Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3527 assigned to V.J. Rada

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 19, 2017, at 7:23 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> I promise to post what I'm thinking of first in case I ignore things like 
> that. Hopefully I don't mess it up.

There is absolutely no harm in diving in with both feet, for what it’s worth.

As the Judge, you can open a judgement for reconsideration (as long as you do 
so quickly) without having to get Agoran consent to do so. There are a number 
of players - G., ais523, and omd come to mind immediately - who are both 
extremely well-studied on Agoran judicial history and gently liberal with 
sharing their insights, so even if you do stumble, we’re here to catch you.

We’ve as much interest in seeing you do well as you do.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[Owen Jacobson]

Now that e’s back: I’ve been objecting partly out of recognition and gratitude 
for the fact that omd is spending eir personal resources making sure we have 
lists on which to play this game. Since the enactment of the Shiny economy, 
this has also meant that omd has drawn a small stipend for doing so.

-o

> On Jun 19, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Welcome back to the game omd! Yes, people seem to have a habit of objecting 
> to your deregristration every time it comes up. It should be interesting to 
> have you back. I admire your judicial work, as the opinions are always very 
> well thought out.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:21 PM Quazie  > wrote:
> LIES! [you're already here, and registered]
> 
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:09 PM omd  > wrote:
> I register.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 19, 2017, at 6:23 PM, omd  wrote:

> I pay ais523 0.5 shinies.
> 
> CFJ: ais523 has 0 shinies.
> 
> Arguments:
> 
> First of all, does 0.5 count as an "amount" per Rule 2483?

Gratuity: there’s an elision here for stylistic reasons, but the rules 
nonetheless bar attempts to pay non-integral numbers of shinies. By 
constraining the values of Balance switches and definining “to pay” as

> 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.

rule 2483 (“Economics”) effectively only makes it possible to pay amounts that 
would modify the involved Balance switches from one legal value to another. 
omd’s payment does not do so, as it would modify eir balance from an integral 
value to a half-integral value, and half-integral values are not allowed (r. 
2483 again).

The sentence specifically addressing negative payments is required, and cannot 
be similarly elided, as it serves a different purpose: it stops people from 
“paying” someone in order to take all of the “payee”’s Shinies for emself.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Regulations v2

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jun 19, 2017, at 2:29 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> 
>> On Jun 17, 2017, at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> An example regulation might be helpful for reasoning about this. It should
>> not be part of the proposal though…
> 
> Example regulation (feel free to reuse this for whatever you like):
> T1.2017.1
> Title: The 2017 Birthday Tournament Regulation (example)
> Promulgator: The Herald
> Parent Rule(s): 2464 (Tournaments)
> 
> This Regulation governs the Birthday Tournament, in a accordance with
> Rule 2464. The Tournament shall last from the promulgation of this
> Regulation to two weeks thereafter. The winner of this tournament is
> the person who is the author of the most proposals resolved with an
> outcome of ADOPTED during the Tournament, with ties resolved in favor
> of the person with the most recent registration. Upon the conclusion
> of the Tournament, the Herald SHALL report the winner, who then wins
> the game.

Excellent. My gratitude. That helped immensely. This feels like it’s a more 
flexible alternative to ephemeral rules: there are more ways to instate them, 
there’s a wider range of Power they may have, and there are more ways to repeal 
them, but they’re still much more tightly scoped than most Rules should be.

>>> Create a new power 1 rule, entitled "The Regkeepor", with the following
>>> text:
>> 
>> Governor? Inspector General?
> 
> What's wrong with this title? It mirrors that of Rulekeepor.

I think it’s clunky, but I’m not going to vote it down on that account. Thanks 
for explaining the reasoning.

