can't do B, so A must have been wrong").
Then you can decide to play like !A instead.  You might sometimes take back a
few moves as a result, back to a reasonable limit (for us, that's back to 
ratification).

If a situation comes up only once in a while, you might eventually forget the
old house rule, and the next time it comes up you make a different house rule.
That's fine.  Precedent fades.  And if the rules themselves are changing, 
sometimes you say - oh hey, that old house rule doesn't make sense, there's
an actual rule now.

In the middle of all this, if someone said "oh hey:  new house rule - there are
no house rules!" everyone would say, well that's silly, and dismiss the idea.

Also:  these are not too hard to spot in the CFJ archives, there's several.
I think it would be a REALLY INTERESTING THESIS for someone to do a
comparative study of some of the attempts over time.

Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:


So, "absurdity" is not meant in a formal way (non sequitur) but rather
how the consequences of the application of laws of logic feels like?


No, it _is_ formal, but from logic. "Reductio ad absurdum" (reduction to 
the absurd) is the Latin term for proof by contradiction.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[CuddleBeam]

>Moreover, the Principle of Explosion is the quintessence of what Rule 217's 
>second paragraph is meant to forbid.

This, yes?

  Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be
  applied using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an
  absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a
  statement about rule-defined concepts is false does not
  constitute proof that it is true.  Definitions in lower-powered
  Rules do not overrule common-sense interpretations or common
  definitions of terms in higher-powered rules.

So, "absurdity" is not meant in a formal way (non sequitur) but rather
how the consequences of the application of laws of logic feels like?

I do honestly believe I need a better definition of the nature of CFJs
too though. I think Principle of Explosion would be extremely hard to
pull upon anything that has explicit hierarchy like the Ruleset, but
CFJs have no such explicit hierarchy, so I assume they're all at the
same level, so if there's contradiction, Principle of Explosion could
be summoned.

Unless CFJs themselves aren't to be considered really pure "Platonic"
items. Just official "Educated Guesses" on what is.

Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:


I also don't think the Principle of Explosion applies because DISMISS is an
option.


Moreover, the Principle of Explosion is the quintessence of what Rule 
217's second paragraph is meant to forbid.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[CuddleBeam]

I feel a lot less Platonist about Agora's formal space right now.

>I also don't think the Principle of Explosion applies because DISMISS is
an option.

Once two contradictory CFJs are found, why go back to DISMISS it?

Either:
1) The Principle of Explosion actually works and its an attempt to patch
it. In which case, it works anyway and you got god powers. How would trying
to go back and change it help?
2) The Principle of Explosion actually doesn't work. In which case, there
wouldn't be anything that actually merits a DISMISS in the first place, so
DISMISSING would be inappropriate, because there would be no actual target.

(Or do you mean DISMISSING a very obvious attempt to bait two contradictory
CFJs? Yeah, those cases would be easy to detect, I admit, but I don't see
how they could be DISMISSED. I meant more like contradictory CFJs created
by oversight which people don't notice and have gotten the TRUE/FALSE
stamps already a while ago)

Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Josh T]

I also don't think the Principle of Explosion applies because DISMISS is an
option.

天火狐

On 26 May 2017 at 22:32, Nicholas Evans  wrote:

> More like guidelines, and generally newer overrides older.
>
> On May 26, 2017 9:30 PM, "CuddleBeam"  wrote:
>
>> Would this be a valid way to scam?
>>
>> Or are CFJs more like guidelines?
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer cooks curry

[Quazie]

It's false because there's no reason for it to be true.  None of your
arguments are relevant - the truthiness of the statement is unrelated to
ossification.

Additionally 'if this sentence is false, then agora is ossified' is also
false, because it's just untrue.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 19:11 CuddleBeam  wrote:

> Getting stuff fixed when I see a potential flaw in it I could use goes 
> against scamming spirit.
>
>
> So, I want to try out a thing because I'm not too familiar with scams on 
> Agora and this works as a test run.
>
>
> I CFJ the following statement:
>
>
> "If this sentence is true, then Agora is Ossified."
>
>
> I present the following as Arguments:
>
> * CFJ 3498's Judgement. "Judging this as TRUE would cause Agora to become 
> ossified (proposals are created by announcement, announcements must be 
> unambiguous). Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE. 
> Therefore, I judge as FALSE."
>
>
> * If it were TRUE, Agora would become Ossified, therefore the Judgement 
> should be FALSE.
>
>
> * It is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE, (because its actually 
> undecidable), therefore the Judgement should be FALSE (would you choose to 
> approach through "It is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE->ergo-> I judge 
> as FALSE").
>
>
> * Therefore, it's FALSE.
>
>

Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Nicholas Evans]

More like guidelines, and generally newer overrides older.

On May 26, 2017 9:30 PM, "CuddleBeam"  wrote:

> Would this be a valid way to scam?
>
> Or are CFJs more like guidelines?
>

DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[CuddleBeam]

Would this be a valid way to scam?

Or are CFJs more like guidelines?

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer cooks curry

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:


I CFJ the following statement:


"If this sentence is true, then Agora is Ossified."


This seems a pretty clear DISMISS to me. Rule 591:

  The valid judgements, based on the facts of the case at the time
  the CFJ was initiated, are TRUE, FALSE, and DISMISS.  DISMISS is
  appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable,
  irrelevant to the game, if insufficient information exists to
  make a judgement with reasonable effort, or the statement is
  otherwise not able to be answered TRUE or FALSE.

Also the second paragraph of rule 217 may apply:

  Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be
  applied using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an
  absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a
  statement about rule-defined concepts is false does not
  constitute proof that it is true.  Definitions in lower-powered
  Rules do not overrule common-sense interpretations or common
  definitions of terms in higher-powered rules.

Also, someone here's bound to have tried using Curry's paradox before.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment on CFJ 3514

[grok (caleb vines)]

Welp I tried :(

Hopefully you appreciate the cookie recipe more than the formatting!


