Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jun 16, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
>>>  Which rule is authorizing the issuance of a card?
>> Rule 2450, where it says that breaking a pledge is a cardable offense.
> 
> Food for thought:
> 
> 1.  CAN is the approved way of empowering an action, but there's nothing that
> says other common-language synonyms can't be used.
> 
> 2.  What does it mean when something is [Verb]-able?  By common language, does
> it mean you CAN do it (i.e. that it's do-able)?
> 
> 3.  After a rules-search on "able", the only instance of [Verb]-able is 
> cardable,
> so assuming it works doesn't break anything.
> 
> 4.  The admitted weakness of this interpretation is you'd have to infer a
> 'by announcement' or something for the method.  But maybe there's a combo
> that works = Rule 2426 says "Cards CANNOT be issued except by players by
> announcement" that has a weak implication that if someone can be carded
> (is "cardable"), it can be done by players by announcement.  There may be
> other routes here.
> 
> 5.  I think o has already mentioned it, but in this:
>   As part of the Referee's weekly duties, e SHALL either impose
>   Summary Judgment on a player or truthfully announce that e
>   believes that there are no rules violations in the preceding
>   Agoran week for which a Card has not already been issued.
> the second part of the clause would include rules violations by non-
> players.  If there is exactly one violation in a week, by a non-player,
> the Referee couldn't do this correctly.
> 
> 6.  If a non-player publicly pledges but says e isn't being bound by the 
> rules,
> is it a R2450 Agoran pledge, or a non-enforceable non-Agoran pledge?

7. It is not necessary that someone be bound to the rules in order for them to 
participate in the game in rule-mediated ways. Supposing for a moment that 
someone who does not consent to the rules somehow nonetheless comes to be able 
to cast a ballot on an Agoran Decision: the result of that ballot will be 
determined by the rules, with or without the casting player’s consent. If 
you’re a formalist, that happens because the rules say so. If you’re a 
pragmatist, that happens because everyone else agrees that that’s the only 
sensible outcome.

 This same reasoning applies to, for example, cards, and other consequences of 
nonconsenting rule-mediated play. Someone who does not consent to being bound 
by the rules can’t avoid a card, or ratify something without 3 consent, or 
otherwise.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Proto: Circuit Board

[Owen Jacobson]

> A Player can make a Circuit Board by announcement. A Circuit Board's length 
> and complexity should be Reasonable but at most 2000 words long.

What is the most recent public message, which does not contain a report or any 
fragment of a report, which is 2,000 words long or longer?

> A Circuit Board is a series of rules, detailing how its internal switches 
> change according to circumstances and phenomenon.

With a proper formalization of “internal switches,” this has a ton of promise. 
I like this a lot. There are a few organizations which have some variety of 
switch-like internal state, which could fit into this relatively easily, too.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 16, 2017, at 8:44 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:

> >Kerim Aydin 
> >'s
> > post
> 
> To add to that, can non-players perform unregulated actions?
> 
> Non-players actually being able to "play" the game without needing to be 
> bound to its rules is already pretty big "hocus pocus" (like, a weird magical 
> thing you could potentially do with the rules), I wonder what else could 
> happen if we combine it with another big source of hocus pocus: Unregulated 
> actions.

One possible Agoran solution - to both questions - would be a high-Power rule 
whose effect is to nullify game actions (for some suitable definition thereof) 
made by non-players. I was discussing this whole affair with my fiancée this 
evening and her stance is that the idea that a non-player can play the game is 
inherently contradictory, and that the confluence of rules that allows it 
regardless is, if not broken, then at least highly suspect.

The rules should not be all-encompassing; Agora does not exist to regulate your 
or my day-to-day life. Regardless of what, if anything, we do to the game as a 
result of G.’s experiments, it seems obvious to me that “unregulated actions” 
is a catch-all category which includes actions with no bearing on the game: 
buying groceries, negotiating a raise, travelling to France, and so on.

I don’t think there’s a satisfying formal way of distinguishing between 
unregulated game actions and unregulated non-game actions, for the same reason 
that I’ve been known to offer _unspeakable things_ in trade when playing 
Bohnanza. Games are social tools, and social boundaries are necessarily 
flexible and porous.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An apology

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 16, 2017, at 3:40 AM, Josh T  wrote:

> I just wanted to mention that I approve of what you did with the apology 
> words. I hope you enjoyed writing them as much as I enjoyed coming up with 
> the word list.
> 
> 天火狐

Well, thank you.