I quite like v3, and have no further feedback at this time.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Quazie]

By 2240 the latest clause takes precedence - the switch flips and
defaults.  G. Is right I believe

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 19:44 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > You know what, I can kind of see the argument for imaginary numbers
> > being reasonable.
>
> Do you know what I think happens?  By R2483, a balance is decreased
> by i and a balance is increased by i.  But balance is a switch that
> can only be integers, soo... (by R2162)
>
>If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
>possible value, it comes to have its default value.
>
> So everything for both parties is set to default (0 for players, 1000
> for Agora).  Now *there's* a way to breed shinies for Agora.  Or to
> zero out everyone's shinies with transfers between players.  Whichever.
>
> (nice one omd, welcome back).
>
>
>

DIS: Ordering

[Owen Jacobson]

Can we adopt a style guide imposing a canonical ordering on entries in reports? 
I nearly CFJ’d that omd had been silently deregistered by ratification (rather, 
“omd was a player before eir message ‘I register’”) because I skimmed the 
registrar’s report and didn’t see em there. Turns out omd and o were quite 
well-separated in the report.

I’m as guilty of this as anyone else, but can we alphabetize or otherwise 
collate reports consistently?

Thanks!

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> You know what, I can kind of see the argument for imaginary numbers 
> being reasonable.

Do you know what I think happens?  By R2483, a balance is decreased 
by i and a balance is increased by i.  But balance is a switch that
can only be integers, soo... (by R2162)

   If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
   possible value, it comes to have its default value.

So everything for both parties is set to default (0 for players, 1000 
for Agora).  Now *there's* a way to breed shinies for Agora.  Or to 
zero out everyone's shinies with transfers between players.  Whichever.

(nice one omd, welcome back).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Josh T]

You know what, I can kind of see the argument for imaginary numbers being
reasonable. Quazie's remarks about personal balances being broken is still
a concern, and if it does actually go through it could be a little
inconvenient.

天火狐

On 19 June 2017 at 21:25, V.J Rada  wrote:

> No you don't. Imaginary numbers aren't included in any ordinary definition
> of amount.
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:48 AM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
>
>> Hr
>>
>> I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies.
>>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[V.J Rada]

No you don't. Imaginary numbers aren't included in any ordinary definition
of amount.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:48 AM, CuddleBeam 
wrote:

> Hr
>
> I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Quazie]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 17:48 CuddleBeam  wrote:

> Hr
>
> I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies.
>

Why?  There's a CFJ already pending, and a shiny releveling event can fix
agora immediately but just leave you broken.  Confused by why you'd attempt
this.

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Josh T]

Are we opening the mathematical can of worms here on Agora? Oh dear.

天火狐

On 19 June 2017 at 20:48, CuddleBeam  wrote:

> Hr
>
> I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies.
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3527 assigned to V.J. Rada

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 09:30 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> By the way you have said it's possible for players to
> express interest only in a certain segment of CFJs
> yeah? I could avoid this situation in future by expressing
> interest only in CFJs without a significant body of game
> custom or something.

Right. Although in this case, it's not really your fault, but the fault
of having an above-average amount of player turnover. Come to think of
it, it might be interesting to get a fresh view on the case, too (I can
think of at least three plausible outcomes).

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3527 assigned to V.J. Rada

[V.J Rada]

By the way you have said it's possible for players to
express interest only in a certain segment of CFJs
yeah? I could avoid this situation in future by expressing
interest only in CFJs without a significant body of game
custom or something.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:23 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> I promise to post what I'm thinking of first in case I ignore things like
> that. Hopefully I don't mess it up.
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 18:23 -0400, omd wrote:
>> > I pay ais523 0.5 shinies.
>> >
>> > CFJ: ais523 has 0 shinies.
>>
>> Ugh, this is the sort of CFJ that I'd normally assign to an experienced
>> player (as it involves a rule interpretation question that seems very
>> likely to have come up before, and thus likely has relevant game
>> custom), but I'm clearly involved and all the other experienced players
>> are currently over-CFJed compared to the newer players. Do you want to
>> join the judge list, by the way?
>>
>> I'll guess I'll just assign it anyway:
>>
>> This is CFJ 3527. I assign it to V.J. Rada.
>>
>> > Arguments:
>> >
>> > First of all, does 0.5 count as an "amount" per Rule 2483?
>> >
>> > If so, Rule 2483 purports to decrease my balance by 0.5 and increase
>> > ais523's balance by 0.5, which in both cases would mean setting
>> > balance to an impossible value.  Does that trigger this clause from
>> > Rule 2162?
>> >
>> >   If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
>> >   possible value, it comes to have its default value.
>> >
>> > …Or does "No other values are possible for instances of that switch",
>> > also from Rule 2162, simply forbid the change altogether?  (Rule 2162
>> > has precedence over Rule 2483.)
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>> Arbitor
>>
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3527 assigned to V.J. Rada