-grok

On May 26, 2017 7:31 PM, "Ørjan Johansen"  wrote:

> On Fri, 26 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>
> This recipe SHOULD fit in an eighty-character fixed-width line, for all our
>> terminal-based or fixed-width font mail client users.
>>
>
> While I appreciate the intention, (1) this arrived in my mailbox with the
> final parts of many lines already wrapped a bit before the 80th column, (2)
> even if it didn't, my mail reader also wraps incoming mail slightly before
> the width of the terminal window. (Also it is set to a default of 74th
> column on outgoing mail, although there's something about "flowing"
> involved too.)
>
> Recently I seem to be toggling my putty window between full screen and
> width 80, depending on what makes an email message look best / least awful.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] (Corrected) Metareport

[Nic Evans]

On 05/26/2017 08:24 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

I did not receive the corrected report, but in my mail reader. The referee and 
all second lines don’t line up.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com

Make sure you don't have any agora messages going to spam. Gmail seems 
bad at this. Check this page for a (seemingly) fool-proof filter: 
https://agoranomic.github.io/wiki/wiki/Email.html

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] (Corrected) Metareport

[Nic Evans]

On 05/26/2017 08:00 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

AAA My Eyes!

Seriously, this looks differently mistabulated in my inbox file with 
less, in my mail reader's composer when quoted, and in my mail reader. 
There is as far as I can tell with a search pattern only printable 
ASCII other than newlines, and no spaces at the end of a line. No idea 
how that's even possible.


In the mail reader alone, only the Referee line is not lined up, though.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


I just checked in vim, gedit, and on the github website. The only things 
out of line (and only in vim) are the referee line and the 2nd line of a 
couple events, both of which appear to be due to using a different 
machine and forgetting to set tab to insert spaces.


I'm not sure what could have caused the other issues.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] (Corrected) Metareport

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I did not receive the corrected report, but in my mail reader. The referee and 
all second lines don’t line up.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 26, 2017, at 9:00 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> 
>> Office M[1]  Report  Last Published Late[2]
>> 
>> ADoP[3]  Offices now
>> Herald Y Patent titles   2017-05-20
>> Promotor Proposal pool   2017-05-21
>> RegistrarPlayers, Fora   2017-05-18
>>  Y Player history  -- !!!
>> Referee Rule violations 2017-05-21
>> Reportor The Agoran Newspaper2017-05-24
>> Rulekeepor   Short Logical Ruleset   2017-05-17
>>  Y Full Logical Ruleset2017-05-21
>> SecretaryOrgs and Econ[4]2017-05-22
>>  Y Charters2017-05-01
>> Superintendent   Agencies (incremental)  2017-05-25
>>  Y Agencies (full) 2017-05-18
>> Surveyor Estates 2017-05-22
>> Tailor Y Ribbons 2017-05-18
>> 
> 
> AAA My Eyes!
> 
> Seriously, this looks differently mistabulated in my inbox file with less, in 
> my mail reader's composer when quoted, and in my mail reader. There is as far 
> as I can tell with a search pattern only printable ASCII other than newlines, 
> and no spaces at the end of a line. No idea how that's even possible.
> 
> In the mail reader alone, only the Referee line is not lined up, though.
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] (Corrected) Metareport

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 26 May 2017, Nic Evans wrote:


Office M[1]  Report  Last Published Late[2]

ADoP[3]  Offices now
Herald Y Patent titles   2017-05-20
Promotor Proposal pool   2017-05-21
RegistrarPlayers, Fora   2017-05-18
  Y Player history  -- !!!
Referee Rule violations 2017-05-21
Reportor The Agoran Newspaper2017-05-24
Rulekeepor   Short Logical Ruleset   2017-05-17
  Y Full Logical Ruleset2017-05-21
SecretaryOrgs and Econ[4]2017-05-22
  Y Charters2017-05-01
Superintendent   Agencies (incremental)  2017-05-25
  Y Agencies (full) 2017-05-18
Surveyor Estates 2017-05-22
Tailor Y Ribbons 2017-05-18



AAA My Eyes!

Seriously, this looks differently mistabulated in my inbox file with less, 
in my mail reader's composer when quoted, and in my mail reader. There is 
as far as I can tell with a search pattern only printable ASCII other than 
newlines, and no spaces at the end of a line. No idea how that's even 
possible.


In the mail reader alone, only the Referee line is not lined up, though.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Ariboraray

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-05-26 at 11:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Nice idea in principle, though I'd ask ais523 if tracking this would
> be far more trouble than its worth.

It would be. At the current judicial pace, I'm missing CFJs as it is
(and only randomly stumbling on them later when reviewing messages).
I don't have the time to dedicate to Agora that I once did (because my
current job has much less waiting around than some of the previous
jobs), and the current judicial duties split is the only thing that
lets me keep up at all.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment on CFJ 3514

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 26 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:


This recipe SHOULD fit in an eighty-character fixed-width line, for all our
terminal-based or fixed-width font mail client users.


While I appreciate the intention, (1) this arrived in my mailbox with the 
final parts of many lines already wrapped a bit before the 80th column, 
(2) even if it didn't, my mail reader also wraps incoming mail slightly 
before the width of the terminal window. (Also it is set to a default of 
74th column on outgoing mail, although there's something about "flowing" 
involved too.)


Recently I seem to be toggling my putty window between full screen and 
width 80, depending on what makes an email message look best / least 
awful.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3515 judged TRUE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 26 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

I judge CFJ 3515 TRUE in concurrence with the judgement of CFJ 3511 by 
Gaelan. Further, by this standard any rule-defined or non-rule-defined 
verb is an action. However, what it would be to “24 Hours Notice” is


In addition to other people's protests, I'd like to point out that clearly 
not _every_ verb is an action, purported or otherwise. Consider "own", 
"exist" or "refrain".


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Quazie]

Additional nit:

Text of R2154 now has 1. and 2. not a. and b.

See below from current slr: https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/slr.txt

Rule 2154/49 (Power=2)
Election Procedure

  A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office
  for which no election is already in progress

  1. by announcement, if e is the ADoP, if the office has been
 deputised for within the past two weeks, or if no election
 has been initiated for the office either since the last time
 a player won the game or within the past 90 days;

  2. with 4 Supporters, otherwise.

  After the election is initiated, any player CAN once initiate an
  Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder, and the ADoP
  SHALL do so in a timely fashion if no one else does first.  For
  this decision, the valid options are the players, the vote
  collector is the ADoP, and the voting method is instant runoff.
  Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome, if a player,
  is installed into office, and the election ends.



On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:48 PM Quazie  wrote:

> Since is useful for a number of things - such as Ribbons, Patent Titles,
> and the like.
>
> History is also missing from the Prime Minister and Speaker happenings,
> though I don't really care about that missing (as missing events don't
> matter for ratification)
>
> I also would like, though don't demand, a history of reported events,
> though once again that might be asking for a lot.
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:45 PM Nic Evans  wrote:
>
>> On 05/26/2017 03:43 PM, Quazie wrote:
>> > COE Many new SINCE dates are wrong, such as my prime minister, your
>> > speaker, and ais' arbitor.
>> >
>>
>> Accepted. I used the wrong clock. Now to decide if I want to correct
>> them or just remove them...
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Quazie]

Since is useful for a number of things - such as Ribbons, Patent Titles,
and the like.

