Re: DIS: Has anyone pointed out…

[Gaelan Steele]

Reminds me of BlogNomic CFJs (in BlogNomic, a CFJ is just a votable gamestate 
change, just like a proposal, used to both fix the broken rule and clean up). 

Gaelan

> On Jun 9, 2017, at 9:49 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> Has anyone pointed out, or ideally discussed in more detail, the idea that 
> ratification without objection is _very_ close to the deliberative idea of 
> suspending the rules[wp]?
> 
> There are a number of gameplay problems that can (or, in the case of 
> decapitated agencies, have) happened that probably need proposal to fix 
> “within the rules," but which are trivial to fix as a one-off by ratification.
> 
> -o
> 
> [wp] 

DIS: Has anyone pointed out…

[Owen Jacobson]

Has anyone pointed out, or ideally discussed in more detail, the idea that 
ratification without objection is _very_ close to the deliberative idea of 
suspending the rules[wp]?

There are a number of gameplay problems that can (or, in the case of 
decapitated agencies, have) happened that probably need proposal to fix “within 
the rules," but which are trivial to fix as a one-off by ratification.

-o

[wp] 


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Not dead

[V.J Rada]

I think criminal justice is a thing people want but aren't working on, if
you write a proposal I'm totally for it, referee is such a strange position.

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> On Jun 9, 2017, at 9:01 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Sorry about the extended absence at a bad moment. I’m catching up, but
> I’m about 550 messages behind - bids and estates are a priority. Then I
> plan to issue myself a Card for the offices I’ve neglected before stepping
> down as Referee. Anyone have a suggestion for an apology word list?
>
> Actually, perhaps stepping down would be premature (though if someone else
> wants the job, I won’t object to deputization). Personally, my problem is
> somewhere between time management and workload. I think the workload
> elements, at least, are addressible in ways that make the game more
> interesting.
>
> We’ve got a lot of projects in flight; would anyone be averse to one more,
> to rework rules enforcement along criminal justice lines? This isn’t new.
> As I understand it, the rules have modelled “criminal justice” systems
> before. Here’s my goals and the spin I want to put on it:
>
> 1. Replace the requirement for an omniscient, omnibenevolent Referee
> officer who can be penalized for ever missing an infraction with a
> complaint-investigation process.
>
> This does two things: it lessens the burden of the Referee job itself by
> removing the requirement that the Referee make an effort to catch every
> last rule infraction, and it engages everyone else more directly in
> ensuring that the rules are followed.
>
> 2. Expand and clarify the nature of referee-imposed punishments.
>
> Right now, we have, basically, four kinds of punishment: gentle rebuke,
> penalties to voting strength, total loss of voting strength, and ejection
> from offices. These date back quite a ways, and we’ve built out a number of
> new systems. I’d like to impose at least fines, as well as organization-
> and agency-related penalties. (Folding Bankruptcy into the Referee’s job is
> one option on that front.)
>
> 3. Trials and appeals.
>
> I’m inclined to use the Canadian model for this, and treat most things as
> “summary offences.” This means that the factual trial can be a bench trial
> performed by the investigator directly (usually the Referee, sometimes the
> Arbitor or Prime Minister). However, the accused should be able to appeal
> the rules issues through a CFJ, with the imposed punishment held in
> abeyance until the CFJ is resolved. I’d probably also want to enhance CFJs
> to allow card decisions to be remanded back to the investigator for retrial
> if it’s clear on appeal that there are serious defects in the factual
> analysis.
>
> Thoughts? I’m happy to do the work of writing it up, and it’d be something
> I care enough about to see through. The current Referee’s office, though, I
> think might be unworkable.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Not dead

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 9, 2017, at 9:01 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> Hi folks,
> 
> Sorry about the extended absence at a bad moment. I’m catching up, but I’m 
> about 550 messages behind - bids and estates are a priority. Then I plan to 
> issue myself a Card for the offices I’ve neglected before stepping down as 
> Referee. Anyone have a suggestion for an apology word list?

Actually, perhaps stepping down would be premature (though if someone else 
wants the job, I won’t object to deputization). Personally, my problem is 
somewhere between time management and workload. I think the workload elements, 
at least, are addressible in ways that make the game more interesting.

