Re: Re: DIS: Issuing a card for the wrong reason generating infinite loop

[CuddleBeam]

Gotcha, thank you so much for the cool history and reply and all, I
appreciate it.

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

[CuddleBeam]

I just realized that if Principle of Explosion could be used at some
moment, Agora would become senseless chaotic soup, even if I attempted to
use my Explosion powers to remove the contradiction and re-stabilize Agora.

Yeah, it can be provable that I can do anything, but:

It can also be provable that I can do nothing.

It would just be Special Pleading to choose the stuff that is more
convenient to me. Everything would be indeterminate and nothing could be
known forever, even if the rule of Ossification even exists now, in the
past, in the future, at some time that was before itself, up, down, right,
potato, bananas...

So the Explosion thing actually wouldn't work to my advantage (unless I'm
some kind of arsonist of abstract spaces) even if at some moment I could do
it.

Re: DIS: Email formatting again

[Kerim Aydin]

Nope, can't turn off sizing by window width.  ( which I can make 70 but
sometimes I'm lazy).

On Sun, 28 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

> On Sat, 27 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> > Ugh, I see it now in the wrapping of the reply below.  My screen's well
> > past 100 wide, and I aim for 70ish but sometimes without any
> > guide marks I unconsciously match whatever I'm replying to ... Sorry...
> 
> I don't know how web Alpine is different, but the terminal version has an
> option in Setup/Config:
> 
> Composer Wrap Column  = 
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Josh T]

If the incumbent thinks that someone else is better suited for the job, I
think they have the experience to make that decision.

天火狐

On 27 May 2017 at 21:43, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Sun, 28 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 6:13 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>>
>> I have recently started wondering if all the new players using "endorse"
>>> know what it customarily means in Agora.  Especially since the term is no
>>> longer defined in the Rules.  (Although one rule still _uses_ the term.)
>>>
>>
>> It's defined by rule 2127.
>>
>
> Oh duh, I searched for "endorse", missing "endorsing".
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 28 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 6:13 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:


I have recently started wondering if all the new players using "endorse"
know what it customarily means in Agora.  Especially since the term is no
longer defined in the Rules.  (Although one rule still _uses_ the term.)


It's defined by rule 2127.


Oh duh, I searched for "endorse", missing "endorsing".

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Email formatting again

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Ugh, I see it now in the wrapping of the reply below.  My screen's well
past 100 wide, and I aim for 70ish but sometimes without any
guide marks I unconsciously match whatever I'm replying to ... Sorry...


I don't know how web Alpine is different, but the terminal version has an 
option in Setup/Config:


Composer Wrap Column  = 

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Aris Merchant]

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 6:13 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Sat, 27 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
>
> > For all elections which the voting period has yet to close, I endorse the
> > incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant, I vote PRESENT.
>
> I have recently started wondering if all the new players using "endorse"
> know what it customarily means in Agora.  Especially since the term is no
> longer defined in the Rules.  (Although one rule still _uses_ the term.)


It's defined by rule 2127.

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Email formatting again

[Kerim Aydin]

Ugh, I see it now in the wrapping of the reply below.  My screen's well 
past 100 wide, and I aim for 70ish but sometimes without any
guide marks I unconsciously match whatever I'm replying to ... Sorry...

On Sun, 28 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> > This is what happened during the earliest crisis in Nomic World, the Lindrum
> > World
> > Crisis (I won't write about that because there are documents out there, but
> > I can
> > summarize separately if desired).  When two groups disagree on some
> > fundamental
> > underlying axiom, they can make two entirely internally self-consistent
> > logic
> > systems arguing their point.  There is no solution in formal logic.
> 
> Just me complaining about email formatting again, and to a fellow Alpine user
> this time... some (but not all) of your messages seem to have a width set to a
> bit _more_ than 80 characters, which in my 80 column terminal Alpine looks
> even _worse_ than having no line wrap at all (which Alpine can reflow). (Also,
> exactly 80 also wraps uglily sometimes.)
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

DIS: Email formatting again

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


This is what happened during the earliest crisis in Nomic World, the Lindrum 
World
Crisis (I won't write about that because there are documents out there, but I 
can
summarize separately if desired).  When two groups disagree on some fundamental
underlying axiom, they can make two entirely internally self-consistent logic
systems arguing their point.  There is no solution in formal logic.


Just me complaining about email formatting again, and to a fellow Alpine 
user this time... some (but not all) of your messages seem to have a width 
set to a bit _more_ than 80 characters, which in my 80 column terminal 
Alpine looks even _worse_ than having no line wrap at all (which Alpine 
can reflow). (Also, exactly 80 also wraps uglily sometimes.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Actions in Nomic

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Yes, thank you.

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



> On May 27, 2017, at 9:18 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 27 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> 
>> Second, let us consider actions in Suber’s original ruleset [2]. In Suber’s 
>> original ruleset, actions are not explicitly mentioned. However, all actions 
>> fall into one of two categories: regulated or unregulated. Regulated actions 
>> are actions which are defined in the rules. The Unregulated rules are too 
>> broad to allow classification, therefore we
> 
> You probably meant "Unregulated actions".
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Actions in Nomic

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

Second, let us consider actions in Suber’s original ruleset [2]. In 
Suber’s original ruleset, actions are not explicitly mentioned. However, 
all actions fall into one of two categories: regulated or unregulated. 
Regulated actions are actions which are defined in the rules. The 
Unregulated rules are too broad to allow classification, therefore we


You probably meant "Unregulated actions".