[V.J Rada]

I promise to post what I'm thinking of first in case I ignore things like
that. Hopefully I don't mess it up.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 18:23 -0400, omd wrote:
> > I pay ais523 0.5 shinies.
> >
> > CFJ: ais523 has 0 shinies.
>
> Ugh, this is the sort of CFJ that I'd normally assign to an experienced
> player (as it involves a rule interpretation question that seems very
> likely to have come up before, and thus likely has relevant game
> custom), but I'm clearly involved and all the other experienced players
> are currently over-CFJed compared to the newer players. Do you want to
> join the judge list, by the way?
>
> I'll guess I'll just assign it anyway:
>
> This is CFJ 3527. I assign it to V.J. Rada.
>
> > Arguments:
> >
> > First of all, does 0.5 count as an "amount" per Rule 2483?
> >
> > If so, Rule 2483 purports to decrease my balance by 0.5 and increase
> > ais523's balance by 0.5, which in both cases would mean setting
> > balance to an impossible value.  Does that trigger this clause from
> > Rule 2162?
> >
> >   If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
> >   possible value, it comes to have its default value.
> >
> > …Or does "No other values are possible for instances of that switch",
> > also from Rule 2162, simply forbid the change altogether?  (Rule 2162
> > has precedence over Rule 2483.)
>
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Regulations v3

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 15:44 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Alex Smith > > wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 00:02 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > > I submit the affixed proposal.
>> > >
>> > > Create a new power 3.1 rule entitled "Regulations", with the flowing 
>> > > text:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > > A regulation must be authorized by at least one rule in order for
>> > > it to exist.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > >   A regulation (or set of regulations) may generally be enacted or 
>> > > modified
>> > >   without 2 objections, or with Agoran consent. A notice pursuant to the
>> > >   previous sentence is known as a "recommendation", and the regulation(s)
>> > >   are said to be "recommended" to Agora.
>> >
>> > As far as I can tell, this makes it possible to construct a power 3.1
>> > object with 1 Agoran Consent (which is somewhat easier than passing an
>> > AI 1 proposal). I'm not sure I like the general idea of Regulations
>> > anyway (we normally just mandate officers to attempt to pass proposals
>> > – give them a free pend if you like). Come to think of it, I'm vaguely
>> > curious as to whether there's an intentional scam buried in that
>> > proposal; it's long enough and has a dangerous enough subject matter to
>> > make that plausible.
>>
>> I'll hold it for more comment then, which means it won't pass in time
>> for the Birthday Tournament. *sigh* Yes, it would allow you to
>> construct a power 3.1 instrument with 1 Agoran Consent, but only if
>> doing so was allowed by a power 3.1 rule. However, a power 3.1 rule
>> can already do that, so I'm not seeing how this introduces any new
>> problems, other than that it might make it easier to convince people
>> to do that. You will note that the only rules granted the power to
>> make regulations are those concerning Tournaments, and both of those
>> rules are Power 1. For the record, this proposal does not contain any
>> intentional scams.
>
> Look at my second excerpt. The rule's granting the ability itself; it
> provides a mechanism for creating a regulation that doesn't rely on any
> other rule. It's probably not intended to, but it is.
>
> --
> ais523

Oops. I missed that, and thus totally misunderstood your comments. How
embarrassing. Yes, I suppose it might well be construed that way. I
would interpret it as saying that you could enact such a regulation,
it just wouldn't exist (or perhaps have any effect, because of the
clause "a regulation has effect on the game insofar as the rule or
rules that authorized it permit it to have effect"). I will redraft it
to fix those problems. Thank you!

