Re: DIS: agoranomic.org

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Could you take a look at this[1], it is throwing me an error?

[1]: https://help.github.com/articles/using-a-custom-domain-with-github-pages/

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



> On Jun 20, 2017, at 4:08 PM, omd  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> I like the not using the www prefix as a solution. Once you decide, I can do 
>> the GitHub side of things or allow you to do it.
> 
> OK, sounds good.  I just pointed the root domain to GitHub and set up
> www to redirect; the old record hasn't expired yet (but TTL was 30
> minutes so it will soon), but feel free to point GitHub at it now.

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

[Nic Evans]

On 06/20/17 15:09, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> This time it's a completely different metaphor, and maybe - as suggested 
> elsewhere - we should go to the common usage of "switch".  If you have a 
> TV remote switch, it's pretty clear that the "units" of channel and 
> volume are fixed on some kind of integer/discrete scale even if the
> underlying measurement units (MHz or dB) are continuous.
>

Under this interpretation there'd be implied rounding, right? (Or more
accurately some mapping from larger number sets to integers.)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:


Those solutions make the ruleset a little easier (read: prevents us
humanities majors from having to know what octonian space and lattice
points are).


You don't have to know what it is, but you _do_ have to spell it 
correctly.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:


oof, also my apologies for the walls of text. i'm playing with gmail's
plain text editor and the input box doesn't automatically line break
for me. those paragraphs are...denser than expected.


For what it's worth, I did not consider there to be anything wrong with 
the formatting of that message whatsoever. It was a far improvement 
compared to some of the other brokenness I've seen on the list lately. :P


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: agoranomic.org

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Done.

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



> On Jun 20, 2017, at 4:08 PM, omd  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> I like the not using the www prefix as a solution. Once you decide, I can do 
>> the GitHub side of things or allow you to do it.
> 
> OK, sounds good.  I just pointed the root domain to GitHub and set up
> www to redirect; the old record hasn't expired yet (but TTL was 30
> minutes so it will soon), but feel free to point GitHub at it now.

Re: DIS: agoranomic.org

[omd]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I like the not using the www prefix as a solution. Once you decide, I can do 
> the GitHub side of things or allow you to do it.

OK, sounds good.  I just pointed the root domain to GitHub and set up
www to redirect; the old record hasn't expired yet (but TTL was 30
minutes so it will soon), but feel free to point GitHub at it now.

Re: DIS: agoranomic.org

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I like the not using the www prefix as a solution. Once you decide, I can do 
the GitHub side of things or allow you to do it.

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



> On Jun 20, 2017, at 2:00 PM, omd  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 2:39 PM, omd  wrote:
>> It seems like it would be a good idea to point agoranomic.org at the
>> new site.  Assuming you agree, whoever owns the GitHub organization,
>> please add www.agoranomic.org as a custom domain in the GitHub
>> settings and let me know, and I'll move the DNS over. :)
> 
> Er, except there's a small problem: I don't want to break list archive
> URLs, and GitHub Pages doesn't seem to support any kind of wildcard
> redirects.  I just changed the web interface from www.agoranomic.org
> to mailman.agoranomic.org, so future URLs won't have this issue in any
> case, but existing ones will.
> 
> I could mirror the entire archive into the Git repository, but that
> would be 118,952 files and several GB…
> 
> Or perhaps, since the existing URLs point to www.agoranomic.org, we
> could have agoranomic.org be the canonical GitHub Pages domain, and
> www.agoranomic.org would redirect either to there or
> mailman.agoranomic.org depending on whether the path start with
> /cgi-bin.

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

[Josh T]

I think I'm OK with supporting that interpretation.