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I know what endorse means, but I don't know about others.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Sat, 27 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
>
> For all elections which the voting period has yet to close, I endorse the
>> incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant, I vote PRESENT.
>>
>
> I have recently started wondering if all the new players using "endorse"
> know what it customarily means in Agora.  Especially since the term is no
> longer defined in the Rules.  (Although one rule still _uses_ the term.)
>
> (Hint: It does _not_ necessarily mean to vote for that player.)
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Actions in Nomic

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

When I revise this, I will add in a discussion of game actions and I will
try to address how things done by Agora fall into the action model.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 27 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Interestingly, Suber’s ruleset leaves very basic actions such as joining
> > or leaving the game unregulated allowing them to occur in any manner.
>
> A good example of this is 'voting'.  I've played a handful of face-to-face
> Suber nomic games, and all of them have begun with a meta decision on
> voting.  Simultaneous or not?  Secret or not?  Invariably (in the games
> I've played), whatever meta decision is made on voting has more impact on
> the progess on the game then the rules themselves.
>
> > actions that automatically occur.
>
> But is this truly an action, or a passive change in the gamestate?
> R101 specifies that persons perform actions, which does not allow for
> automatic "actions".  One old judgement I made, that had wide discussion
> at the time (was protoed as a thesis), posits that only persons CAN
> initiate causality and actions (CFJ 1895).
>
> > In Agora the various categories which may take actions are entities,
> > players, persons, non-player persons, organizations, subsets of players,
> > and Agora.
>
> Again, are these actually "actions" when a non-person performs them?
> R2125 reads:
> >  Regulated Actions CAN only be performed as described by the
> >  Rules.
> The describe a few different ways of performing actions, by announcement,
> or as a dependent action (support/object/consent).  Both of these
> require a person to announce them.  Now, the Rules say that an
> Organization,
> or Agora, CAN "pay out" automatically, but it doesn't say that this
> is an "action".
>
> Now I see your argument:  (1) an "action" is any verb, (2) "pay out" is a
> verb, and so (3) when the rules say "an organization CAN pay out", it's
> saying that an organization CAN perform an action.  This is reasonably
> sensible.
>
> But an alternate line of thinking is (1) R101 maps game actions to persons,
> (2) actions elsewhere is short for "game actions" (3) R2125 says that
> regulated [game] actions only happen as described for persons, and (4)
> the only methods specified are "by announcement" or "by dependent
> action".  Anything else that happens (what you're calling "automatic
> actions") is actually a consequence without an actor - a cause set in
> motion by other player actions (again, borrowing from the thinking of
> CFJ 1895).
>
> To be clear, I'm not saying that the things that Agora CAN do don't
> happen, just that they aren't actions, but rather consequences of
> person actions.  (Nor am I arguing strongly for my line of reasoning,
> I'm just bringing it up as a subject worth exploring further for your
> thesis!)
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Josh T wrote:


For all elections which the voting period has yet to close, I endorse the
incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant, I vote PRESENT.


I have recently started wondering if all the new players using "endorse" 
know what it customarily means in Agora.  Especially since the term is no 
longer defined in the Rules.  (Although one rule still _uses_ the term.)


(Hint: It does _not_ necessarily mean to vote for that player.)

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Actions in Nomic

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

When I publish the revision, I will fix the table.



Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> I'll give you more feedback later, but I'd strongly suggest resizing the
> table, if possible. If I make the window pane wide enough for the table,
> it makes the text lines uncomfortably wide. And as CB alluded to, it's
> not very portable at all. I really like the information it presents, but
> ideally you'd find a more compact way to do so.
>
> Otherwise, cheers on completing this.
>
>
> On 05/27/17 16:43, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Sorry, about that. It can be found on GitHub at
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AgoraNomic/Herald/master/
> Theses/27-May-2017-PSS-DRAFT.txt.
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> >> On May 27, 2017, at 5:39 PM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> YEEESSS
> >>
> >> but I can't see those boxes properly in the archive. Please upload a
> copy to pastebin and/or send me a copy directly to cuddleb...@gmail.com
> please PSS.
>
>
>

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Martin Rönsch wrote:

This is because the principle of explosion is a characteristic specific to 
classic first order predicate logic and it's extensions.


Actually you just need propositional logic, and intuitionistic is enough.

not A =def= A -> False
False -> B

are essentially axioms/definitions of the latter.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Martin Rönsch]

Am 27.05.2017 um 13:51 schrieb Alex Smith:

On Sat, 2017-05-27 at 11:10 +0200, Martin Rönsch wrote:

If that's not valid (which I don't think it is, but I'm new, so I know
nothing) then you'd have to somehow reconstruct Agora's logical calculus
from all the rules, CFJs etc. in order to see whether Explosion is
necessary to make it work.
This seems like an almost impossible task to me. Has anyone ever tried
to something like this in a thesis?

This thesis of mine was about a scam attempt using Curry's Paradox:


In particular, it talks about how there's no way to use Curry's Paradox
to create a gamestate change under Agoran law (rather, it ends up being
treated like an Epimenedes paradox, which is just a straightforward
DISMISS if done in a CFJ statement due to the
undecidability/circularity).



Thanks for sharing. I don't think I would have found that by searching 
on my own.
This is some well thought out stuff. Only after reading your thesis, 
your conclusion that the rules of Agoran don't really behave like a 
closed system of logical expressions seems obvious to me.


Veggiekeks

DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Actions in Nomic

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Interestingly, Suber’s ruleset leaves very basic actions such as joining 
> or leaving the game unregulated allowing them to occur in any manner.