Truth be told, that was one of the more challenging apologies I’ve constructed, 
and I spent a fair bit of time staring at my editor thinking “the h*ck am I 
going to do with these?” first. Figuring out how to fit “praxsis” (sic), 
“petrichor”, and “parsimony” into the same work was a serious challenge. 
However, constraints breed creativity - I enjoyed putting that together 
immensely, and I’m very flattered by the response it’s gotten. I think you 
deserve no small amount of credit for setting the bar, too.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[CuddleBeam]

>Kerim Aydin
's
post

To add to that, can non-players perform unregulated actions?

Non-players actually being able to "play" the game without needing to be
bound to its rules is already pretty big "hocus pocus" (like, a weird
magical thing you could potentially do with the rules), I wonder what else
could happen if we combine it with another big source of hocus pocus:
Unregulated actions.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 12:35 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 6.  If a non-player publicly pledges but says e isn't being bound by the 
> > rules,
> >  is it a R2450 Agoran pledge, or a non-enforceable non-Agoran pledge?
> 
> Back when private contracts existed, it was game custom to agree them
> as "binding under the rules of Agora". I can't remember whether or not
> that was necessary for them to work according to the rules.

Couldn't remember - did a little digging!

Before the contracts era, the Agreements rule (R1742, which later became 
the basic Contracts rule) began:

   Players may make agreements among themselves with the intention
   that such agreements will be binding under the Rules.

The Contracts version made that the basic definition of a Contract:

   Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules.

But CFJs 1325 and 1328 (pre-Contracts) found that such agreements could be
inferred from more general language and practice without invoking those
exact words.

Still, it was a good precaution, especially if the agreement is made over
private email.  "Binding" was useful because it would be possible to say
"hey, this is a game - that wasn't an agreement, it was a game alliance
and people backstab in those all the time."  Without delving, my memory of
contract-era cases is that any semblance of a contract, that could make at
least one party reasonably believe was a contract, should be considered one.
But I also remember several game alliances that resulted in betrayal, that
no one claimed was an agreement or contract.

"under Agora" might be useful because someone could say (I guess) "sure it's 
a binding contract, but I never said in Agora.  Sue in my State of
California if you must."  I don't remember anyone trying this, but I'm 
guessing an Agoran court would say "it's between two Agorans about Agoran 
quantities.. duh it's Agoran unless *both* parties say otherwise."

Not sure now.  That language is all gone. (has anyone pointed out that all
our past precedents that agreements could be made "naturally" were judged
when at least some of that language was in the rules?)

Anyway I said clearly that I didn't consent to be personally bound by the
Rules of Agora, but I used the word Pledge in a public statement with full
knowledge of the rule in question.  Not gonna hide the knowledge - I 
wrote the rule for goodness sake - but I have no idea about the current
interpretation.  'Pledge' also has a common definition that doesn't have to
be attached to the rules.  CFJ 1290 might be relevant here.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 12:35 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 6.  If a non-player publicly pledges but says e isn't being bound by the 
> rules,
>  is it a R2450 Agoran pledge, or a non-enforceable non-Agoran pledge?

Back when private contracts existed, it was game custom to agree them
as "binding under the rules of Agora". I can't remember whether or not
that was necessary for them to work according to the rules.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > Which rule is authorizing the issuance of a card?
> Rule 2450, where it says that breaking a pledge is a cardable offense.

Food for thought:

1.  CAN is the approved way of empowering an action, but there's nothing that
 says other common-language synonyms can't be used.

2.  What does it mean when something is [Verb]-able?  By common language, does
 it mean you CAN do it (i.e. that it's do-able)?

3.  After a rules-search on "able", the only instance of [Verb]-able is 
cardable,
 so assuming it works doesn't break anything.

4.  The admitted weakness of this interpretation is you'd have to infer a
 'by announcement' or something for the method.  But maybe there's a combo
 that works = Rule 2426 says "Cards CANNOT be issued except by players by
 announcement" that has a weak implication that if someone can be carded
 (is "cardable"), it can be done by players by announcement.  There may be
 other routes here.