History is also missing from the Prime Minister and Speaker happenings,
though I don't really care about that missing (as missing events don't
matter for ratification)

I also would like, though don't demand, a history of reported events,
though once again that might be asking for a lot.

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:45 PM Nic Evans  wrote:

> On 05/26/2017 03:43 PM, Quazie wrote:
> > COE Many new SINCE dates are wrong, such as my prime minister, your
> > speaker, and ais' arbitor.
> >
>
> Accepted. I used the wrong clock. Now to decide if I want to correct
> them or just remove them...
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Thank you for filling most of the offices. It seems I am the only one who is 
behind on reports. I will investigate publishing a new monthly report.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 26, 2017, at 4:38 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> <-->
> 
> Offices and Reports
> Date of this report:
> Date of last report: 2017-05-26
> 
> Informal measures
> -
> Administrative Health [1]: 97%
> Consolidation [2]: 2.14
> 
> [1] Calculated by the weighted average of # of offices filled/total and
> # of reports not late/total. A higher Administrative Health % indicates
> a more active bureaucracy.
> 
> [2] Calculated by dividing the # of filled offices by the number of
> unique officeholders. A higher consolidation rating is not necessarily
> bad, but means Agora is putting more power & responsibility in a small
> group's hands.
> 
> NB: The "PR|RR" and "Holder" columns of this report are
> self-ratifying.
> 
> Office PR|RR[1] Holder   Since   Last Election  Can Elect[2]
> 
> Arbitor2|2  ais523   2017-05-15  2017-05-26
> Assessor   2|2  nichdel  2016-07-19  2017-05-26
> ADoP[3]2|2  nichdel  2017-05-18  2016-10-23 Y
> Herald 2|2  PSS[4]   2017-05-20  2015-07-02 Y
> Prime Minister 2|2  Quazie   2016-10-24  2016-10-22 Y
> Promotor   2|2  Aris 2016-10-21  2017-05-26
> Referee2|2  o2017-04-17  2017-01-14 Y
> Registrar  2|2  PSS[4]   2017-04-18  2014-08-31 Y
> Reportor   2|2  nichdel  2016-09-10  2016-08-30 Y
> Rulekeepor 2|2  Gaelan   2017-05-17  2017-05-26
> Secretary  2|2  o2016-11-06  -- Y
> Speaker2|2  nichdel  2017-01-08  2014-04-21 Never[5]
> Superintendent 2|2  Quazie   2017-04-16  -- Y
> Surveyor   2|2  o2017-05-08  2017-05-10
> Tailor 2|2  ais523   2017-05-17  -- Y
> 
> 
> [1]Payrate and Report Rate
> [2]Whether an election for this position can be initiated by
> announcement, as per R2154(a). Note any player can initiate an election
> for any office with 4 Support per R2154(b).
> [3]Associate Director of Personnel
> [4]Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [5]An imposed position. Election date recorded only for historical
> purposes.
> 
> Office M[1]  Report  Last Published Late[2]
> 
> ADoP[3]  Offices now
> Herald Y Patent titles   2017-05-20
> Promotor Proposal pool   2017-05-21
> RegistrarPlayers, Fora   2017-05-18
>   Y Player history  -- !!!
> Referee  Rule violations 2017-05-21
> Reportor The Agoran Newspaper2017-05-24
> Rulekeepor   Short Logical Ruleset   2017-05-17
>   Y Full Logical Ruleset2017-05-21
> SecretaryOrgs and Econ[4]2017-05-22
>   Y Charters2017-05-01
> Superintendent   Agencies (incremental)  2017-05-25
>   Y Agencies (full) 2017-05-18
> Surveyor Estates 2017-05-22
> Tailor Y Ribbons 2017-05-18
> 
> 
> [1]Monthly
> [2]! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed.
> [3]Associate Director of Personnel
> [4]Organizations, lockout, expediture, and balances
> 
> EVENTS
> --
> 2017-05-26   15:21   Elections for Assessor, Promotor, Arbitor, and
> Rulekeepor result in no officer changes.
> 2017-05-24   08:00   Adoption of Proposal 7852 changes Payrate and
> enacts Report Rate.
> 2017-05-20   14:43   PSS becomes Herald, via deputisation.
> 2017-05-18   19:43   ais523 becomes Arbitor, via deputisation.
> 2017-05-18   16:32   o becomes Surveyor, via election.
> 
> <-->
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Quazie]

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:04 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > > I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's
> needed to find the CFJ false.
> > I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your
> point that that additional
> > argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I just think that it
> serves Agora better Good to
> > not codify a potential fallacy and have a clear
> > opinion piece on the subject of ambiguity.
> >
> > 天火狐
>
> Oh, yes... I should have added that I generally agree with your problems
> with using R1698 as a
> primary reason.
>
> Especially as CFJs don't generally change the gamestate, they just tell us
> what the gamestate
> actually is.  So if we used R1698 as a basis (saying "yes, everything's
> ambiguous, but admitting
> that would ossify the game") then what we'd *really* have to conclude is
> "that means the rule
> change, however many years ago, that stated ambiguous actions fail, would
> have ossified the
> game - so that's cancelled and didn't occur."  So we have to go back and
> recalculate everything
> from that point (including re-visiting every single ambiguous action we've
> ever discarded since
> then)!!
>

Note: We should have a regular 'Ratify the world' event to prevent us from
going back too far.

Though i guess if you have to zip back time that far then you get to
pre-ratification, and then you're boned anwyays.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to 
> >find the CFJ false.
> I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your point 
> that that additional 
> argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I just think that it serves 
> Agora better Good to
> not codify a potential fallacy and have a clear
> opinion piece on the subject of ambiguity. 
> 
> 天火狐

Oh, yes... I should have added that I generally agree with your problems with 
using R1698 as a
primary reason.

Especially as CFJs don't generally change the gamestate, they just tell us what 
the gamestate
actually is.  So if we used R1698 as a basis (saying "yes, everything's 
ambiguous, but admitting
that would ossify the game") then what we'd *really* have to conclude is "that 
means the rule
change, however many years ago, that stated ambiguous actions fail, would have 
ossified the
game - so that's cancelled and didn't occur."  So we have to go back and 
recalculate everything
from that point (including re-visiting every single ambiguous action we've ever 
discarded since
then)!!