A good example of this is 'voting'.  I've played a handful of face-to-face
Suber nomic games, and all of them have begun with a meta decision on
voting.  Simultaneous or not?  Secret or not?  Invariably (in the games
I've played), whatever meta decision is made on voting has more impact on
the progess on the game then the rules themselves.

> actions that automatically occur.

But is this truly an action, or a passive change in the gamestate?
R101 specifies that persons perform actions, which does not allow for
automatic "actions".  One old judgement I made, that had wide discussion
at the time (was protoed as a thesis), posits that only persons CAN 
initiate causality and actions (CFJ 1895).

> In Agora the various categories which may take actions are entities, 
> players, persons, non-player persons, organizations, subsets of players, 
> and Agora.

Again, are these actually "actions" when a non-person performs them?
R2125 reads:
>  Regulated Actions CAN only be performed as described by the
>  Rules. 
The describe a few different ways of performing actions, by announcement,
or as a dependent action (support/object/consent).  Both of these
require a person to announce them.  Now, the Rules say that an Organization,
or Agora, CAN "pay out" automatically, but it doesn't say that this
is an "action".

Now I see your argument:  (1) an "action" is any verb, (2) "pay out" is a 
verb, and so (3) when the rules say "an organization CAN pay out", it's 
saying that an organization CAN perform an action.  This is reasonably
sensible.

But an alternate line of thinking is (1) R101 maps game actions to persons,
(2) actions elsewhere is short for "game actions" (3) R2125 says that 
regulated [game] actions only happen as described for persons, and (4)
the only methods specified are "by announcement" or "by dependent
action".  Anything else that happens (what you're calling "automatic
actions") is actually a consequence without an actor - a cause set in
motion by other player actions (again, borrowing from the thinking of
CFJ 1895).

To be clear, I'm not saying that the things that Agora CAN do don't
happen, just that they aren't actions, but rather consequences of
person actions.  (Nor am I arguing strongly for my line of reasoning,
I'm just bringing it up as a subject worth exploring further for your 
thesis!)

DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Actions in Nomic

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> First, we must define what an action is before we can classify them.

My very first question as I read is, is there a distinction between "game 
actions"
and actions generally?  R101 (with a higher precedence from most other rules 
governing actions) describes Agora as a game consisting of persons communicating
"game actions".  Later rules talk about actions, but this may be shorthand
for "game actions" given the high precedence of R101, and the fact that R101
says that the game is all about "game actions".  Often, compound words (in 
Agora,
and the real world) are taken to have definitions distinct from their subwords,
and Game Action may be a case of this.  This may mean that, any time the word
"action" appears, it refers to "game actions", with a more refined definition
than found in the dictionary.  I think a discussion of this might be worthwhile
at the beginning, or at least some acknowledgement of the role of R101 as
a definitional basis of the term.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Actions in Nomic

[Nic Evans]

I'll give you more feedback later, but I'd strongly suggest resizing the
table, if possible. If I make the window pane wide enough for the table,
it makes the text lines uncomfortably wide. And as CB alluded to, it's
not very portable at all. I really like the information it presents, but
ideally you'd find a more compact way to do so.

Otherwise, cheers on completing this.


On 05/27/17 16:43, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Sorry, about that. It can be found on GitHub at 
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AgoraNomic/Herald/master/Theses/27-May-2017-PSS-DRAFT.txt.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>> On May 27, 2017, at 5:39 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
>>
>> YEEESSS
>>
>> but I can't see those boxes properly in the archive. Please upload a copy to 
>> pastebin and/or send me a copy directly to cuddleb...@gmail.com please PSS.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Actions in Nomic

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Sorry, about that. It can be found on GitHub at 
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AgoraNomic/Herald/master/Theses/27-May-2017-PSS-DRAFT.txt.

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



> On May 27, 2017, at 5:39 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> YEEESSS
> 
> but I can't see those boxes properly in the archive. Please upload a copy to 
> pastebin and/or send me a copy directly to cuddleb...@gmail.com please PSS.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Actions in Nomic

[CuddleBeam]

YEEESSS

but I can't see those boxes properly in the archive. Please upload a copy
to pastebin and/or send me a copy directly to cuddleb...@gmail.com please
PSS.

Re: DIS: Issuing a card for the wrong reason generating infinite loop

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> So within our morally decentralized system, it's entirely reasonable to throw 
> cards ad infinitum.

Just a follow-up:  part of what helps it work is system-design.  Card-
throwing (or whatever punishment system) has to have enough delays
built in that, once the initial dispute has been laid out, the 
participants are required to slow down and await a resolution, hence:

   A player CANNOT point a finger more than twice per Agoran week,
   or more than once per Agoran week at the same player.

In the past, especially with punishment systems, they've started out
being too trigger-happy and led to bouts of this circular stuff, and 
we've had to improve limits and slowdowns.  I don't think finger-pointing
has ever been tested with a tit-for-tat controversy, it seems like 
the above limitation might be good enough, but we won't know until we're
in the middle of one.

Re: DIS: Issuing a card for the wrong reason generating infinite loop

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> I made a comic thing based on this problem of "decentralized Justice" 
> especially when it comes to what is "right" and "wrong" in a more 
> moral/ethical
> kind of way (what is "abuse" and what isn't for example).
> http://i.imgur.com/YulQDpf.png
> 
> In fact, it could be applied to anything of the sort and since all Judges 
> seem to have the same weight (there is no "more superior" Judge to
> tiebreak), any problem of this kind can devolve into an infinite loop, and it 
> would be reasonable to do so, because you can just allude to your local
> Judge, which doesn't need to have the same code of morals/ethics for the same 
> issue (for example, what is "abuse" or "fair play" or not) as that
> other judge.
> 
> So within our morally decentralized system, it's entirely reasonable to throw 
> cards ad infinitum.
> 
> I find that to be a very uncomfortable problem, yet I feel stuck with it.