We’ve got a lot of projects in flight; would anyone be averse to one more, to 
rework rules enforcement along criminal justice lines? This isn’t new. As I 
understand it, the rules have modelled “criminal justice” systems before. 
Here’s my goals and the spin I want to put on it:

1. Replace the requirement for an omniscient, omnibenevolent Referee officer 
who can be penalized for ever missing an infraction with a 
complaint-investigation process.

This does two things: it lessens the burden of the Referee job itself by 
removing the requirement that the Referee make an effort to catch every last 
rule infraction, and it engages everyone else more directly in ensuring that 
the rules are followed.

2. Expand and clarify the nature of referee-imposed punishments.

Right now, we have, basically, four kinds of punishment: gentle rebuke, 
penalties to voting strength, total loss of voting strength, and ejection from 
offices. These date back quite a ways, and we’ve built out a number of new 
systems. I’d like to impose at least fines, as well as organization- and 
agency-related penalties. (Folding Bankruptcy into the Referee’s job is one 
option on that front.)

3. Trials and appeals.

I’m inclined to use the Canadian model for this, and treat most things as 
“summary offences.” This means that the factual trial can be a bench trial 
performed by the investigator directly (usually the Referee, sometimes the 
Arbitor or Prime Minister). However, the accused should be able to appeal the 
rules issues through a CFJ, with the imposed punishment held in abeyance until 
the CFJ is resolved. I’d probably also want to enhance CFJs to allow card 
decisions to be remanded back to the investigator for retrial if it’s clear on 
appeal that there are serious defects in the factual analysis.

Thoughts? I’m happy to do the work of writing it up, and it’d be something I 
care enough about to see through. The current Referee’s office, though, I think 
might be unworkable.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[Owen Jacobson]

Be careful about applying Agora norms, three and a half decades later, to 
Suber’s 1982 ruleset.

On May 28, 2017, at 12:21 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:

> - "Interestingly, Suber’s ruleset leaves very basic actions such as joining 
> or leaving the game unregulated allowing them to occur in any manner."
> 
> This is a bizarre point which I wish could be expanded on. What makes the 
> verbs "join" or "leave" special? ("to join" doesn't even explicitly exist as 
> a word anywhere! And its abstract!).

I’m not the person to which you are responding, exactly, but, I have a thought.

In as much as joining is special, it’s at least plausible to me that Suber’s 
ruleset presumed some gameplay norms from other contemporary games, vis., that 
the set of players would be determined at the start of the game and would be 
relatively fixed over the duration of the game.

I don’t see anything to suggest that Suber considered joining or leaving the 
game at all - but “player” is nonetheless a special and distinct status from 
“non-player” in Suber’s original rules. Only players may vote, and only players 
are constrained to follow the rules, and only players may propose rule-changes. 
That, in turn, conveys specialness on the actions of “joining” (becoming a 
player when a non-player) and “leaving” (becoming a non-player when a player), 
as those transitions affect the fundamental nature of a person or entity’s 
relationship with the game.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 27, 2017, at 7:31 AM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> (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.”

Fortunately, card issuance is relatively restricted. The Referee can do it, the 
Arbitor can do it, and the Prime Minister can do it. Any of the three can bring 
such a loop to a stop through the simple action of doing nothing - potentially 
incurring one final card in the process for failing to fulfil a SHALL duty, at 
worst.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Not dead

[Josh T]

Oh how nice of yourself. I was going to issue you a card for not responding
to my CoE [1] in a timely manner with the following apology list:

pagoda
palsy
parsimony
petrichor
petunia
picaresque
pigeon
piquant
praxsis
primeval

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28516.html

天火狐

On 9 June 2017 at 21:31, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>>
>> Sorry about the extended absence at a bad moment. I’m catching up, but
>> I’m about 550 messages behind - bids and estates are a priority. Then I
>> plan to issue myself a Card for the offices I’ve neglected before stepping
>> down as Referee. Anyone have a suggestion for an apology word list?
>>
>
> caffeine
> cumulonimbus
> frisk
> lackadaisical
> molasses
> prithee
> stultify
> Tanganyika
> three-toed
> trepans
>
> Hope this helps,
> Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Is being required to violate a Rule against the Rules?

[Edward Murphy]

G. wrote:


The argument on the other side is: there may be good reasons to punish someone
on a per-rule basis if they use this to scam around the lower-powered
requirement.


If they're scamming, then they could equally scam the higher-powered
rule to say "rules to the contrary notwithstanding, X SHALL 
do Y". So you'd need some sort of criminal court to follow up on those
good reasons.