-Aris

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3527 assigned to V.J. Rada

[omd]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> Do you want to join the judge list, by the way?
Sure.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Regulations v3

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 15:44 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Alex Smith  > wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 00:02 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > I submit the affixed proposal.
> > > 
> > > Create a new power 3.1 rule entitled "Regulations", with the flowing text:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > A regulation must be authorized by at least one rule in order for
> > > it to exist.
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > >   A regulation (or set of regulations) may generally be enacted or 
> > > modified
> > >   without 2 objections, or with Agoran consent. A notice pursuant to the
> > >   previous sentence is known as a "recommendation", and the regulation(s)
> > >   are said to be "recommended" to Agora.
> > 
> > As far as I can tell, this makes it possible to construct a power 3.1
> > object with 1 Agoran Consent (which is somewhat easier than passing an
> > AI 1 proposal). I'm not sure I like the general idea of Regulations
> > anyway (we normally just mandate officers to attempt to pass proposals
> > – give them a free pend if you like). Come to think of it, I'm vaguely
> > curious as to whether there's an intentional scam buried in that
> > proposal; it's long enough and has a dangerous enough subject matter to
> > make that plausible.
> 
> I'll hold it for more comment then, which means it won't pass in time
> for the Birthday Tournament. *sigh* Yes, it would allow you to
> construct a power 3.1 instrument with 1 Agoran Consent, but only if
> doing so was allowed by a power 3.1 rule. However, a power 3.1 rule
> can already do that, so I'm not seeing how this introduces any new
> problems, other than that it might make it easier to convince people
> to do that. You will note that the only rules granted the power to
> make regulations are those concerning Tournaments, and both of those
> rules are Power 1. For the record, this proposal does not contain any
> intentional scams.

Look at my second excerpt. The rule's granting the ability itself; it
provides a mechanism for creating a regulation that doesn't rely on any
other rule. It's probably not intended to, but it is.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Regulations v3

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 00:02 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> I submit the affixed proposal.
>>
>> Create a new power 3.1 rule entitled "Regulations", with the flowing text:
>
> [...]
>
>> A regulation must be authorized by at least one rule in order for
>> it to exist.
>
> [...]
>
>>   A regulation (or set of regulations) may generally be enacted or modified
>>   without 2 objections, or with Agoran consent. A notice pursuant to the
>>   previous sentence is known as a "recommendation", and the regulation(s)
>>   are said to be "recommended" to Agora.
>
> As far as I can tell, this makes it possible to construct a power 3.1
> object with 1 Agoran Consent (which is somewhat easier than passing an
> AI 1 proposal). I'm not sure I like the general idea of Regulations
> anyway (we normally just mandate officers to attempt to pass proposals
> – give them a free pend if you like). Come to think of it, I'm vaguely
> curious as to whether there's an intentional scam buried in that
> proposal; it's long enough and has a dangerous enough subject matter to
> make that plausible.
>
> --
> ais523

I'll hold it for more comment then, which means it won't pass in time
for the Birthday Tournament. *sigh* Yes, it would allow you to
construct a power 3.1 instrument with 1 Agoran Consent, but only if
doing so was allowed by a power 3.1 rule. However, a power 3.1 rule
can already do that, so I'm not seeing how this introduces any new
problems, other than that it might make it easier to convince people
to do that. You will note that the only rules granted the power to
make regulations are those concerning Tournaments, and both of those
rules are Power 1. For the record, this proposal does not contain any
intentional scams.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Not a finger point?