This has always been a feature of our system (and occasionally it's led to "card
storms" or some version of that, I'll dig up some examples at some point).  And
it's not just with cards.  If you have two factions who fundamentally disagree
on an underlying axiom, the factions can call repeat CFJs hoping the most recent
one gets assigned to a member of their faction.

This is what happened during the earliest crisis in Nomic World, the Lindrum 
World
Crisis (I won't write about that because there are documents out there, but I 
can
summarize separately if desired).  When two groups disagree on some fundamental 
underlying axiom, they can make two entirely internally self-consistent logic
systems arguing their point.  There is no solution in formal logic.

The solutions come from principles of human law, not logic.  Here are some:

1.  Recognizing the primacy of the First Judge to be assigned an issue 
(precedent).
If there's two equally compelling ideas, the first judge picks between them, and
the other faction accepts that it wasn't their turn to decide, but they'll get
plenty of turns themselves.

2.  The appeals system serving as a "super judge", if the first judge isn't able
to convince enough people.  Our current appeals system is the Moot, which 
allows for
a majority vote to decide the issue.

3.  Legislative clarity.  Accept that there's a contradiction in the current 
ruleset,
and pass a Rule saying "we resolve it this way, and amend the records as if this
way had been true before this proposal."   An example of this is when we brought
in Partnerships-as-persons through a CFJ.  You'll see 1691, 1684, 1622, and 1621
are all the same CFJ statement + appeals, as two factions fundamentally 
disagreed.  
Ultimately it was resolved by majority vote creating a new rule, so the "true 
truth 
value" of that statement prior to the new rule is not formally resolvable.

4.  Converge the gamestate.  Working together, each faction makes a series of 
procedural steps that work under their own set of assumptions, with the end 
product
of both series being the same.  You end up agreeing on where you are, though 
you might 
forever disagree on how you got there.  This is what happened in Lindrum World.

5.  Of course, being a nomic, all of 1-4, as formal procedures, could be part 
of the
breakage, in which case there's a meta agreement ("outside the game") to keep 
playing
in a certain way.  If this happens, arguably, you've done a true reboot and are
no longer "playing the same game of Agora", so hopefully it doesn't get that 
far.
(That's what happened in Bnomic, though no reboot has lasted).  I don't think 
that's 
happened here myself.  There's a few players over time who have said that we've 
really
done (5) while cloaking it in doing (4), so claim that we're "not really 
playing Agora
anymore" (Kelly used to say that a lot).

Notice:  these all, fundamentally depend on societal pressure, not formal 
logic. So 
if you approach the game solely from a formal logic perspective, it would 
indeed be 
permanently "uncomfortable".  There's no formal logic for the societal pressure 
to
let go of a decision that doesn't go your way, and move on, and if you can't 
live with
it - that's what deregistration is for. In boardgame terms, it's equivalent to 
"once 
a house rule is decided, don't grouse about it for the rest of the game, and if 
you 
really can't stand it, don't perpetuate card storms or repeat CFJs, instead you 
need
to leave the table").  During the Lindrum World crisis, many players just got 
disgusted and left.  Not a good outcome - it's just a game - so the societal 
pressure
to not be such a jerk that other players are driven away is, generally, the 
ultimate 
guidance.

DIS: Proto: Rule-Breeders Theme: Build your "Superpowers"

[CuddleBeam]

So we got Academia and Stock Market getting tossed around as far I recall,
so here's another idea for the mix:

I like that we can creatively build our own "superpowers" via Agencies. It
was mentioned that a Farming subgame had been super fun too.

What if we had a "Breeding" theme? I have my little Rule-Pet with this for
example:

Cuddlebeam's Rule-Pet called "Cakecat": Cuddlebeam may take one Shiny from
Agora, one time per week.

And then a friend of mine has this Rule-Pet for example:

Wilson's Rule Pet called "Bolliboll": Wilson can take two Shiny from Agora,
three times per month.

And then we BREED them. For example, each Pet is used as a template, and
all Keywords are added to a pool and all Numbers are added to a pool. So
Cakecat x Bolliboll would give offspring according to the following:

Base: [Entity] may take [amount][Entity] from [Entity], [amount] times per
[time unit].
* Entities: Shiny, Agora, Cuddlebeam, Wilson
* Amounts: one, two, three
* Time Unit: week, month

We could have a Dice-Roller person Office to randomly generate the litters.
If the offspring gives absurds, then it just doesn't work, for example
"Cuddlebeam may take three Agoras from Wilson", because Wilson doesn't have
Agoras. However the interesting thing would be to get "better" Pet, for
example "Cuddlebeam may take two Shiny from Agora, two times per week.",
which is strictly better than the original Cakecat.

Or get totally unexpected yet somehow functional personal superpowers and
bask in the chaos.

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

[CuddleBeam]

I personally picture Agora's (or any nomic's) "information-processing" to
be a sort of a sea of "axioms" which vary over time and whether you have
these axioms or those not depends on "where" you are, for example, who
judges your CFJs or who approaches to vote on other certain
"truth"-obtaining items ("truth" being simply a "tag" from a Platonic point
of view, we're never going to be truely Platonically Ideal because we're
suckass humans).