5.  I think o has already mentioned it, but in this:
   As part of the Referee's weekly duties, e SHALL either impose
   Summary Judgment on a player or truthfully announce that e
   believes that there are no rules violations in the preceding
   Agoran week for which a Card has not already been issued.
 the second part of the clause would include rules violations by non-
 players.  If there is exactly one violation in a week, by a non-player,
 the Referee couldn't do this correctly.

6.  If a non-player publicly pledges but says e isn't being bound by the rules,
 is it a R2450 Agoran pledge, or a non-enforceable non-Agoran pledge?

Re: DIS: Proto: Circuit Board

[Quazie]

I mostly agree with nichdel, but I do believe we want a rule that says
'Orgs can make switches, and those switches are untracked unless the Org
defines someone within it to track them' which accomplishes the circuit
board need of defining a switch by the rules.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:40 AM Nic Evans  wrote:

> I'm interested in what you're trying to accomplish here but I have two
> concerns. One is that, as far as I can tell, this entire system is
> already doable as an Organization. The other is that we've had a
> proliferation of specific contract systems when we should probably just
> have one generic one.
>
> I think ideally we take the current Organization system and allow it to
> include pledge-like and agency-like features. Orgs should be able to
> define different roles for members (I believe they already can, but it
> hasn't been tested much). Roles should be able to define pledges and the
> power to be acted on behalf of. Neither should be coerceable, of course.
> We could roll the (underused) lockout rules into this as well. Breakage
> of a Contract would prevent you from being a signatory of other
> contracts for some period of time.
>
>
> On 06/16/17 04:23, CuddleBeam wrote:
> > I like my "emulated Agoran Consent" thing a lot (which seems to work
> > pretty OK! I'm thankful for seeing people use it), as well as the
> > series of rules which depend on it which, together, make a useful
> > "thing" floating in formal space. In my case, a lottery.
> >
> > To make it a bit more formal, as well as to be possibly used in
> > conjunction with Agencies (which also have this vast "programming"
> > potential) I suggest "Circuit Boards".
> >
> > -
> >
> > Rule : Circuit Boards
> >
> > A Player can make a Circuit Board by announcement. A Circuit Board's
> > length and complexity should be Reasonable but at most 2000 words long.
> >
> > A Circuit Board is a series of rules, detailing how its internal
> > switches change according to circumstances and phenomenon.
> >
> > Circuit Boards can create their own switches. Circuit Boards can
> > create their own events which require Agoran Consent. (etc, more for
> > formal management mechanics like voting and stuff, if you want that too)
> >
> > Circuit Boards can only control the content of switches (and other
> > stuff, write this better) for information, and never actually affect
> > other in-game formal items other than itself. (It's kinda like just a
> > circuit board of flashing lights, it doesn't actually move gears in
> > the ruleset because then we'd have automatic bots and that can be hell
> > to play out.)
>

Re: DIS: Proto: Circuit Board

[Nic Evans]

I'm interested in what you're trying to accomplish here but I have two
concerns. One is that, as far as I can tell, this entire system is
already doable as an Organization. The other is that we've had a
proliferation of specific contract systems when we should probably just
have one generic one.

I think ideally we take the current Organization system and allow it to
include pledge-like and agency-like features. Orgs should be able to
define different roles for members (I believe they already can, but it
hasn't been tested much). Roles should be able to define pledges and the
power to be acted on behalf of. Neither should be coerceable, of course.
We could roll the (underused) lockout rules into this as well. Breakage
of a Contract would prevent you from being a signatory of other
contracts for some period of time.


On 06/16/17 04:23, CuddleBeam wrote:
> I like my "emulated Agoran Consent" thing a lot (which seems to work
> pretty OK! I'm thankful for seeing people use it), as well as the
> series of rules which depend on it which, together, make a useful
> "thing" floating in formal space. In my case, a lottery.
>
> To make it a bit more formal, as well as to be possibly used in
> conjunction with Agencies (which also have this vast "programming"
> potential) I suggest "Circuit Boards".
>
> -
>
> Rule : Circuit Boards
>
> A Player can make a Circuit Board by announcement. A Circuit Board's
> length and complexity should be Reasonable but at most 2000 words long. 
>
> A Circuit Board is a series of rules, detailing how its internal
> switches change according to circumstances and phenomenon.
>
> Circuit Boards can create their own switches. Circuit Boards can
> create their own events which require Agoran Consent. (etc, more for
> formal management mechanics like voting and stuff, if you want that too)
>
> Circuit Boards can only control the content of switches (and other
> stuff, write this better) for information, and never actually affect
> other in-game formal items other than itself. (It's kinda like just a
> circuit board of flashing lights, it doesn't actually move gears in
> the ruleset because then we'd have automatic bots and that can be hell
> to play out.)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Proto: Circuit Board