天火狐

On 20 June 2017 at 16:09, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that saying "the unit of Balance
> > values is shiny" is sufficient to restrict them to integers: I imagine
> > few people would dispute "the meter is a unit of length" as incorrect,
> > and it makes sense to talk about fractions of a meter.
>
> On the other hand, all those previous definitions were assuming
> currencies were modeled on physical money or assets (minimum unit
> quantities representing smallest coin sizes).
>
> This time it's a completely different metaphor, and maybe - as suggested
> elsewhere - we should go to the common usage of "switch".  If you have a
> TV remote switch, it's pretty clear that the "units" of channel and
> volume are fixed on some kind of integer/discrete scale even if the
> underlying measurement units (MHz or dB) are continuous.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: agoranomic.org

[omd]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 2:39 PM, omd  wrote:
> It seems like it would be a good idea to point agoranomic.org at the
> new site.  Assuming you agree, whoever owns the GitHub organization,
> please add www.agoranomic.org as a custom domain in the GitHub
> settings and let me know, and I'll move the DNS over. :)

Er, except there's a small problem: I don't want to break list archive
URLs, and GitHub Pages doesn't seem to support any kind of wildcard
redirects.  I just changed the web interface from www.agoranomic.org
to mailman.agoranomic.org, so future URLs won't have this issue in any
case, but existing ones will.

I could mirror the entire archive into the Git repository, but that
would be 118,952 files and several GB…

Or perhaps, since the existing URLs point to www.agoranomic.org, we
could have agoranomic.org be the canonical GitHub Pages domain, and
www.agoranomic.org would redirect either to there or
mailman.agoranomic.org depending on whether the path start with
/cgi-bin.

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> I'm not convinced that saying "the unit of Balance 
> values is shiny" is sufficient to restrict them to integers: I imagine 
> few people would dispute "the meter is a unit of length" as incorrect, 
> and it makes sense to talk about fractions of a meter.

On the other hand, all those previous definitions were assuming 
currencies were modeled on physical money or assets (minimum unit 
quantities representing smallest coin sizes).

This time it's a completely different metaphor, and maybe - as suggested 
elsewhere - we should go to the common usage of "switch".  If you have a 
TV remote switch, it's pretty clear that the "units" of channel and 
volume are fixed on some kind of integer/discrete scale even if the
underlying measurement units (MHz or dB) are continuous.

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> On one hand, I'm kind of glad I don't have to try and explain what an 
> "algebraic integer" is to everyone since we can use the common-sense 
> ordinary-language definition of "integer" to mean "rational integer"; 
> on the other hand, I'm not convinced that saying "the unit of Balance 
> values is shiny" is sufficient to restrict them to integers: I imagine 
> few people would dispute "the meter is a unit of length" as incorrect, 
> and it makes sense to talk about fractions of a meter.
> 
> Tangent: The word "unit" in the realm of mathematics has the meaning of 
> "identity element", which would cause problems in the other direction 
> anyway. 

Maybe worth noting: we used to use the phrase "Minimum Unit Quantity" 
(MUQ) in the Rules to define the size of the smallest divisible quantity
for a given currency.  (e.g. MUQ=0.01 means you could transfer down to 
Cent units).  I think that's the only time 'unit' was used in the Rules.
Not sure if that usage was recent enough to be any part of Agoran Custom.

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

[Josh T]

On one hand, I'm kind of glad I don't have to try and explain what an
"algebraic integer" is to everyone since we can use the common-sense
ordinary-language definition of "integer" to mean "rational integer"; on
the other hand, I'm not convinced that saying "the unit of Balance values
is shiny" is sufficient to restrict them to integers: I imagine few people
would dispute "the meter is a unit of length" as incorrect, and it makes
sense to talk about fractions of a meter.

Tangent: The word "unit" in the realm of mathematics has the meaning of
"identity element", which would cause problems in the other direction
anyway.