Re: DIS: Not dead

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


Hi folks,

Sorry about the extended absence at a bad moment. I’m catching up, but 
I’m about 550 messages behind - bids and estates are a priority. Then I 
plan to issue myself a Card for the offices I’ve neglected before 
stepping down as Referee. Anyone have a suggestion for an apology word 
list?


caffeine
cumulonimbus
frisk
lackadaisical
molasses
prithee
stultify
Tanganyika
three-toed
trepans

Hope this helps,
Ørjan.

DIS: Not dead

[Owen Jacobson]

Hi folks,

Sorry about the extended absence at a bad moment. I’m catching up, but I’m 
about 550 messages behind - bids and estates are a priority. Then I plan to 
issue myself a Card for the offices I’ve neglected before stepping down as 
Referee. Anyone have a suggestion for an apology word list?

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Class N crime

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 22:02 +, Quazie wrote:
> > Wow - The rulesset is a bit of a mess, we should remove instances of
> > Class N crimes as they don't mean anything.
> 
> CFJs in the past, after the undefinition of "class N crime", have found
> that specifying something as a crime makes it illegal, and higher
> classes should encourage higher punishments. In other words, pretty
> much what it meant back when it was defined, just less precise.

Just for reference, it was originally calibrated such that, if something
was just ILLEGAL, it was by default a Class P crime where P was the power
of the Rule.  Adding the explicit Class was if you wanted to make
something more (or less) serious than the power of the rule implied.

DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Secretary, Superintendent, Tailor)

[V.J Rada]

I vote PRESENT on all 3

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Josh T  wrote:

> On the election for Secretary, I vote PRESENT.
>
> On the election for Superintendent, I endorse the incumbent.
>
> On the election for Tailor, my vote consists of the following:
>* First, if a candidate for the office of Tailor pledges to award me a
> grAy ribbon in eir next monthly report if they become Tailor, I cast my
> first-priority votes for that candidate. If there is more than one such
> candidate, preference is given to the earliest such pledge.
>* Next, the final candidate before the vote is closed who transfers me
> a Shiny for the purpose of securing my vote is awarded my second-priority
> votes. (Which, to clarify, if the first priority votes are empty, the
> second-priority votes de facto become first-priority votes)
>* Otherwise, I vote PRESENT.
>
> 天火狐
>
>
> On 9 June 2017 at 14:13, Quazie  wrote:
>
>> I vote as follows:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:05 AM Quazie  wrote:
>>
>>> I initiate an election for Secretary, as there has been no election
>>> since the
>>> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Secretary.
>>> For
>>> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
>>> the
>>> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>
>>
>> I endorse o
>>
>>
>> I initiate an election for Superintendent, as there has been no election
>>> since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
>>> Superintendent. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and
>>> the
>>> valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>
>>
>> I don't really want this office anymore, but if no one else wants it,
>> i'll stick with it.
>> I vote for the first player to non-conditionally vote for emself.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I initiate an election for Tailor, as there has been no election since
>>> the
>>> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Tailor.
>>> For
>>> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
>>> the
>>> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>
>>
>> I endorse ais523
>>
>
>

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

[Aris Merchant]

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>
> ACCEPTED: Though I still have some doubts about your formatting, as it's not
> 100% certain that your e-mails are 'Purporting to be a Promotor's report' as
> the rules indicate they should, especially when the e-mails seemed to be
> predominantly Distributions on first glance..  I don't wanna inject a CFJ
> into my life, but i request you note that the message are indeed Promotor
> Reports to eliminate ambiguity in the future.  I'll update this soon.
>
>
> {{{
>
>   The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
>   Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes.  This
>   portion of a public document purporting to be a Promotor's
>   report is self-ratifying.
>
> }}}
>
> My question is, if the document doesn't purport to be a Promotor's report,
> is it still the Promotor's report, and is it still self-ratifying?

I think it does purport to be a Promotor's report, as a matter of game
custom. This has been the way promotor's reports have been done since
at least some time in 2014, and probably before that. I think this has
been reasonably unambiguous to everyone before now. I'd like to avoid
unnecessary changes. I've made only two formatting changes to these
reports since I entered office. The first was to add "and removing it
from the proposal pool" to the header boilerplate, and the second was
to add the pender and pend fee data. I'll CFJ this if necessary, but
I'd like to avoid it if we can reach a consensus. What do other's
think?