[Quazie]

You need to note that these rule defined switched either are or aren't
tracked, or they will default to the registrar for tracking.


On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 02:39 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I like this idea.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 2017, at 5:23 AM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
> >
> > I like my "emulated Agoran Consent" thing a lot (which seems to work
> pretty OK! I'm thankful for seeing people use it), as well as the series of
> rules which depend on it which, together, make a useful "thing" floating in
> formal space. In my case, a lottery.
> >
> > To make it a bit more formal, as well as to be possibly used in
> conjunction with Agencies (which also have this vast "programming"
> potential) I suggest "Circuit Boards".
> >
> > -
> >
> > Rule : Circuit Boards
> >
> > A Player can make a Circuit Board by announcement. A Circuit Board's
> length and complexity should be Reasonable but at most 2000 words long.
> >
> > A Circuit Board is a series of rules, detailing how its internal
> switches change according to circumstances and phenomenon.
> >
> > Circuit Boards can create their own switches. Circuit Boards can create
> their own events which require Agoran Consent. (etc, more for formal
> management mechanics like voting and stuff, if you want that too)
> >
> > Circuit Boards can only control the content of switches (and other
> stuff, write this better) for information, and never actually affect other
> in-game formal items other than itself. (It's kinda like just a circuit
> board of flashing lights, it doesn't actually move gears in the ruleset
> because then we'd have automatic bots and that can be hell to play out.)
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An apology

[Kerim Aydin]

It's what the Bard patent title is used for.

Used to be awardable based on some amount of support,
with the support traditionally phrased as 'applause'.

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> I think this is very cool and I laughed a bit lol
> Agoran Theatre when.
> 
> (Thesis of Arts?)
> 
> Proto: - Doctor of Nomic Art (D.N.Art.)
> 
>

DIS: Re: BUS: An apology

[CuddleBeam]

I think this is very cool and I laughed a bit lol

Agoran Theatre when.

(Thesis of Arts?)

Proto: - Doctor of Nomic Art (D.N.Art.)

Re: DIS: Proto: Circuit Board

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I like this idea.

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



> On Jun 16, 2017, at 5:23 AM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> I like my "emulated Agoran Consent" thing a lot (which seems to work pretty 
> OK! I'm thankful for seeing people use it), as well as the series of rules 
> which depend on it which, together, make a useful "thing" floating in formal 
> space. In my case, a lottery.
> 
> To make it a bit more formal, as well as to be possibly used in conjunction 
> with Agencies (which also have this vast "programming" potential) I suggest 
> "Circuit Boards".
> 
> -
> 
> Rule : Circuit Boards
> 
> A Player can make a Circuit Board by announcement. A Circuit Board's length 
> and complexity should be Reasonable but at most 2000 words long. 
> 
> A Circuit Board is a series of rules, detailing how its internal switches 
> change according to circumstances and phenomenon.
> 
> Circuit Boards can create their own switches. Circuit Boards can create their 
> own events which require Agoran Consent. (etc, more for formal management 
> mechanics like voting and stuff, if you want that too)
> 
> Circuit Boards can only control the content of switches (and other stuff, 
> write this better) for information, and never actually affect other in-game 
> formal items other than itself. (It's kinda like just a circuit board of 
> flashing lights, it doesn't actually move gears in the ruleset because then 
> we'd have automatic bots and that can be hell to play out.)

DIS: Proto: Circuit Board

[CuddleBeam]

I like my "emulated Agoran Consent" thing a lot (which seems to work pretty
OK! I'm thankful for seeing people use it), as well as the series of rules
which depend on it which, together, make a useful "thing" floating in
formal space. In my case, a lottery.