[omd]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> "If it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it in a
> timely fashion after the end of the voting period." Huh, what a weird
> exception: if there's no requirement to initiate a Decision, there's no
> requirement to resolve it once you do.

I think that's a leftover from when dependent actions were Agoran Decisions.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[Aris Merchant]

Welcome back to the game omd! Yes, people seem to have a habit of objecting
to your deregristration every time it comes up. It should be interesting to
have you back. I admire your judicial work, as the opinions are always very
well thought out.

-Aris

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:21 PM Quazie  wrote:

> LIES! [you're already here, and registered]
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:09 PM omd  wrote:
>
>> I register.
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[Quazie]

LIES! [you're already here, and registered]

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:09 PM omd  wrote:

> I register.
>

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: 
> I should note that (mostly in honour of Bucky) I've been intentionally
> trying to increase the ability of nonplayers to be able to participate

I may or may not have been doing so over the past couple years in honor
of a different non-player.

DIS: Re: BUS: Regulations v3

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 00:02 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I submit the affixed proposal.
> 
> Create a new power 3.1 rule entitled "Regulations", with the flowing text:

[...]

> A regulation must be authorized by at least one rule in order for
> it to exist.

[...]

>   A regulation (or set of regulations) may generally be enacted or modified
>   without 2 objections, or with Agoran consent. A notice pursuant to the
>   previous sentence is known as a "recommendation", and the regulation(s)
>   are said to be "recommended" to Agora.

As far as I can tell, this makes it possible to construct a power 3.1
object with 1 Agoran Consent (which is somewhat easier than passing an
AI 1 proposal). I'm not sure I like the general idea of Regulations
anyway (we normally just mandate officers to attempt to pass proposals
– give them a free pend if you like). Come to think of it, I'm vaguely
curious as to whether there's an intentional scam buried in that
proposal; it's long enough and has a dangerous enough subject matter to
make that plausible.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Not a finger point?

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 19:44 +, Quazie wrote:
> I was going to point a finger at PSS for not resolving the Victory
> Election, but there's not requirement for em to resolve it ever - so
> interestingly if the herald doesn't like the outcome of the Victory
> Election they can just ignore it.

"If it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it in a
timely fashion after the end of the voting period." Huh, what a weird
exception: if there's no requirement to initiate a Decision, there's no
requirement to resolve it once you do.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] A two-fer

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

It can still be done without objection by ratification.

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



> On Jun 19, 2017, at 2:06 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> On Jun 19, 2017, at 1:32 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
 Title:  This Isn't Even A Scam
 Author: o
 Adoption Index: 0.1
>>> 
>>> Are you meaning to get this passed with fewer For votes than Against
>>> votes?   Because you need at least a F/A > 1 regardless of AI (R955):
>>> 
>>> The outcome is ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A >
>>> 1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise REJECTED.
>>> 
>>> (If that's not the trick here, my apologies).
>> 
>> Ah, damn, no, that is the trick. I’d misunderstood. That does seem to 
>> make AI < 1.0 somewhat less useful than I’d thought, though.
> 
> We talked about making AI<1 proposals adoptable via agoran consent or some 
> other streamlined process, but never got around to it (maybe a good thing).

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

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2017-06-17 at 14:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's my impression that in the last 3-4 years, the number of places
> the rules say "person" instead of "player" has crept up (I haven't
> done a count or anything).  That was a lot of slow-play time, so a
> lot of the things that have been changed that way haven't been tested
> at all.  So in that sense, the interactions with non-players is all
> "new territory" right now. It might be good to scale back.
> 
> The things non-players will always need to be able to do:
>    - register (duh), and therefore make announcements.
>    - call CFJs.  There have been cases in the past where players have
>  been deregistered or punished illegally (or playerhood uncertain),
>  so non-players need to be able to defend themselves against that.
> 
> There are some bits of status that shouldn't be erased on 
> deregistration:
>    - Patent titles
>    - Ribbons (though, I'd say remove the ability for non-players to
>  earn them).