Since I imagine it to be "axiomatic" like that, I thought "well, there is
some combination of "axioms" which lets me pull the Principle of Explosion.
So I thought:

Am I at the right time and place for that to be be "true" in the nomic and
pull the trick?

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

[Nic Evans]

On 05/27/2017 09:10 AM, Nic Evans wrote:
There was a short-lived nomic that was loosely based of Agora's rules, 
including the power system, called nommit.


I should point out that if you search for 'nommit' you'll find a 
subreddit. That's where the game I'm thinking of was played, but 
nommit's gone through a few nomics since then I believe.

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

It might be interesting to start a Nomic in which rules are expressed through a 
formal logic and that is grounded in a solid logical foundation.

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



> On May 27, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> On 05/27/2017 04:10 AM, Martin Rönsch wrote:
>> I don't think the rules specify what kind of logic the game uses, so in 
>> order to get to Explosion you'd have to argue that Agora's logic is first 
>> order predicate logic by default.
>> 
>> If that's not valid (which I don't think it is, but I'm new, so I know 
>> nothing) then you'd have to somehow reconstruct Agora's logical calculus 
>> from all the rules, CFJs etc. in order to see whether Explosion is necessary 
>> to make it work.
>> This seems like an almost impossible task to me. Has anyone ever tried to 
>> something like this in a thesis?
>> 
>> Veggiekeks
> 
> There was a short-lived nomic that was loosely based of Agora's rules, 
> including the power system, called nommit. In that one we considered the 
> nomic to be based in a fuzzy logic. I don't think it came up at the time, but 
> I also think that you'd have to include modals.
> 
> In such a scheme, you could assign each statement the power of the document 
> that makes or secures it, modifying it (perhaps with > or < or other symbols) 
> to signify a statement that explicitly mentions an exception or priority.
> 
> The findings of CFJs and the statements made in them don't have any power 
> over rules, so they'd all have a power between 0 and 0.1. Additionally, the 
> statements in the reasoning of a CFJ should probably be considered 
> Possiblies. If we found two Possiblies that seemed entirely contradictory, 
> we'd just do a CFJ to determine which is correct. Formally that'd look 
> something like:
> 
> From CFJ X, 0.01◇(A)
> From CFJ Y, 0.01◇(-A)
> 
> CFJ Z:
> 
> Given CFJ X and Y, and [other reasoning employed by judge], I find that 
> >0.01◇(A).
> 
> Even this is over-simplified because, as veggiekeks alluded to, Agora isn't 
> really based on a logic. We'd have to build a logical notation out of Agora, 
> and such a thing would change frequently with the rules.
> 

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

[Nic Evans]

On 05/27/2017 04:10 AM, Martin Rönsch wrote:
I don't think the rules specify what kind of logic the game uses, so 
in order to get to Explosion you'd have to argue that Agora's logic is 
first order predicate logic by default.


If that's not valid (which I don't think it is, but I'm new, so I know 
nothing) then you'd have to somehow reconstruct Agora's logical 
calculus from all the rules, CFJs etc. in order to see whether 
Explosion is necessary to make it work.
This seems like an almost impossible task to me. Has anyone ever tried 
to something like this in a thesis?


Veggiekeks


There was a short-lived nomic that was loosely based of Agora's rules, 
including the power system, called nommit. In that one we considered the 
nomic to be based in a fuzzy logic. I don't think it came up at the 
time, but I also think that you'd have to include modals.


In such a scheme, you could assign each statement the power of the 
document that makes or secures it, modifying it (perhaps with > or < or 
other symbols) to signify a statement that explicitly mentions an 
exception or priority.


The findings of CFJs and the statements made in them don't have any 
power over rules, so they'd all have a power between 0 and 0.1. 
Additionally, the statements in the reasoning of a CFJ should probably 
be considered Possiblies. If we found two Possiblies that seemed 
entirely contradictory, we'd just do a CFJ to determine which is 
correct. Formally that'd look something like:


From CFJ X, 0.01◇(A)
From CFJ Y, 0.01◇(-A)

CFJ Z:

Given CFJ X and Y, and [other reasoning employed by judge], I find that 
>0.01◇(A).


Even this is over-simplified because, as veggiekeks alluded to, Agora 
isn't really based on a logic. We'd have to build a logical notation out 
of Agora, and such a thing would change frequently with the rules.

Re: DIS: Issuing a card for the wrong reason generating infinite loop

[CuddleBeam]

I made a comic thing based on this problem of "decentralized Justice"
especially when it comes to what is "right" and "wrong" in a more
moral/ethical kind of way (what is "abuse" and what isn't for example).

http://i.imgur.com/YulQDpf.png

In fact, it could be applied to anything of the sort and since all Judges
seem to have the same weight (there is no "more superior" Judge to
tiebreak), any problem of this kind can devolve into an infinite loop, and
it would be reasonable to do so, because you can just allude to your local
Judge, which doesn't need to have the same code of morals/ethics for the
same issue (for example, what is "abuse" or "fair play" or not) as that
other judge.

So within our morally decentralized system, it's entirely reasonable to
throw cards ad infinitum.

I find that to be a very uncomfortable problem, yet I feel stuck with it.

It could be solved with a "Superior Moral Judge" person. Which would feel
odd, is that Superior Moral Judge some kind of Morally Illuminated person
or something?

Or, it could be solved by having consensus decide what is morally "right"
and "wrong" ("I'm morally right because the majority people that happen to
be here right now on Agora, agree with me.") but that's vulnerable to
having people who aren't interested in participating at all in the conflict
needing to become part of it.