-Aris

Re: DIS: Class N crime

[Aris Merchant]

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 22:02 +, Quazie wrote:
>> Wow - The rulesset is a bit of a mess, we should remove instances of
>> Class N crimes as they don't mean anything.
>
> CFJs in the past, after the undefinition of "class N crime", have found
> that specifying something as a crime makes it illegal, and higher
> classes should encourage higher punishments. In other words, pretty
> much what it meant back when it was defined, just less precise.

I agree. I also note that keeping those definitions will make it
easier to bring back a criminal judicial system, which we're planing
to do soon anyway.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Class N crime

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 22:02 +, Quazie wrote:
> Wow - The rulesset is a bit of a mess, we should remove instances of
> Class N crimes as they don't mean anything.

CFJs in the past, after the undefinition of "class N crime", have found
that specifying something as a crime makes it illegal, and higher
classes should encourage higher punishments. In other words, pretty
much what it meant back when it was defined, just less precise.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Class N crime

[Quazie]

Wow - The rulesset is a bit of a mess, we should remove instances of Class
N crimes as they don't mean anything.

DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Secretary, Superintendent, Tailor)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

On the Secretary, I endorse the incumbent.
On the Superintendent, I vote for myself.
On the Tailor, I vote for myself, followed by the list of people equivalent
to an endorsement of the incumbent.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Josh T  wrote:

> On the election for Secretary, I vote PRESENT.
>
> On the election for Superintendent, I endorse the incumbent.
>
> On the election for Tailor, my vote consists of the following:
>* First, if a candidate for the office of Tailor pledges to award me a
> grAy ribbon in eir next monthly report if they become Tailor, I cast my
> first-priority votes for that candidate. If there is more than one such
> candidate, preference is given to the earliest such pledge.
>* Next, the final candidate before the vote is closed who transfers me
> a Shiny for the purpose of securing my vote is awarded my second-priority
> votes. (Which, to clarify, if the first priority votes are empty, the
> second-priority votes de facto become first-priority votes)
>* Otherwise, I vote PRESENT.
>
> 天火狐
>
>
> On 9 June 2017 at 14:13, Quazie  wrote:
>
>> I vote as follows:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:05 AM Quazie  wrote:
>>
>>> I initiate an election for Secretary, as there has been no election
>>> since the
>>> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Secretary.
>>> For
>>> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
>>> the
>>> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>
>>
>> I endorse o
>>
>>
>> I initiate an election for Superintendent, as there has been no election
>>> since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
>>> Superintendent. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and
>>> the
>>> valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>
>>
>> I don't really want this office anymore, but if no one else wants it,
>> i'll stick with it.
>> I vote for the first player to non-conditionally vote for emself.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I initiate an election for Tailor, as there has been no election since
>>> the
>>> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Tailor.
>>> For
>>> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
>>> the
>>> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>
>>
>> I endorse ais523
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Resolving ADoP, Registrar, and Referee Elections:

[Quazie]

At that moment, there was an ADoP, so at that moment your vote was
endorsing nichdel, and at that moment nichdel's vote was actually for
nichdel - so I guess I got that part wrong and e actually voted for nichdel
not me.  But e still didn't vote PRESENT.

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:29 AM Josh T  wrote:

> I am kind of legitimately curious how roujo's vote of "I submit a vote
> for whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for" in the election of ADoP has a
> different vote result with 天火狐.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 9 June 2017 at 13:56, Quazie  wrote:
>
>> I resolve the Agoran Decisions of electing ADoP as electing Quazie.
>> I resolve the Agoran Decisions of electing Registrar as electing Publius
>> Scribonius Scholasticus.
>> I resolve the Agoran Decisions of electing Referee as electing o.
>>
>> Below are the full results for each election:
>> <--->
>>
>> Full results for ADoP:
>>   Towards Quorum: 8, Cast Votes: 6
>> o
>>   Vote   : nichdel
>>   As Cast: nichdel, followed by Gaelan.
>>
>> nichdel
>>   Vote   : Quazie
>>   As Cast: [Quazie]
>>
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>   Vote   : Quazie
>>   As Cast: I endorse nichdel.
>>
>> CuddleBeam
>>   Vote   : PRESENT
>>   As Cast: I vote PRESENT
>>
>> 天火狐
>>   Vote   : PRESENT
>>   As Cast: I endorse the incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant,
>> I vote PRESENT
>>
>> roujo
>>   Vote   : Quazie
>>   As Cast: I submit a vote for whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for
>>
>> Quazie
>>   Vote   : Quazie
>>   As Cast: I vote as follows:
>>[Quazie] followed by a list that is equivalent to endorsing the
>> current office holder.
>>
>> If the above vote is invalid, or results in PRESENT I instead vote:
>>[Quazie, nichdel]
>>
>> Quazie
>>   Vote   : Quazie
>>   As Cast: I vote as follows:
>>[Quazie] followed by a list that is equivalent to endorsing the
>> current office holder.
>>
>> If the above vote is invalid, or results in PRESENT I instead vote:
>>[Quazie, nichdel]
>>
>> <--->
>>
>> Full results for Registrar:
>>   Towards Quorum: 8, Cast Votes: 7
>> o
>>   Vote   : Quazie
>>   As Cast: Quazie, followed by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>>
>> nichdel
>>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>   As Cast: endorse PSS, nichdel
>>
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>   As Cast: I vote for Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>>
>> CuddleBeam
>>   Vote   : PRESENT
>>   As Cast: I vote PRESENT
>>
>> 天火狐
>>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>   As Cast: I endorse the incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant,
>> I vote PRESENT
>>
>> roujo
>>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>   As Cast: I submit a vote for whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for
>>
>> Quazie
>>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>   As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT
>> I endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.
>>
>> Quazie
>>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>   As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT
>> I endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.
>>
>> <--->
>>
>> Full results for Referee:
>>   Towards Quorum: 8, Cast Votes: 7
>> o
>>   Vote   : o
>>   As Cast: o.
>>
>> nichdel
>>   Vote   : o
>>   As Cast: I endorse the current officeholder.
>>
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>   Vote   : o
>>   As Cast: I endorse o.
>>
>> CuddleBeam
>>   Vote   : PRESENT
>>   As Cast: I vote PRESENT
>>
>> 天火狐
>>   Vote   : o
>>   As Cast: I endorse the incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant,
>> I vote PRESENT
>>
>> roujo
>>   Vote   : o
>>   As Cast: I submit a vote for whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for
>>
>> Quazie
>>   Vote   : o
>>   As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT
>> I endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.
>>
>> Quazie
>>   Vote   : o
>>   As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT
>> I endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.
>>
>> <--->
>>
>> [Note: Quazie has two ballots as his VP is 2 via Prime Minister]
>>
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Resolving ADoP, Registrar, and Referee Elections:

[Josh T]

I am kind of legitimately curious how roujo's vote of "I submit a vote for
whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for" in the election of ADoP has a
different vote result with 天火狐.

天火狐

On 9 June 2017 at 13:56, Quazie  wrote:

> I resolve the Agoran Decisions of electing ADoP as electing Quazie.
> I resolve the Agoran Decisions of electing Registrar as electing Publius
> Scribonius Scholasticus.
> I resolve the Agoran Decisions of electing Referee as electing o.
>
> Below are the full results for each election:
> <--->
>
> Full results for ADoP:
>   Towards Quorum: 8, Cast Votes: 6
> o
>   Vote   : nichdel
>   As Cast: nichdel, followed by Gaelan.
>
> nichdel
>   Vote   : Quazie
>   As Cast: [Quazie]
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   Vote   : Quazie
>   As Cast: I endorse nichdel.
>
> CuddleBeam
>   Vote   : PRESENT
>   As Cast: I vote PRESENT
>
> 天火狐
>   Vote   : PRESENT
>   As Cast: I endorse the incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant, I
> vote PRESENT
>
> roujo
>   Vote   : Quazie
>   As Cast: I submit a vote for whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for
>
> Quazie
>   Vote   : Quazie
>   As Cast: I vote as follows:
>[Quazie] followed by a list that is equivalent to endorsing the current
> office holder.
>
> If the above vote is invalid, or results in PRESENT I instead vote:
>[Quazie, nichdel]
>
> Quazie
>   Vote   : Quazie
>   As Cast: I vote as follows:
>[Quazie] followed by a list that is equivalent to endorsing the current
> office holder.
>
> If the above vote is invalid, or results in PRESENT I instead vote:
>[Quazie, nichdel]
>
> <--->
>
> Full results for Registrar:
>   Towards Quorum: 8, Cast Votes: 7
> o
>   Vote   : Quazie
>   As Cast: Quazie, followed by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>
> nichdel
>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   As Cast: endorse PSS, nichdel
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   As Cast: I vote for Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>
> CuddleBeam
>   Vote   : PRESENT
>   As Cast: I vote PRESENT
>
> 天火狐
>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   As Cast: I endorse the incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant, I
> vote PRESENT
>
> roujo
>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   As Cast: I submit a vote for whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for
>
> Quazie
>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I
> endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.
>
> Quazie
>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I
> endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.
>
> <--->
>
> Full results for Referee:
>   Towards Quorum: 8, Cast Votes: 7
> o
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: o.
>
> nichdel
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: I endorse the current officeholder.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: I endorse o.
>
> CuddleBeam
>   Vote   : PRESENT
>   As Cast: I vote PRESENT
>
> 天火狐
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: I endorse the incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant, I
> vote PRESENT
>
> roujo
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: I submit a vote for whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for
>
> Quazie
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I
> endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.
>
> Quazie
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I
> endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.
>
> <--->
>
> [Note: Quazie has two ballots as his VP is 2 via Prime Minister]
>
>