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Josh T]

I don't quite get the leap of logic to arrive at the sentence. I would like
to enquire CuddleBeam of clarification on what e means by "The ability of
Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain switch DOES NOT
change whether a certain separate reality is factual or not."

天火狐

On 26 May 2017 at 15:54, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> That’s what I thought, but it seems like a bit of an overreaction and I
> don’t understand the third sentence.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> >
> > On my mail client, it's in reply to my motion to reconsider CFJ 3498
> ("Every statement is ambiguous") with two support.
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 26 May 2017 at 15:45, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > What is this email in reference to?
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 26, 2017, at 3:44 PM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I support this.
> > >
> > > I'm also pissed.
> > >
> > > The ability of Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain
> switch DOES NOT change whether a certain separate reality is factual or
> not. It's absurdity.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

That’s what I thought, but it seems like a bit of an overreaction and I don’t 
understand the third sentence.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> On my mail client, it's in reply to my motion to reconsider CFJ 3498 ("Every 
> statement is ambiguous") with two support. 
> 
> 天火狐
> 
> On 26 May 2017 at 15:45, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> What is this email in reference to?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On May 26, 2017, at 3:44 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> >
> > I support this.
> >
> > I'm also pissed.
> >
> > The ability of Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain switch 
> > DOES NOT change whether a certain separate reality is factual or not. It's 
> > absurdity.
> >
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I can understand that.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 26, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> > I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to 
> > find the CFJ false.
> 
> I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your point 
> that that additional argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I just 
> think that it serves Agora better Good to not codify a potential fallacy and 
> have a clear opinion piece on the subject of ambiguity. 
> 
> 天火狐
> 
> On 26 May 2017 at 15:25, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to 
> find the CFJ false.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I am kind of not comfortable with the argument provided being the official 
> > one, since it doesn't address the caller's arguments directly, and the main 
> > argument therein sort of just reads (at least to me) "If the statement is 
> > TRUE, Agora is
> > ossified. Agora does not want to be ossified. Thus, this statement is 
> > FALSE", which sounds awfully like an appeal to consequence fallacy to me. 
> > (I argue that if this CFJ were to be found TRUE, since a CFJ is not a 
> > proposal, it and any gamestate
> > changes it effects falls under the "any other single change to gamestate" 
> > clause, the specific offending result which would cause the game to become 
> > ossified would be cancelled; this does not prevent the CFJ being found 
> > true.)
> > While I think the line of reasoning presented in the additional argument is 
> > an acceptable resolution to this CFJ, I feel that this CFJ as it currently 
> > stands is unsatisfactory: it is my understanding of Agora CFJ system that 
> > the result of the
> > case is merely the destination and the logical journey of reaching the 
> > conclusion is equally, if not more, important in establishing the Agoran 
> > framework for the future. 
> >
> > Hence, I would like to file a motion to reconsider with two support with 
> > the hope of having a judgement that addresses the caller's evidence and 
> > potentially avoiding setting bad precedents for Agora (including but not 
> > limited to the
> > aforementioned fallacy and establishing that it is an OK practice to ignore 
> > caller's evidence).
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > PS: Originally I filed this CFJ in an attempt by ad absurdum to show that 
> > "Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous" and "Any 
> > ambiguity is sufficient to stop an action which is required to be 
> > unambiguous" together are very
> > bad opinions to take as axiomatic in Gaelan's initial objection to the 
> > amendment of 蘭亭社's charter, with the expectation that the result of the CFJ 
> > was to be effectively irrelevant. However, I think having a strong CFJ on 
> > the subject of
> > ambiguity is something that is good for Agora as a whole. 
> > On 26 May 2017 at 00:42, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >   I judge this as FALSE.
> > Rule 1698/4:
> >   Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
> >   combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule
> >   changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted
> >   within a four-week period.
> >
> >   If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause
> >   Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to
> >   exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary
> >   notwithstanding.  If any other single change to the gamestate
> >   would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to
> >   cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the
> >   contrary notwithstanding.
> >
> > Judging this as TRUE would cause Agora to become ossified (proposals are 
> > created by announcement, announcements must be unambiguous). Therefore, it 
> > is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE. Therefore, I judge as FALSE.
> >
> > Additional argument: ambiguous is a relative term, but it is clear from 
> > game precedent that in this context it means “reasonably unambiguous to the 
> > players of Agora."
> >   On May 19, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Josh T  
> > wrote:
> >
> > I submit a Call for Judgement for the following statement: 
> > "Every statement is ambiguous."
> >
> > I present the following argument as caller's evidence:  
> > * Every statement is written in one language. 
> > * Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous. 
> > * Therefore, every statement is ambiguous at least in every language 
> > the statement was not originally written in.  
> > * Agora does not formally make preference to any one language, and 
> > recognizes differences in dialect (CFJ 1439).
> > * Thus, every statement is ambiguous. 
> >
> > 天火狐
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Josh T]

On my mail client, it's in reply to my motion to reconsider CFJ 3498
("Every statement is ambiguous") with two support.

天火狐

On 26 May 2017 at 15:45, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> What is this email in reference to?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 2017, at 3:44 PM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
> >
> > I support this.
> >
> > I'm also pissed.
> >
> > The ability of Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain
> switch DOES NOT change whether a certain separate reality is factual or
> not. It's absurdity.
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Josh T]

> I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed
to find the CFJ false.

I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your point
that that additional argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I
just think that it serves Agora better Good to not codify a potential
fallacy and have a clear opinion piece on the subject of ambiguity.