To make it a bit more formal, as well as to be possibly used in conjunction
with Agencies (which also have this vast "programming" potential) I suggest
"Circuit Boards".

-

Rule : Circuit Boards

A Player can make a Circuit Board by announcement. A Circuit Board's length
and complexity should be Reasonable but at most 2000 words long.

A Circuit Board is a series of rules, detailing how its internal switches
change according to circumstances and phenomenon.

Circuit Boards can create their own switches. Circuit Boards can create
their own events which require Agoran Consent. (etc, more for formal
management mechanics like voting and stuff, if you want that too)

Circuit Boards can only control the content of switches (and other stuff,
write this better) for information, and never actually affect other in-game
formal items other than itself. (It's kinda like just a circuit board of
flashing lights, it doesn't actually move gears in the ruleset because then
we'd have automatic bots and that can be hell to play out.)

DIS: Re: BUS: An apology

[Josh T]

I just wanted to mention that I approve of what you did with the apology
words. I hope you enjoyed writing them as much as I enjoyed coming up with
the word list.

天火狐

On 16 June 2017 at 02:37, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> SCENE: Outside a pagoda. An old man, shaken with palsy and spotted with
> age, sits on the steps feeding the pigeons. A stall is set up next to the
> steps, selling petunias.
>
> MAN: How come you here?
>
> MERCHANT, sullen: I fled.
>
> MAN: You fled? Fled from what?
>
> MERCHANT: Ask me not.
>
> MAN: Oh, come now, don't be so piquant.
>
> MERCHANT: ...I suppose. I've nothing better to do, anyways. I fled
> from a land where all the money came to a stop. How's a flowerseller
> supposed to sell flowers if nobody can pay? How's a flowerseller supposed
> to buy stock if he can't pay either?
>
> MAN: Seems fairly fundamental to the praxsis of commerce. How did such
> parsimony come to pass? How does money ... come to a stop?
>
> MERCHANT: Simple. Where I came from, all money is kept in a single
> giant ledger. A scribe is charged with keeping this ledger correct,
> recording each exchange of good for value and value for good. That scribe,
> however, fell ill - some primeval affliction of the spirit, as I heard it.
> With nobody to keep the ledger, no money could change hands. All trade
> stopped. Oh, it was awful.
>
> MAN: Seems quite the picaresque tale.
>
> MERCHANT: No need to be rude. As I said, I fled. It's behind me and
> I'd prefer not to think of it any longer. Are you going to buy anything, or
> are you content to throw perfectly good bread to the birds?
>
> MAN: I paid good coin for this bread and I'll do with it as I like.
> These birds, too, must be fed. But enough - do you smell that petrichor?
> Best to get your flowers inside before it rains. Good day.
>
> EXEUNT OMNES.
>
> This is, of course, something of an exaggeration. Not all trade stopped in
> my absence. However, the Shiny economy needs vigilant recordkeeping to
> remain functional for any length of time, and I have been derelict.
> Thankfully, we have no exiled merchants wandering in strange lands, but we
> very well could have. I apologize for my laxity.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Josh T]

> Which rule is authorizing the issuance of a card?

Rule 2450, where it says that breaking a pledge is a cardable offense.

I suppose "publicly-made" might be construed to mean "in a public forum",
which would prevent Donald Trump from getting a card. I can see the
argument as for why G. can't be carded as of this message, but I think G.
can be carded for breaking a pledge e made, provided that it was in a
public forum.

天火狐

On 16 June 2017 at 02:39, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 02:34 -0400, 天火狐 wrote:
> > I don't see how something like the following in the appropriate forum
> > wouldn't successfully give a card, assuming that it was issued in the
> right
> > time frame: "I issue Donald Trump a Green Card for breaking his pledge to
> > direct his secretary of the treasury to label China a currency
> manipulator."
>
> Which rule is authorizing the issuance of a card? Doing so is secured
> at power 1.7 (rule 2426), thus can't be done without a power 1.7+ rule
> authorizing it. (Additionally, doing so is regulated (rule 2125) due to
> there being specific mechanisms for it, and thus can't be done without
> a rule authorizing it; the security in rule 2426 thus serves to limit
> which rules could potentially make it possible, but it wouldn't be
> possible even without the security restriction.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 02:34 -0400, 天火狐 wrote:
> I don't see how something like the following in the appropriate forum
> wouldn't successfully give a card, assuming that it was issued in the right
> time frame: "I issue Donald Trump a Green Card for breaking his pledge to
> direct his secretary of the treasury to label China a currency manipulator."