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

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2017-05-27 at 11:10 +0200, Martin Rönsch wrote:
> If that's not valid (which I don't think it is, but I'm new, so I know 
> nothing) then you'd have to somehow reconstruct Agora's logical calculus 
> from all the rules, CFJs etc. in order to see whether Explosion is 
> necessary to make it work.
> This seems like an almost impossible task to me. Has anyone ever tried 
> to something like this in a thesis?

This thesis of mine was about a scam attempt using Curry's Paradox:


In particular, it talks about how there's no way to use Curry's Paradox
to create a gamestate change under Agoran law (rather, it ends up being
treated like an Epimenedes paradox, which is just a straightforward
DISMISS if done in a CFJ statement due to the
undecidability/circularity).

-- 
ais523

DIS: Issuing a card for the wrong reason generating infinite loop

[CuddleBeam]

(I know this is related to that CFJ I didn't want to judge but this is more
of a generalization which I've thought based on my own would-be Judgement,
to better understand if my would-be Judgement would be right or wrong
itself or if this is just a funny quirk of the system.)

So imagine A-man gives B-man Card Alpha.

B-man shakes his finger and goes "No no. You should've given me a Card
Beta, not Alpha. Since you're given me the wrong card, that merits a card.
I issue you a Card."

A-man then shakes his finger and goes "No no. I was correct in giving you a
Card Alpha. I agree with your reasoning that issuing a card incorrectly
merits a card, and you've just issued me a card for allegedly giving you
the wrong card. But that card has been granted for incorrect reasons
because my issuing of Card Alpha was correct in the first place. So I issue
you a Card."

B-Man then shakes his finger and goes "No no. You are incorrect in issuing
me a card for issuing you a card for issuing me a card Beta, because you
should've issued me a Card Alpha. And since carding me for the wrong
reasons merits a card, I issue you a card."

.

A-man then shakes his finger and goes "No no. You are incorrect in issuing
me a card for issuing you a card for issuing me a card for issuing you a
card for issuing me a card for issuing you a card for issuing me a card for
issuing you a card for issuing me a card for issuing you a card for issuing
me a card for issuing you a card for issuing me a card for issuing you a
card for issuing me a card for issuing you a card for issuing me a card ...



So, had I made a Judgement that implies that "Issuing a card for the wrong
reason merits a card", that's a loop that can be fed by just having two
people (or more) disagree on whether the original card-issuing had a
correct or wrong reason (would they both agree with that "Issuing a card
for the wrong reason merits a card" too).

So the only proper result would be for them to issue each other cards
forever, stuck in that loop (until they hit Agora's loop/spam/repetition
blockades at least, and even then they can just wait and then continue on
more, entirely justified with good reason, but ignoring that it would look
silly. Silly things aren't necessarily wrong things either though.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer cooks curry

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

No, it should be DISMISS because the sentence is malformed and can not have a 
true/false value assigned.

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



> On May 26, 2017, at 10:32 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> 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: Re: OFF: [ADoP] (Corrected) Metareport

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Actually when I set that up it only caught by original registration emails. Is 
there anything I need to change about it? Is there a special place to put it?

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



> On May 26, 2017, at 9:40 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> 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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Thanks!

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



> On May 26, 2017, at 9:40 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> 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: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Martin Rönsch]

Am 27.05.2017 um 06:36 schrieb 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.




I think even without all the reasons already mentioned, why the 
principle of explosion is not a thing with CFJs, it still wouldn't be a 
thing.


This is because the principle of explosion is a characteristic specific 
to classic first order predicate logic and it's extensions.


I don't think the rules specify what kind of logic the game uses, so in 
order to get to Explosion you'd have to argue that Agora's logic is 
first order predicate logic by default.


If that's not valid (which I don't think it is, but I'm new, so I know 
nothing) then you'd have to somehow reconstruct Agora's logical calculus 
from all the rules, CFJs etc. in order to see whether Explosion is 
necessary to make it work.
This seems like an almost impossible task to me. Has anyone ever tried 
to something like this in a thesis?


Veggiekeks

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Buy your way to victory

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Quazie wrote:


I don't think it's a recordable event.

If I 'submit 0 proporaals' or 'call 0 CFJs' both are non actions, how is
there an action to record here?


Rule 2483 includes:

  If Agora, a player, or an organization (A) 'pays' X shinies to
  Agora, a player, or an organization (B), A's Balance is
  decreased by X and B's Balance is increased by X. Any attempt to
  pay a negative amount is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding.

Note how it clearly defines 'pays' as a technical term, and does *not* 
disallow zero amounts.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Buy your way to victory

[Quazie]

I don't think it's a recordable event.

If I 'submit 0 proporaals' or 'call 0 CFJs' both are non actions, how is
there an action to record here?
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 00:56 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Sat, 27 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 2017, at 8:02 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 24 May 2017, caleb vines wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Gaelan Steele 
> wrote:
> >>>
>  In the victory election, I vote for myself, then the set of all
>  players who gave me shinies during the voting period, in decreasing
>  order of total amount.
> 
>  Gaelan
> >>>
> >>> I give Gaelan 0 shinies.
> >>
> >> Heh, it seems like this is actually a valid action, although I'm not
> >> sure whether it actually counts as giving him shinies.
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >> Ørjan.
> >
> > A sneak preview:
> >
> > - time of last report -
> > Mon, 22 May 2017 19:10:48  天火狐 paid 0 Shinies (grok)
> > Wed, 24 May 2017 16:47:00  Gaelan paid 0 Shinies (grok)
> >
> > Doesn’t appear to be illegal.
>
> Yes, it counts as a payment, but my uncertainty is whether it counts for
> Gaelan's voting conditional.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Buy your way to victory

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


On May 24, 2017, at 8:02 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:


On Wed, 24 May 2017, caleb vines wrote:


On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

In the victory election, I vote for myself, then the set of all 
players who gave me shinies during the voting period, in decreasing 
order of total amount.