天火狐

On 26 May 2017 at 15:25, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to
> find the CFJ false.
>
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I am kind of not comfortable with the argument provided being the
> official one, since it doesn't address the caller's arguments directly, and
> the main argument therein sort of just reads (at least to me) "If the
> statement is TRUE, Agora is
> > ossified. Agora does not want to be ossified. Thus, this statement is
> FALSE", which sounds awfully like an appeal to consequence fallacy to me.
> (I argue that if this CFJ were to be found TRUE, since a CFJ is not a
> proposal, it and any gamestate
> > changes it effects falls under the "any other single change to
> gamestate" clause, the specific offending result which would cause the game
> to become ossified would be cancelled; this does not prevent the CFJ being
> found true.)
> > While I think the line of reasoning presented in the additional argument
> is an acceptable resolution to this CFJ, I feel that this CFJ as it
> currently stands is unsatisfactory: it is my understanding of Agora CFJ
> system that the result of the
> > case is merely the destination and the logical journey of reaching the
> conclusion is equally, if not more, important in establishing the Agoran
> framework for the future.
> >
> > Hence, I would like to file a motion to reconsider with two support with
> the hope of having a judgement that addresses the caller's evidence and
> potentially avoiding setting bad precedents for Agora (including but not
> limited to the
> > aforementioned fallacy and establishing that it is an OK practice to
> ignore caller's evidence).
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > PS: Originally I filed this CFJ in an attempt by ad absurdum to show
> that "Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous" and
> "Any ambiguity is sufficient to stop an action which is required to be
> unambiguous" together are very
> > bad opinions to take as axiomatic in Gaelan's initial objection to the
> amendment of 蘭亭社's charter, with the expectation that the result of the CFJ
> was to be effectively irrelevant. However, I think having a strong CFJ on
> the subject of
> > ambiguity is something that is good for Agora as a whole.
> > On 26 May 2017 at 00:42, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >   I judge this as FALSE.
> > Rule 1698/4:
> >   Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
> >   combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule
> >   changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted
> >   within a four-week period.
> >
> >   If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause
> >   Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to
> >   exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary
> >   notwithstanding.  If any other single change to the gamestate
> >   would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to
> >   cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the
> >   contrary notwithstanding.
> >
> > Judging this as TRUE would cause Agora to become ossified (proposals are
> created by announcement, announcements must be unambiguous). Therefore, it
> is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE. Therefore, I judge as FALSE.
> >
> > Additional argument: ambiguous is a relative term, but it is clear from
> game precedent that in this context it means “reasonably unambiguous to the
> players of Agora."
> >   On May 19, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Josh T 
> wrote:
> >
> > I submit a Call for Judgement for the following statement:
> > "Every statement is ambiguous."
> >
> > I present the following argument as caller's evidence:
> > * Every statement is written in one language.
> > * Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous.
> > * Therefore, every statement is ambiguous at least in every language
> the statement was not originally written in.
> > * Agora does not formally make preference to any one language, and
> recognizes differences in dialect (CFJ 1439).
> > * Thus, every statement is ambiguous.
> >
> > 天火狐
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

What is this email in reference to?

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 26, 2017, at 3:44 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> I support this.
> 
> I'm also pissed.
> 
> The ability of Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain switch 
> DOES NOT change whether a certain separate reality is factual or not. It's 
> absurdity.
> 

Re: DIS: Ariboraray

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I definitely don’t like this CFJ model. Maybe we could implement CFJs by 
support past 5.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 26, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:52 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> I've pondered a few ideas:
> 
> 1.  Requiring support to call a CFJ.
> 
>  
> Currently max CFJs per week per player is 5.
> 
> What if, for each CFJ you need N support, where N is the number of other CFJs 
> you have made in the prior week.
> 
>  
> 2.  Allowing the Arbitor to make a first-cut "DISMISS this one - try again but
> less messy and label Caller's Arguments".
> 
>  
> This just seems reasonable overall.  Still wastes a players CFJ usage, but 
> doesn't put much work on a judge, so it doesn't clog the pipes.
>  

Re: DIS: Ariboraray

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

In my thoughts towards a redesign, I have considered the procedural DISMISSAL, 
but I strongly oppose the requirement of support.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 26, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>> There's a lot of legal activity going on in Agora these days, and i'm unsure 
>> if the minimal set of Arbitor duties is allowing me to keep abreast of 
>> what's happening.
>> I proto-propose (though I'd like some assistance if anyone's willing, if not 
>> I'll flesh this out post memorial day) that the arbitor should produce a 
>> weekly State of the Bench report.
>> 
>> It should include:
>> List of eligible judges (WIth qualifications) so that judges can realize if 
>> they have put any exceptions in for their judging.
>> 
>> It should include, for each CFJ that has changed since the last report:
>> ID - Question - Status - Judge if any - Relevant info about reconsideration
>> 
>> Thoughts?
> 
> ais523 can answer of course, but I privately talked to em about splitting the 
> role 
> before e took it, and we agreed that the model of "move fast" (assign as they 
> come)
> and "document later" was a good joint model that suited both our desired 
> styles.
> 
> I'm worried that adding a required report layer will choke up this model 
> somewhat
> (though that was something like the aim of the Court Gazette).
> 
> But I think the real issue is that we have an unparalleled level of judicial 
> activity
> however it's structured.  Scaling up to cope is new territory.  I mean, I'm 
> still
> timely at making "weekly" reports and I'm 15+ CFJs behind.  We wouldn't make 
> any new
> reports happen more frequently than weekly, and so those would be constantly 
> out of
> date as well - adding workload without aiding in keeping people up to date in 
> a
> very fast-moving environment.
> 
> I hope we don't have to go to a proposal-like system (batch assignments) 
> because it 
> might tend to slow things down.  But we might have to think about those sorts 
> of
> changes.
> 
> Some of the CFJs have suffered from poor statement wording and unstructured 
> calling
> (e.g. calling a statement on top of a thread of replies, and expecting the 
> Judge
> and/or Clerk to sort out actual arguments).  I've pondered a few ideas:
> 
> 1.  Requiring support to call a CFJ.
> 
> 2.  Allowing the Arbitor to make a first-cut "DISMISS this one - try again but
> less messy and label Caller's Arguments".
> 
> But I'm not wholly sure the current method is broken, yet.  Dynamic - that it 
> is.
> 
> -G.
> 
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

What if we had different pseudo-stocks each tied to different actions and costs.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 26, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> On 05/26/2017 01:00 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>> >But why would people want to do that? If I own every instance of the word 
>> >'office' in the ruleset, is there anything I can do with that? Or are those 
>> >purely for speculating on their future value?
>> 
>> Achieving more of an arbitrary token that denotes merit lol.
> Typically you need to make the end goal something players already value, like 
> a win. It's difficult to convince people to value something new, especially 
> if the strategy to achieve it isn't immediately obvious.
> 
> I'd also like to note that the Stamp system combined with Pending Price is 
> intended to be a sort of pseudo-stock. Not to say that we can only have one 
> mechanic of that variety, but it's probably best to make sure they both fit 
> well into the Agoran ecosystem without filling the same role.

Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

The numbers also sound very cool.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 26, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
>>> But why would people want to do that? If I own every instance of the word 
>>> 'office' in the ruleset, 
>> is there anything I can do with that? Or are those purely for speculating on 
>> their future value?
>> Achieving more of an arbitrary token that denotes merit lol.
> 
> One of the games that dominated Agoran play for a full year was the Agoran 
> Agricultural Association
> (AAA).
> 
> It was a farming game.  You could buy plots to farm digits (the digits 0-9).  
> They took time
> to farm, and so you could have a stockpile of digits.
> 
> Whenever a CFJ was officially judged, Proposal (distributed or adopted?  
> forget which) or
> a rule numbered, you could cash in digits in your stockpile to get rewards.  
> Took some
> anticipation, trading, stocking, etc.  I think you got bonuses for combos 
> (number of
> digits you traded in for a single CFJ, etc.)
> 
> Right now, in CFJ land we've just left the 3400s for the 3500s.  3s still 
> have a constant
> regular value, but the 4 market has dropped a bit while 5s have picked up.
> 
> We were really, really into it.
> 
> Also:  we've mused on ideas for owning Rules, so that whenever a Rule is 
> amended, etc., the
> owner gets something.  Never did it but it could be fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Kerim Aydin]

I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to find 
the CFJ false.


On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> I am kind of not comfortable with the argument provided being the official 
> one, since it doesn't address the caller's arguments directly, and the main 
> argument therein sort of just reads (at least to me) "If the statement is 
> TRUE, Agora is
> ossified. Agora does not want to be ossified. Thus, this statement is FALSE", 
> which sounds awfully like an appeal to consequence fallacy to me. (I argue 
> that if this CFJ were to be found TRUE, since a CFJ is not a proposal, it and 
> any gamestate
> changes it effects falls under the "any other single change to gamestate" 
> clause, the specific offending result which would cause the game to become 
> ossified would be cancelled; this does not prevent the CFJ being found true.)
> While I think the line of reasoning presented in the additional argument is 
> an acceptable resolution to this CFJ, I feel that this CFJ as it currently 
> stands is unsatisfactory: it is my understanding of Agora CFJ system that the 
> result of the
> case is merely the destination and the logical journey of reaching the 
> conclusion is equally, if not more, important in establishing the Agoran 
> framework for the future. 
> 
> Hence, I would like to file a motion to reconsider with two support with the 
> hope of having a judgement that addresses the caller's evidence and 
> potentially avoiding setting bad precedents for Agora (including but not 
> limited to the
> aforementioned fallacy and establishing that it is an OK practice to ignore 
> caller's evidence).
> 
> 天火狐
> 
> PS: Originally I filed this CFJ in an attempt by ad absurdum to show that 
> "Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous" and "Any 
> ambiguity is sufficient to stop an action which is required to be 
> unambiguous" together are very
> bad opinions to take as axiomatic in Gaelan's initial objection to the 
> amendment of 蘭亭社's charter, with the expectation that the result of the CFJ 
> was to be effectively irrelevant. However, I think having a strong CFJ on the 
> subject of
> ambiguity is something that is good for Agora as a whole. 
> On 26 May 2017 at 00:42, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>   I judge this as FALSE.
> Rule 1698/4:
>       Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
>       combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule
>       changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted
>       within a four-week period.
> 
>       If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause
>       Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to
>       exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary
>       notwithstanding.  If any other single change to the gamestate
>       would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to
>       cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the
>       contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Judging this as TRUE would cause Agora to become ossified (proposals are 
> created by announcement, announcements must be unambiguous). Therefore, it is 
> IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE. Therefore, I judge as FALSE.
> 
> Additional argument: ambiguous is a relative term, but it is clear from game 
> precedent that in this context it means “reasonably unambiguous to the 
> players of Agora."
>   On May 19, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> I submit a Call for Judgement for the following statement: 
> "Every statement is ambiguous."
> 
> I present the following argument as caller's evidence:  
>     * Every statement is written in one language. 
>     * Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous. 
>     * Therefore, every statement is ambiguous at least in every language the 
> statement was not originally written in.  
>     * Agora does not formally make preference to any one language, and 
> recognizes differences in dialect (CFJ 1439).
>     * Thus, every statement is ambiguous. 
> 
> 天火狐

Re: Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.

[CuddleBeam]

>Typically you need to make the end goal something players already value, like
a win.

What if we call the token SUPER win

Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.

[Nic Evans]

On 05/26/2017 01:00 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>But why would people want to do that? If I own every instance of the 
word 'office' in the ruleset, is there anything I can do with that? Or 
are those purely for speculating on their future value?


Achieving more of an arbitrary token that denotes merit lol.


Typically you need to make the end goal something players already value, 
like a win. It's difficult to convince people to value something new, 
especially if the strategy to achieve it isn't immediately obvious.


I'd also like to note that the Stamp system combined with Pending Price 
is intended to be a sort of pseudo-stock. Not to say that we can only 
have one mechanic of that variety, but it's probably best to make sure 
they both fit well into the Agoran ecosystem without filling the same role.

Re: DIS: Ariboraray

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 26 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:52 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>   I've pondered a few ideas:
> 
>   1.  Requiring support to call a CFJ.
> 
> 
>  
> Currently max CFJs per week per player is 5.

That's a longstanding limit - while this might limit a really prolific caller
(or CFJ spam scams), I think this week has shown that our system hits issues far
before that.

> What if, for each CFJ you need N support, where N is the number of other CFJs
> you have made in the prior week.

Nice idea in principle, though I'd ask ais523 if tracking this would be far more
trouble than its worth.

Re: DIS: Ariboraray

[Quazie]

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:52 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> I've pondered a few ideas:
>
> 1.  Requiring support to call a CFJ.



Currently max CFJs per week per player is 5.

What if, for each CFJ you need N support, where N is the number of other
CFJs you have made in the prior week.



> 2.  Allowing the Arbitor to make a first-cut "DISMISS this one - try again
> but
> less messy and label Caller's Arguments".
>


This just seems reasonable overall.  Still wastes a players CFJ usage, but
doesn't put much work on a judge, so it doesn't clog the pipes.

Re: Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 26 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> >But why would people want to do that? If I own every instance of the word 
> >'office' in the ruleset, 
> is there anything I can do with that? Or are those purely for speculating on 
> their future value?
> Achieving more of an arbitrary token that denotes merit lol.

One of the games that dominated Agoran play for a full year was the Agoran 
Agricultural Association
(AAA).

It was a farming game.  You could buy plots to farm digits (the digits 0-9).  
They took time
to farm, and so you could have a stockpile of digits.