Which rule is authorizing the issuance of a card? Doing so is secured
at power 1.7 (rule 2426), thus can't be done without a power 1.7+ rule
authorizing it. (Additionally, doing so is regulated (rule 2125) due to
there being specific mechanisms for it, and thus can't be done without
a rule authorizing it; the security in rule 2426 thus serves to limit
which rules could potentially make it possible, but it wouldn't be
possible even without the security restriction.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Josh T]

I don't see how something like the following in the appropriate forum
wouldn't successfully give a card, assuming that it was issued in the right
time frame: "I issue Donald Trump a Green Card for breaking his pledge to
direct his secretary of the treasury to label China a currency manipulator."

My reasoning for the above is as follows:
* It includes all the things that an announcement issuing a card must have
lest it be ineffective as per rule 2426;
* It is issued by a player;
* It clearly says in Rule 2450 that "breaking a publicly-made pledge is a
cardable offence";
* The infraction is inconsequential to Agora gameplay, and thus fits into
the category of a Green Card;
* It does not violate the other SHALL NOTs in rule 2426 (although mostly by
assumption)；
* Thus, the action would result in a card being issued.

If I am mistaken, I would like to be corrected on the issue.

天火狐

On 16 June 2017 at 02:12, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 02:08 -0400, 天火狐 wrote:
> > > I don’t think I can do anything about this, formally, since you’re
> still
> >
> > not a player, but if you insist I can put together a theory under which
> > this should be carded.
> >
> > CFJ 1709 states that non-players are still bound to contracts if they are
> > party to it, with the implication that non-players must still follow the
> > rules if they choose to interact with them. I'm sure you can, with that
> in
> > hand, contrive a reason to card G., especially since carding doesn't seem
> > to be restricted to players.
> >
> > 天火狐
>
> As far as I can tell, the rules allow cards to be given to nonplayers
> in a general sense, but don't provide any mechanism for doing so (other
> than by proposal); all the mechanisms intended to be used for handing
> out cards only work with players.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 02:08 -0400, 天火狐 wrote:
> > I don’t think I can do anything about this, formally, since you’re still
> 
> not a player, but if you insist I can put together a theory under which
> this should be carded.
> 
> CFJ 1709 states that non-players are still bound to contracts if they are
> party to it, with the implication that non-players must still follow the
> rules if they choose to interact with them. I'm sure you can, with that in
> hand, contrive a reason to card G., especially since carding doesn't seem
> to be restricted to players.
> 
> 天火狐

As far as I can tell, the rules allow cards to be given to nonplayers
in a general sense, but don't provide any mechanism for doing so (other
than by proposal); all the mechanisms intended to be used for handing
out cards only work with players.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Josh T]

> I don’t think I can do anything about this, formally, since you’re still
not a player, but if you insist I can put together a theory under which
this should be carded.

CFJ 1709 states that non-players are still bound to contracts if they are
party to it, with the implication that non-players must still follow the
rules if they choose to interact with them. I'm sure you can, with that in
hand, contrive a reason to card G., especially since carding doesn't seem
to be restricted to players.

天火狐

On 15 June 2017 at 16:13, Quazie  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:00 +, Quazie wrote:
>> > Wow, that's broken - any public document proporting to be a report
>> > self-ratifies?
>>
>> It's not broken, it's intentional:
>>
>> a) Public documents puporting to be reports are fairly obvious, so if
>> someone makes one incorrectly or maliciously, we can just CoE it;
>> b) It means that reports continue to self-ratify even if, for some
>> reason, Agora as a whole is mistaken as to who holds the office. This
>> means that uncertainty about the identity of officers doesn't have any
>> serious long-term effects. (Without this, if we got confused as to who
>> held an office, it might mean that nothing self-ratified from that
>> point onwards due to a snowball effect of mistakes about the gamestate,
>> which could be very hard to recover from.)
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
>
> So, G. just published something that will self-ratify if we don't CoE it?
>
> It seems like I could embed public documents purporting to be a report in
> any long message in hopes of scamming to success.
>