Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>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
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
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
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
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
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
Would this be a valid way to scam? Or are CFJs more like guidelines?
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer cooks curry
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
>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.
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
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
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.
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.
Re: Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.
>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.
DIS: Re: BUS: I hope i'm wrong
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
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.
DIS: Re: BUS: I hope i'm wrong
Uh. So. I request to not be assigned to this case. -grok On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Quazie wrote: > I CFJ on the following statement "It is possible to assign judgments to > CFJs" > > Evidence: > {{{ > Rule 591/42 (Power=1.7) > Delivering Judgements > > When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN > assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so > in a timely fashion after this becomes possible. If e does not, > the Arbitor CAN remove em from being the judge of that case by > announcement. > [...] > > Rule 991/17 (Power=2) > Calls for Judgement > > Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement > (CFJ, syn. Judicial Case) by announcement, specifying a > statement to be inquired into. E may optionally bar one person > from the case. > > At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or > assigned exactly one judgement. > > The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of > justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest > of Agora. > > When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any > player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a > week. The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all > players except the initiator and the person barred (if any). > The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. > If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to > judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections. > > }}} > > Arguments: > {{{ > Rule 991 states that a case can either be Open or Assigned. > > Rule 591, a lower power rule, states that judgements can be assigned to > a case that is Open AND assigned. > > Thus, no judgments can be placed, as a case can't be in both states. > }}} >
Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.
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
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
On Fri, 26 May 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > 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. I was going to say that the implied verb is "I vote FOR..." for which we accept shorthand, but then I reread Rule 683. And this one's interesting, because the verb in question is the act of sending. The message is the literal ballot, and the act of sending (submitting) it is the verb. So you don't actually, technically, vote "by announcement." (wherein you would generally need to supply a verb, or at least an implied verb, to specify your action as per R478). You vote by marking your email ballot and actually sending it.
Re: Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.
That could be very interesting. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:21 PM, CuddleBeam wrote: > 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!" >
Re: Re: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.
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!"
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3515 judged TRUE
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
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
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: DIS: Wow - Proposal Competitions are crazy powerful.
I like the stock market idea. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > 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?) > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3515 judged TRUE
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
>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
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." >