Whenever a CFJ was officially judged, Proposal (distributed or adopted?  forget 
which) or
a rule numbered, you could cash in digits in your stockpile to get rewards.  
Took some
anticipation, trading, stocking, etc.  I think you got bonuses for combos 
(number of
digits you traded in for a single CFJ, etc.)

Right now, in CFJ land we've just left the 3400s for the 3500s.  3s still have 
a constant
regular value, but the 4 market has dropped a bit while 5s have picked up.

We were really, really into it.

Also:  we've mused on ideas for owning Rules, so that whenever a Rule is 
amended, etc., the
owner gets something.  Never did it but it could be fun.

DIS: Re: BUS: I hope i'm wrong

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 26 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> I retract my CFJ.  My brain totally misread things.

I've also accidentally used "open" recently to refer to "without a judge", I 
think.
Sorry about that.

Re: DIS: Ariboraray

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 26 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> There's a lot of legal activity going on in Agora these days, and i'm unsure 
> if the minimal set of Arbitor duties is allowing me to keep abreast of what's 
> happening.
> I proto-propose (though I'd like some assistance if anyone's willing, if not 
> I'll flesh this out post memorial day) that the arbitor should produce a 
> weekly State of the Bench report.
> 
> It should include:
> List of eligible judges (WIth qualifications) so that judges can realize if 
> they have put any exceptions in for their judging.
> 
> It should include, for each CFJ that has changed since the last report:
> ID - Question - Status - Judge if any - Relevant info about reconsideration
> 
> Thoughts?

ais523 can answer of course, but I privately talked to em about splitting the 
role 
before e took it, and we agreed that the model of "move fast" (assign as they 
come)
and "document later" was a good joint model that suited both our desired styles.

I'm worried that adding a required report layer will choke up this model 
somewhat
(though that was something like the aim of the Court Gazette).

But I think the real issue is that we have an unparalleled level of judicial 
activity
however it's structured.  Scaling up to cope is new territory.  I mean, I'm 
still
timely at making "weekly" reports and I'm 15+ CFJs behind.  We wouldn't make 
any new
reports happen more frequently than weekly, and so those would be constantly 
out of
date as well - adding workload without aiding in keeping people up to date in a
very fast-moving environment.

I hope we don't have to go to a proposal-like system (batch assignments) 
because it 
might tend to slow things down.  But we might have to think about those sorts of
changes.

Some of the CFJs have suffered from poor statement wording and unstructured 
calling
(e.g. calling a statement on top of a thread of replies, and expecting the Judge
and/or Clerk to sort out actual arguments).  I've pondered a few ideas:

1.  Requiring support to call a CFJ.

2.  Allowing the Arbitor to make a first-cut "DISMISS this one - try again but
less messy and label Caller's Arguments".

But I'm not wholly sure the current method is broken, yet.  Dynamic - that it 
is.

-G.

Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.

[Martin Rönsch]

That seems fun. After establishing the stock market people and 
organizations could claim shares in words which can then be further traded.


But why would people want to do that? If I own every instance of the 
word 'office' in the ruleset, is there anything I can do with that? Or 
are those purely for speculating on their future value?


Veggiekeks


Am 26.05.2017 um 19:21 schrieb CuddleBeam:

Stock Market of words in the ruleset perhaps?

"People want more 'if's -  QUICK, BUY, BUY!"

"Oh shit, there's going to be a keyword reform: SELL 'SHALLS', SELL!"

DIS: Ariboraray

[Quazie]

There's a lot of legal activity going on in Agora these days, and i'm
unsure if the minimal set of Arbitor duties is allowing me to keep abreast
of what's happening.

I proto-propose (though I'd like some assistance if anyone's willing, if
not I'll flesh this out post memorial day) that the arbitor should produce
a weekly State of the Bench report.

It should include:
List of eligible judges (WIth qualifications) so that judges can realize if
they have put any exceptions in for their judging.

It should include, for each CFJ that has changed since the last report:
ID - Question - Status - Judge if any - Relevant info about reconsideration

Thoughts?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3515 judged TRUE

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I see my imprecision, therefore I file a Motion to Reconsider.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> On 05/26/2017 11:53 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>
> TO elaborate every verb is an action, but many can only be performed under
> certain circumstances. I believe you are misunderstanding my judgment to
> have greater meaning than it has.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> This is a fundamental misunderstanding of verbs and performative
> utterances, and the very reasoning that leads to the I SAY I DID fallacy.
>
> First, 'every verb is an action' isn't true at all. Grammatical verbs
> mostly describe actions, they don't perform them.
>
> Second, performative utterances are not directly tied to verbs (though
> many require formulas that include a specified verb). I can say "FOR" to
> vote, and no verb was used.
>
> You might be suggesting that *saying* something is an action, which I
> agree with. In that way an agency could allow you to say something. But
> it's the I SAY I DID fallacy to suggest that saying you did a performative,
> or using a performative's formula, is any action greater than *saying*.
>
> Consider this theoretical agency:
>
> Title: A Very Broken Agency (VBA)
> Agents: All players
> Actions: Say anything on my behalf
>
> By the CFJ reasoning, VBA allows other players to perform any action on my
> behalf. By my reasoning, anything that is said via VBA is only said and not
> performed. A less trivial example:
>
> Title: Broken Voting Agency (BVA)
> Agents: All players
> Actions: Any agent may send a message specifying my votes on an Agoran
> Decision.
>
> By the CFJ reasoning, that message could contain any action as long as it
> also contains votes, all done on my behalf. By my reasoning, everything
> except the votes would fail to be actions (except for the action of saying)
> because there is a separation between saying and doing.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3515 judged TRUE

[Nic Evans]

On 05/26/2017 11:53 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
TO elaborate every verb is an action, but many can only be performed 
under certain circumstances. I believe you are misunderstanding my 
judgment to have greater meaning than it has.



Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of verbs and performative 
utterances, and the very reasoning that leads to the I SAY I DID fallacy.


First, 'every verb is an action' isn't true at all. Grammatical verbs 
mostly describe actions, they don't perform them.


Second, performative utterances are not directly tied to verbs (though 
many require formulas that include a specified verb). I can say "FOR" to 
vote, and no verb was used.


You might be suggesting that *saying* something is an action, which I 
agree with. In that way an agency could allow you to say something. But 
it's the I SAY I DID fallacy to suggest that saying you did a 
performative, or using a performative's formula, is any action greater 
than *saying*.