I should note that (mostly in honour of Bucky) I've been intentionally
trying to increase the ability of nonplayers to be able to participate
(this explains why nonplayers can earn Ribbons, and why the number of
rules dealing with them has increased over time). Incidentally, the
current registration rule is what finally drove Bucky off; e was
worried that something e sent to the lists might end up registering em
by accident.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Draft: Proposal Pool

[Aris Merchant]

Here's my weekly draft report. Note that I'll probably pend Regs
unless there are objections to the current text.

-Aris


The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:

IDAuthor(s)  AI   Title
---
pp1   Aris, o, nichdel   3.1  Regulations v3

Legend: * : Proposal is pending.

The Pending List Price (PLP) is 6 shinies.

The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.

//
ID: 7859
Title: Regulations v3
Adoption index: 3.1
Author: Aris
Co-authors: o, nichdel


Change the title of Rule 2125, "Regulation Regulations", to "Regulated Actions".

Amend Rules 2125 and 1023 by changing all instances of the word "regulated" to
"restricted", and all instances of the word "unregulated" to "unrestricted".

Amend Rule 2143, "Official Reports and Duties," by changing all instances of the
word "regulations" to "restrictions".

Create a new power 3.1 rule entitled "Regulations", with the flowing text:

  A Regulation is an instrument defined as such by this rule. A regulation
  allows an officer (known as the Promulgator) to exercise rule defined powers.
  A regulation is in effect continuously from the time of its creation to the
  time of either its revocation or the repeal of the rule that allowed for its
  creation. When recommending a regulation, its Promulgator must specify by
  number the rule(s) upon which it is based (the parent rules), the list of
  which becomes an integral part of the regulation. The list of rules can
  generally be modified by the Promulgator according to the procedure for text
  changes.

  A regulation must be authorized by at least one rule in order for it to exist.
  A regulation has effect on the game insofar as the rule or rules that
  authorized it permit it to have effect, and a regulation generally inherits
  the power of its least powerful parent rule, unless its Promulgator defines
  a lower power. Regulations shall generally be adjudicated as if they were a
  part of their (least powerful) parent rule, except that their parent rule(s)
  always supersedes them. If reasonably possible, a regulation should be
  interpreted so as to defer to other rules. The procedure for resolving
  conflict between regulations is the same as it is for rules.

  Regulations are generally issued according to the following procedures,
  and they can be repealed by the announcement of their Promulgator. Alternate
  procedures may be used if provided for by all of the regulations's parent
  rules. If one parent rule specifies procedures that are more stringent than
  those that the other(s) specifies, those apply. Creating, modifying, revoking,
  or allowing for a regulation is secured at power 1.

  A regulation (or set of regulations) may generally be enacted or modified
  without 2 objections, or with Agoran consent. A notice pursuant to the
  previous sentence is known as a "recommendation", and the regulation(s)
  are said to be "recommended" to Agora.


Create a new power 1 rule, entitled "The Regkeepor", with the following text:

  The Regkeepor is an office, responsible for the maintenance of the
  Regulations. The Regulations are contained in the Regkeepor's weekly report,
  know as the Agora Nomic Code of Regulations (ACORN). E MAY publish multiple
  versions or editions of the ACORN.

  The ACORN is divided into titles, assigned by the Regkeepor, which are
  each given an integer.  Generally, each office with the power to create
  regulations SHOULD be assigned the next successive natural number. Title 0 of
  the ACORN is reserved for use by the Regkeepor, and nothing in that title
  need be a regulation. Non-regulations printed in the ACORN
  have no binding effect, and SHALL clearly be marked by the Regkeepor.

  Each regulation SHALL be assigned an ID number by the Regkeepor, consisting
  of a string of the characters [0-9] and separator characters. The Regkeepor
  SHOULD establish some way of keeping track of the version of a regulations.
  The Regkeepor MAY also, at eir discretion, create ways of marking special
  types of Regulation (even in violation of the previous restrictions of this
  paragraph), mark sections or titles as reserved for future use, and
  make such other discussions of arrangement, annotation, and marking as are
  necessary and proper in the execution of eir duties.