Re: DIS: Instant Runoff

[Quazie]

If the votes are:
[1]
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

Obviously 1 should win, but if the votes don't become present (and thus
don't count towards majority) then 1 never has a majority of the 5 votes.

I'm just trying to make sure I understand the nuances

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:04 AM Nic Evans  wrote:

> On 06/09/2017 12:27 PM, Quazie wrote:
> > As I work on writing up some scripts to help handle instant runoff
> > voting, I came across a question.
> >
> > In an instant runoff vote, does a players vote become PRESENT when all
> > of eir candidates get eliminated?
>
> I don't think the votes themselves change during IRV, just the weight
> (with eliminated options becoming a weight of 0).
>
> If you're asking for the sake of quorum, note that a decision only needs
> to meet quorum at resolution time, and only proposal decisions change
> quorum.
>
>

Re: DIS: Instant Runoff

[Nic Evans]

On 06/09/2017 12:27 PM, Quazie wrote:
As I work on writing up some scripts to help handle instant runoff 
voting, I came across a question.


In an instant runoff vote, does a players vote become PRESENT when all 
of eir candidates get eliminated?


I don't think the votes themselves change during IRV, just the weight 
(with eliminated options becoming a weight of 0).


If you're asking for the sake of quorum, note that a decision only needs 
to meet quorum at resolution time, and only proposal decisions change 
quorum.

DIS: Instant Runoff

[Quazie]

As I work on writing up some scripts to help handle instant runoff voting,
I came across a question.

In an instant runoff vote, does a players vote become PRESENT when all of
eir candidates get eliminated?

Re: DIS: Is being required to violate a Rule against the Rules?

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 07:04 CuddleBeam  wrote:
> >   I messed up, sorry. Reposting:
> 
> Thanks for thinking of format.  Much appreciated :).
> 
> > If you do p, you're screwed. (p-> you're screwed)
> > If you don't do p, you're screwed (not p-> you're screwed)
> > Ergo
> > anything-> you're screwed
> > 
> > So in either p or not p, you're screwed. It's frustrating but its not
> > contradictory at all.
> 
> I don't think there's a "problem" or "contradiction" with this interpretation,
> and that's what used to be written into the rules.  It used to say "If you 
> violate A RULE, you get a penalty". Now it says if you violate "the rules",
> which could be read either way.  So I'm curious which is preferred overall,
> and think (after discussion) we should legislate the preference to make it
> clear.

I should add:  if we think about this legalistically and not in formal logic
space, you *would* consider precedence.  This happens in my real-world job (of
government regulations); Law A says X, Law B says not X.  Our lawyers don't
say "just pick one, you're screwed either way", rather they delve into case
law to figure out if one has precedence over the other.  Now we still might
get sued by the X-Interest Group or the Not-X Interest Group, so we might be
screwed the first time, but then the judge of the lawsuit would in fact pick
the One Right Course for the future.  The judge *wouldn't* say "you're screwed
in perpetuity, you're going to be liable every time this comes up."

(this message brought to you by the Legal Society of Agora:  motto:  It's Not
Logicians All The Way Down).

Re: DIS: Is being required to violate a Rule against the Rules?

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 07:04 CuddleBeam  wrote:
>   I messed up, sorry. Reposting:

Thanks for thinking of format.  Much appreciated :).