Gaelan


I give Gaelan 0 shinies.


Heh, it seems like this is actually a valid action, although I'm not 
sure whether it actually counts as giving him shinies.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


A sneak preview:

- time of last report -
Mon, 22 May 2017 19:10:48  天火狐 paid 0 Shinies (grok)
Wed, 24 May 2017 16:47:00  Gaelan paid 0 Shinies (grok)

Doesn’t appear to be illegal.


Yes, it counts as a payment, but my uncertainty is whether it counts for 
Gaelan's voting conditional.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3493, 3494 assigned to Aris

[Aris Merchant]

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 12:25 AM Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> On May 19, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 10:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> I CFJ on:  Immediately after my most recent deregistration, I had a
> Balance Switch with a value greater than 0.
> >
> > This is CFJ 3494. I assign it to Aris.
>
> Note that as this remains un-judged, I’ll likely publish the Secretary’s
> report as if it were TRUE, with all the consequences that implies, and a
> note about the outstanding CFJ.
>
> Maybe sometime this year I’ll get to publish that report without any
> provisional entries.
>
> -o
>
> Oops, forgot about this one. Sorry. I'll judge it tomorrow.

-Aris

DIS: A brief note

[Aris Merchant]

I've spilled water on my regular computer, making it (hopefully just until
it dries out) unusable. With sincere apologies to everyone, that means that
everything is a bit of a chaotic mess at the moment. I'm going to fulfill
all of my obligations, but some of them may be slightly late, and anything
optional (i.e. the assets proposal) is probably going to get pushed back
till next weekend. I would appreciate everyone's patience.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Buy your way to victory

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 24, 2017, at 8:02 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 24 May 2017, caleb vines wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> 
>>> In the victory election, I vote for myself, then the set of all players
>>> who gave me shinies during the voting period, in decreasing order of total
>>> amount.
>>> 
>>> Gaelan
>> 
>> I give Gaelan 0 shinies.
> 
> Heh, it seems like this is actually a valid action, although I'm not sure 
> whether it actually counts as giving him shinies.
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

A sneak preview:

- time of last report -
Mon, 22 May 2017 19:10:48  天火狐 paid 0 Shinies (grok)
Wed, 24 May 2017 16:47:00  Gaelan paid 0 Shinies (grok)

Doesn’t appear to be illegal.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7852

[Owen Jacobson]

There was a defect in the original Payday rules for this round of economics 
that had two consequences:

1. Inaccuracies in the message purporting to perform the Payday payments likely 
rendered the whole attempt void, and

2. If the office of Secretary were to be vacant or idle, then Paydays would 
stop and we’d have to fall back to emergency mechanisms for pending proposals.

Having Payday happen automatically was the solution to that; you might note 
that my payday messages announce that Agora _has paid_, and not that I cause 
Agora to pay. So far, we’ve acted as if this is true.

There could be some defects in the updated wording, but I’d strongly prefered 
that we repair them in the direction of having Payday occur regardless of the 
activity of the Secretary.

-o

> On May 24, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> Yeah - really seems like 'the secretary SHALL cause agora to pay' would be 
> more clear.
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 17:01 Ørjan Johansen  > wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2017, nichdel wrote:
> 
> > Amend 2484 (Payday) to read, in full:
> 
> >  Immediately afterward, for each duty-fulfilling report published
> >  last month (in chronological order of publication), Agora SHALL
> >  pay the publisher of the report the Report Rate for the office
> >  the report is associated with unless paying would leave Agora's
> >  balance at a negative value.
> 
> >  Immediately afterward, for each office (first in ascending order
> >  of Payrate, then in descending alphabetical order of office
> >  name), Agora SHALL pay the holder of the office that office's
> >  Payrate value unless paying would leave Agora's balance at a
> >  negative value.
> 
> Although it was already in the original, this use of "Agora SHALL" seems
> fishy to me - it doesn't say that the payment actually happens, and does
> not authorize anyone to make it. And the phrase "Agora SHALL" isn't used
> in any other Rule.  I suppose there might be a precedent...
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3471-3472

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 24, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> https://ap02.alpine.washington.edu/alpine/alpine/2.0/view/0/agora/80517 
>> On May 23, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> CFJ 3472:  白票 yields "a white paper".  This is clearly not a valid vote.
>> I judge 3472 FALSE.
>> 
>> 
>> I’m surprised at this. I had assumed this was meant to translate as PRESENT 
>> - it’s an unmarked, but cast, ballot.
> 
> First, I took a hard line on this.  We should look at the resulting English
> exactly, not put ourselves in the mind of "since it's in a foreign language,
> maybe it's a colloquialism and we should look for alternate meanings."
> Because that encourages looking for meaning in things that are ambiguous.
> 
> So looking at the exact text, I thought that, previous to these CFJs, if
> someone (in English) posted "a white paper" as a vote, there's no really
> good English colloquialism that would lead us to PRESENT.   An alternate
> interpretation, for example, is "I'm leaving this entirely blank and not
> casting a vote, and saying NO VOTE in a funny way to signal a protest or
> not wanting to be part of quorum”.