  The Regkeepor SHOULD remember that the purpose of the ACORN is to make the
  regulations easily readable, and e SHALL not act in a manner intended to
  deceive others in eir official capacity.


Make Aris the Regkeepor.

Amend Rule 2464, "Tournaments", to read in full:

   A Tournament is a sub-game of Agora specifically sanctioned
   to be initiated as a tournament by the Rules.  If a winner of a
   tournament is determined within 4 weeks of its initiation, that
   person or persons win the game, otherwise the 

Re: DIS: Regulations v2

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2017, at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>
>
> An example regulation might be helpful for reasoning about this. It should
> not be part of the proposal though…

Example regulation (feel free to reuse this for whatever you like):
T1.2017.1
Title: The 2017 Birthday Tournament Regulation (example)
Promulgator: The Herald
Parent Rule(s): 2464 (Tournaments)

This Regulation governs the Birthday Tournament, in a accordance with
Rule 2464. The Tournament shall last from the promulgation of this
Regulation to two weeks thereafter. The winner of this tournament is
the person who is the author of the most proposals resolved with an
outcome of ADOPTED during the Tournament, with ties resolved in favor
of the person with the most recent registration. Upon the conclusion
of the Tournament, the Herald SHALL report the winner, who then wins
the game.

>
> I’m using the difference between
>
> https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17 (a law)
>
> and
>
> https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060516 (a regulation, authorized by
> that law)
>
> for my own understanding.
>
>  A regulation is in effect continuously from the time of its creation to the
>  time of either its revocation or the repeal of the rule that allowed for
> its
>  creation.
>
>
> It might be worth reusing the phrasing from r. 2141:
>
> and is always taking effect

That's where I got the idea, but I wanted it to be slightly less unconditional.

> Create a new power 1 rule, entitled "The Regkeepor", with the following
> text:
>
>
> Governor? Inspector General?

What's wrong with this title? It mirrors that of Rulekeepor.

> It may be worth allowing the Regkeepor (ibid) to delegate publishing
> authority to other offices, for regulations defined in the scope of those
> offices’ duties. That doesn’t have to happen now - we can try without, first
> - but if, for example, the Superintendent regulates Agencies, it makes sense
> for the Superintendent to publish those regulations.
>
> Make Aris the Regkeepor.
>
> Amend Rule 2464, "Tournaments", to read in full:
>
>   A Tournament is a sub-game of Agora specifically sanctioned
>   to be initiated as a tournament by the Rules.  If a winner of a
>   tournament is determined within 4 weeks of its initiation, that
>   person or persons win the game, otherwise the tournament
>   concludes with no winner. A Tournament is governed by a special temporary
>   title of the ACORN, created in accordance with its parent rule,
>   which have binding control over those who freely agree to play the
> tournament
>   and over the tournament itself. Once the tournament is concluded, these
>   regulations cease to have any effect, and may be repealed by any player.
>
>
> It might be worth splitting this into two rules: one authorizing
> tournaments, one authorizing the Birthday Tournament.

Done, with thanks.

-Ars

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] A two-fer

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 2017, at 1:32 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >> Title:  This Isn't Even A Scam
> >> Author: o
> >> Adoption Index: 0.1
> > 
> > Are you meaning to get this passed with fewer For votes than Against
> > votes?   Because you need at least a F/A > 1 regardless of AI (R955):
> > 
> >  The outcome is ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A >
> >  1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise REJECTED.
> > 
> > (If that's not the trick here, my apologies).
> 
> Ah, damn, no, that is the trick. I’d misunderstood. That does seem to 
> make AI < 1.0 somewhat less useful than I’d thought, though.

We talked about making AI<1 proposals adoptable via agoran consent or some 
other streamlined process, but never got around to it (maybe a good thing).