Consider this theoretical agency:

Title: A Very Broken Agency (VBA)
Agents: All players
Actions: Say anything on my behalf

By the CFJ reasoning, VBA allows other players to perform any action on 
my behalf. By my reasoning, anything that is said via VBA is only said 
and not performed. A less trivial example:


Title: Broken Voting Agency (BVA)
Agents: All players
Actions: Any agent may send a message specifying my votes on an Agoran 
Decision.


By the CFJ reasoning, that message could contain any action as long as 
it also contains votes, all done on my behalf. By my reasoning, 
everything except the votes would fail to be actions (except for the 
action of saying) because there is a separation between saying and doing.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3515 judged TRUE

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

TO elaborate every verb is an action, but many can only be performed under
certain circumstances. I believe you are misunderstanding my judgment to
have greater meaning than it has.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> ​It is an action, it just has no effect. I am not saying that every action
> has the expected outcome, just that it is an action.​
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>
>> On 05/26/2017 09:15 AM, Nic Evans wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/26/2017 05:28 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>>
 I judge CFJ 3515 TRUE in concurrence with the judgement of CFJ 3511 by
 Gaelan. Further, by this standard any rule-defined or non-rule-defined verb
 is an action. However, what it would be to “24 Hours Notice” is unclear to
 me, therefore I believe what is intended is to ask whether “to give 24
 Hours Notice” is an action. I find this to be an action and to be secured
 if the action for which one is giving the 24 hours notice is rule-defined,
 as “to give 24 Hours Notice” is in this context synonymous with “to intent”
 or “to issue intent”. I plan to soon release a thesis elaborating on the
 types of actions, how they can be used, and other action related topics.

 
 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



 I motion to reconsider with 2 Support. The statement "any rule-defined
>>> or non-rule-defined verb is an action" is a codification of the I Say I Did
>>> Therefore I Did fallacy.
>>>
>>> More elaborated arguments:
>>
>> I agree with TRUE for the text of the CFJ. The issue I have is that not
>> every verb is an action. In fact, not every purported action is an action.
>> Players *can* do things by announcement, but many of those things require
>> other conditions to be met to be done. It would not be an action for me to
>> say "I distribute the following proposals" because the action purported
>> isn't possible for me.
>>
>>
>

Re: Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.

[Kerim Aydin]

There was an Agoran Drinking Song once.  Can't remember the full
thing, but the final lines were:

'Cause every one must have eir Torah
Rules that they find divine.
Agora, pass one more amphora
Pour me one more cup of wine!

On Fri, 26 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:

> >religion themed rulesystems
> We already have a "religion" system here.
> 
> To imagine it, imagine the "Agora ruleset" is now called "Bible", "Quran", or 
> something similar. Replace "bad sport" in our ruleset with "sinner".
> 
> Now look at all of our conflicts over considering what is cardable or not. 
> What is "acceptable" and what is "abuse" and in what way. 
> 
> We have people pointing to the codified ethics and arguing and lawyering over 
> what is "right" and "wrong" in Agora all the time. Just like... certain 
> disagreements between Protestantism and Catholicism for example, over 
> interpretation of parts of
> the Bible.
> 
> I don't believe religion is in itself bad or good. But we already a prominent 
> part of what is often its thematic right here.
> 
> Codified ethics, and the interpretation of it.
> 
>

Re: Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.

[CuddleBeam]

>religion themed rulesystems

We already have a "religion" system here.

To imagine it, imagine the "Agora ruleset" is now called "Bible", "Quran",
or something similar. Replace "bad sport" in our ruleset with "sinner".

Now look at all of our conflicts over considering what is cardable or not.
What is "acceptable" and what is "abuse" and in what way.

We have people pointing to the codified ethics and arguing and lawyering
over what is "right" and "wrong" in Agora all the time. Just like...
certain disagreements between Protestantism and Catholicism for example,
over interpretation of parts of the Bible.

I don't believe religion is in itself bad or good. But we already a
prominent part of what is often its thematic right here.

Codified ethics, and the interpretation of it.

Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.

[Gaelan Steele]

A stock market could be interesting. Stocks could be real (tied to actual stock 
data) or just simulated

Gaelan

> On May 25, 2017, at 11:01 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> I ENCOURAGE someone to come up with an interesting proposal competition.
> 
> I SUGGEST that the economy is an interesting objective.
> I SUGGEST that judicial reform is an interesting objective.
> I SUGGEST that theming the game is an interesting objective.
> 
> How in the world have we not had a Proposal Competition since all this 
> activity began?
> 
> How in the world are we not continually attempting to start proposal 
> competitions?
> 
> They seem so neat, and powerful, and were somehow missed by the economy 
> overhaul for proposal distribution. (Though maybe that was intentional?)
> 

Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.

[Martin Rönsch]

Am 26.05.2017 um 08:01 schrieb Quazie:

I ENCOURAGE someone to come up with an interesting proposal competition.

I SUGGEST that the economy is an interesting objective.
I SUGGEST that judicial reform is an interesting objective.
I SUGGEST that theming the game is an interesting objective.

How in the world have we not had a Proposal Competition since all this 
activity began?


How in the world are we not continually attempting to start proposal 
competitions?


They seem so neat, and powerful, and were somehow missed by the 
economy overhaul for proposal distribution. (Though maybe that was 
intentional?)




I think more theming would be absolutely great.
In the history of Agora, have there been any religion themed 
rulesystems? I think this might be an interesting theme to explore.


Veggiekeks

Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.

[Quazie]

They are a weekly free distribution of all competition proposals. They
bypass pending and they bypass the economy. There is no limit to the number
of proposals one may submit.
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 05:06 CuddleBeam  wrote:

> >Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.
>
>
> I... don't see how proposal competitions are particularly powerful.
>
>
> I might be missing something though.
>
>

Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.

[CuddleBeam]

>Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.


I... don't see how proposal competitions are particularly powerful.


I might be missing something though.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Academia

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

That was not split on my computer and it is intended to be a single sentence.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 26, 2017, at 7:19 AM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> I SUPPORT this.
> 
> ...If it's alright that there has been a typo there and the following got 
> split:
> 
> "Objective of improving and encouraging scholarship of Agora and/or theming 
> Agora around scholarship and academia."
> 

DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.

[Quazie]

I ENCOURAGE someone to come up with an interesting proposal competition.

I SUGGEST that the economy is an interesting objective.
I SUGGEST that judicial reform is an interesting objective.
I SUGGEST that theming the game is an interesting objective.

How in the world have we not had a Proposal Competition since all this
activity began?

How in the world are we not continually attempting to start proposal
competitions?

They seem so neat, and powerful, and were somehow missed by the economy
overhaul for proposal distribution. (Though maybe that was intentional?)