> If you do p, you're screwed. (p-> you're screwed)
> If you don't do p, you're screwed (not p-> you're screwed)
> Ergo
> anything-> you're screwed
> 
> So in either p or not p, you're screwed. It's frustrating but its not
> contradictory at all.

I don't think there's a "problem" or "contradiction" with this interpretation,
and that's what used to be written into the rules.  It used to say "If you 
violate A RULE, you get a penalty". Now it says if you violate "the rules",
which could be read either way.  So I'm curious which is preferred overall,
and think (after discussion) we should legislate the preference to make it
clear.

> Well - the problem is if an officer doesn't follow a Duty (meaning a SHALL)
> then e can get deputized out of office.  And I know of situations where some
> of those SHALLs would be impossible - so you cant succeed at doing the shall. 
>  

That's a really good point.  It means that, to keep an office, you'd always
have to choose the SHALL over a SHALL NOT (since no one can deputize to NOT
do something).  The officer would have to cover the SHALLs, even if they were
the lower-powered thing.

That's what might be called a perverse incentive.  Even in the "you're screwed" 
system, we used to say "if you have a choice, obey the higher-powered thing, 
and your punishment will be Green Card level.  Obey the lower-powered thing, and
we might think it worth greater punishment".  But now the incentive would
be to follow the SHALL at whatever power.  I think that is a strong argument to
get rid of the "you're screwed" approach, and write in the rules that LEGALITY
follows power precedence as does POSSIBILITY.

The argument on the other side is: there may be good reasons to punish someone
on a per-rule basis if they use this to scam around the lower-powered 
requirement.

Re: DIS: Is being required to violate a Rule against the Rules?

[Quazie]

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 07:04 CuddleBeam  wrote:

> I messed up, sorry. Reposting:
>
> It's a very interesting point but I don't think there is any conflict
>
> How I see it, is that the rules are bugged and if you're Officer A, you're
> screwed, no matter what you do. Just faulty rules.
>
> So I'd go with that if you don't do the thing in time, you get a card as
> for breaking R1. If you do it, you get a card, for breaking R2.
>
> I don't see how an holistic view somehow invalidates that the Officer
> should be able to get a card for violating R2, because R1 "saves" them.
> There is no rule that enables that as far as I know. You could argue that
> the interpretation rules lets you solve the "contradiction"; but I don't
> see the contradiction. I see it as (with sloppy propositional logic):
>
> If you do p, you're screwed. (p-> you're screwed)
> If you don't do p, you're screwed (not p-> you're screwed)
> Ergo
> anything-> you're screwed
>
> So in either p or not p, you're screwed. It's frustrating but its not
> contradictory at all.
>
> For practical reasons, sure, I feel like Officer A shouldn't be screwed
> over. But the rule are the rules. It can be later proposed to cancel all
> criminal charges on them (because the rules were just junk and the guy
> didn't deserve it), we have the power to do any fixes we want a posteriori.
> Any problem is just temporary.
>
>
Well - the problem is if an officer doesn't follow a Duty (meaning a SHALL)
then e can get deputized out of office.  And I know of situations where
some of those SHALLs would be impossible - so you cant succeed at doing the
shall.

Re: DIS: Is being required to violate a Rule against the Rules?

[CuddleBeam]

I messed up, sorry. Reposting:

It's a very interesting point but I don't think there is any conflict

How I see it, is that the rules are bugged and if you're Officer A, you're
screwed, no matter what you do. Just faulty rules.

So I'd go with that if you don't do the thing in time, you get a card as
for breaking R1. If you do it, you get a card, for breaking R2.

I don't see how an holistic view somehow invalidates that the Officer
should be able to get a card for violating R2, because R1 "saves" them.
There is no rule that enables that as far as I know. You could argue that
the interpretation rules lets you solve the "contradiction"; but I don't
see the contradiction. I see it as (with sloppy propositional logic):

If you do p, you're screwed. (p-> you're screwed)
If you don't do p, you're screwed (not p-> you're screwed)
Ergo
anything-> you're screwed

So in either p or not p, you're screwed. It's frustrating but its not
contradictory at all.

For practical reasons, sure, I feel like Officer A shouldn't be screwed
over. But the rule are the rules. It can be later proposed to cancel all
criminal charges on them (because the rules were just junk and the guy
didn't deserve it), we have the power to do any fixes we want a posteriori.
Any problem is just temporary.