That’s eminently reasonable. Thank you.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 24, 2017, at 4:24 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> It's monthly (though that's only stated indirectly), because an org can
> be destroyed if it hasn't paid the admin fee in a given month.

That may be the intent, but I don’t think that’s how it reads:

>>>  An organization is "In Bad Standing" if it a) has no members or b)
>>>  was not created this month and has not paid the Administrative Fee to
>>>  Agora.

Having paid the Administrative Fee once - possibly at the inception of the 
Organization - seems to satisfy this.

I’m not terribly fussed either way - periodic rent keeps shinies moving, and 
makes it easier to reap derelict Organizations, but doesn’t appear to 
meaningfully change the dynamics of Agora’s shiny economy.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3493, 3494 assigned to Aris

[Owen Jacobson]

On May 19, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 10:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I CFJ on:  Immediately after my most recent deregistration, I had a Balance 
>> Switch with a value greater than 0.
> 
> This is CFJ 3494. I assign it to Aris.

Note that as this remains un-judged, I’ll likely publish the Secretary’s report 
as if it were TRUE, with all the consequences that implies, and a note about 
the outstanding CFJ.

Maybe sometime this year I’ll get to publish that report without any 
provisional entries.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer attempts to invent the noose

[Owen Jacobson]

Does the clause “X is a cardable offence” override the clause “A Card is a 
recognition of a specific violation of the rules?” The former doesn’t actually 
make X against the rules.

I mention this, because it appears that the result could in fact be 1,000 
broken pledges, and no further consequences. Follow me:

Rule 2426 (power 2; this is important, so remember it) says:

> A Card is a recognition of a specific violation of the rules or other manner 
> of infraction that is awarded to the violator in order to draw attention to 
> eir disregard for the rule of law and, depending on the type of Card, to 
> impose a penalty.

Well and good, so far. A Card can be issued for things that are not rules 
violations.

Rule 2450 (power 1.7) reads, in full:

> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.


Okay, so it would appear that pledges are cardable. So, what card is 
appropriate?

Working backwards, we can rule out Pink Slips entirely. Pledges aren’t tied to 
offices, generally.

A Red Card wouldn’t be appropriate, either. Rule 2476 (power 2) spells this out:

> A Red Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for serious and deliberate 
> violations of the rules.


No rule makes breaking a pledge a rule violation. Furthermore, r. 2450 can’t 
override this rule: its power is too high.

A yellow card isn't appropriate. Rule 2427 (power 2):

> A Yellow Card is a type of Card that is appropriate either for infractions 
> that have a significant, though small, impact on gameplay or for infractions 
> for which a Green Card has already been issued.


I’m not convinced that breaking a vacuous pledge has any impact on gameplay 
whatsoever, and no green card has yet been issued for any of these hypothetical 
pledges.

A green card could be appropriate. Rule 2474 (power 0.5):

> A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor, accidental, 
> and/or inconsequential infraction. A Green Card is also appropriate for any 
> infraction for which no other type of Card is appropriate.


The contemplated infraction of breaking a thousand pledges seems major, but it 
actually has no effect on the game. No player benefits (except, perhaps, those 
interested in edge cases in the rules - i.e., all Agorans - but the benefit is 
purely academic in that case) by the performance of the pledges, and no person 
is harmed in any way by the violation of the pledges. Indeed, violation appears 
to be the very purpose of these pledges.

However, no other type of Card is appropriate, so a Green Card it would be - 
one per pledge broken.

Thus: if your message had actually established 1,000 pledges, then you would 
break it, and I would give you 1,000 Green Cards.

However, I’d definitely make you spell out the loop rather than allowing the 
shorthand “(one thousand times)”. A thousand cards is an unreasonable demand on 
my time as an officer.

-o

> On May 24, 2017, at 11:56 AM, caleb vines  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:25 AM, CuddleBeam  > wrote:
> Please note that I'm NOT making any pledges here I'm just posting a 
> hypothetical "suicide pledge" because I think its interesting (and funny).
> 
> ♦️ I hereby pledge (one thousand times) to gain a Red Card.
> 
> (I think you'd get at *least* a collection of Yellow Cards. I don't think 
> there is actually a pure formal way to get a bunch of Red Cards on yourself, 
> at least not by casual reading. Suicide scam when.)
> 
> This is my interpretation of what would happen if you posted that exact 
> phrase in a public forum:
> 
> 
> 1) First, an aside: at least to my understanding, you don't need to worry 
> about the lead sentence in that post. Things are only announced if you post 
> them in a public forum: agora-business for player actions, agora-official for 
> office reports. agora-discussion's Publicity switch (rule 478) is set to 
> "discussion," and it must be set to "public" in order for announcements to be 
> binding.
> 
> 2) That pledge just binds you to gaining Red Cards. It doesn't actually 
> perform the action to assign a Red Card. That action is reserved in rule 
> 2426. If you pledged to gain one thousand Red Cards, you would still have to 
> gain those cards through normal means to fulfill the pledge.
> 
> 3) Just as an FYI, if you make one thousand pledges, they happen in order as 
> separate events. IDK how CoEs would interact with those pledges if they were 
> all wrong, or even if just one was wrong. Someone wiser than I may have that 
> answer.
> 
> 4) On to the actual Red Card part now. Issuing a card requires three things: 
> A type of card to be issued, a person to which the card would be issued, and 
> a specific bad faith action for which the person deserves punishment. (I 
> interpret that it can be any person, btw--no language in 2426 that says only 
> players can be issued cards.) If the intent of this "suicide pledge" is to 
> assign a ton of Red