天火狐

On 20 June 2017 at 15:20, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> > > read: prevents us humanities majors from having to know what
> > > octonian space and lattice points are
> >
> > I agree. While for deviant cases I believe that now and then more
> > offshoot things can definitely arise, the rules themselves should
> > be as layman as possible imo (yet unambiguous and sufficiently
> > "complete" to cover gameplay).
>
> In the "old days" we actually explicitly favored mathematical and legal
> word usage over "ordinary" uses.  From Rule 754/7, circa 2007:
>(3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,
>and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by
>default has the meaning it has in those contexts.
>
>(4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule
>by default has its ordinary-language meaning.
>
> As a result, when my previously-mentioned judgement on CFJ 1813 was
> overturned by CFJ 1826, it relied on arcane aspects of set theory to
> find that "decreasing negatives" was nonsense rather than a net
> positive.  We later (in 2013) purposefully reversed/removed that
> mathematical and legal dominance, in favor of common language.
>
>
>

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> > read: prevents us humanities majors from having to know what 
> > octonian space and lattice points are
> 
> I agree. While for deviant cases I believe that now and then more 
> offshoot things can definitely arise, the rules themselves should
> be as layman as possible imo (yet unambiguous and sufficiently 
> "complete" to cover gameplay).

In the "old days" we actually explicitly favored mathematical and legal
word usage over "ordinary" uses.  From Rule 754/7, circa 2007:
   (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,
   and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by
   default has the meaning it has in those contexts.

   (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule
   by default has its ordinary-language meaning.

As a result, when my previously-mentioned judgement on CFJ 1813 was
overturned by CFJ 1826, it relied on arcane aspects of set theory to
find that "decreasing negatives" was nonsense rather than a net
positive.  We later (in 2013) purposefully reversed/removed that
mathematical and legal dominance, in favor of common language.

DIS: agoranomic.org

[omd]

Hey everyone,

I like the new site.  Actually, I feel kind of bad, since some time
ago I said I'd do the tech myself and then I disappeared instead.  Not
sure why I didn't think of GitHub Pages - that seems to work pretty
well!  Although it doesn't provide an obvious way to integrate the
lists, but we can find a way to do that.

It seems like it would be a good idea to point agoranomic.org at the
new site.  Assuming you agree, whoever owns the GitHub organization,
please add www.agoranomic.org as a custom domain in the GitHub
settings and let me know, and I'll move the DNS over. :)

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> For the purposes of clarity, CFJ “omd "most recently became a player” on the 
> 3rd of February, 2011.”

I submit the following as a gratuitous argument:

I'm fairly certain that both this statement and the statement "omd
flipped eir player switch to 'Player' on 19 June 2017" could be true
without harming the game state. If both conditions were true then
omd's registration date would not change AND switches would
(debatably) maintain their pragmatic use by officers as suggested by
g. This seems like a Good Solution, although I don't think it's the
Best Solution (which is ruling this CFJ FALSE or less optimally
DISMISS as indeterminable and then passing legislation that eliminates
the ambiguity).

First, I recommend a Judgment of FALSE as suggested by the pragmatic
value of switches that act this way and the net benefit of an
opportunity to change the rules and eliminate the ambiguity.

However, if this CFJ is ruled TRUE, I recommend a person submit the
CFJ "omd flipped eir player switch to 'Player' on 19 June 2017" and
recommend a Judgment of TRUE on that CFJ.


I also submit the following comments as gratuitous evidence:

I don't see any text in the ruleset that would make me believe a
switch cannot be flipped to the value it is currently set to.
Especially since "Flip" is a term of art defined textually, not
contextually. In casual and contextual cases, "flip" usually indicates
multiple exclusive states that can only be modified by changing from
one state to another [1]. However, the ruleset definition of "flip"
indicates to me that switches can be "flipped" to any legal value,
including their current value. The exact language,

>>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.

makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
legal change. In this case, the player flipping the switch is just
making it come to have the given value of "player," and it is
coincidental that its current value is also "player." If the textual
definition of "flip a switch" made the switch come to have a DIFFERENT
value, I would agree. But right now, all I see is that "flipping a
switch" just means "setting the value," rather than "changing the
value." Adding "different" may be a good decision in the future.

There are immediate possible impacts on registration date in this
specific scenario. Not a big thing in the current ruleset but it could
affect one's ability to give and receive white ribbons. Could also
make a player subject to any "new player restrictions" like the ones
that used to exist and have been discussed now.

Curiously, the ruleset used to have language specifically stating that
only non-players could register (R869/9 and R869/17), but that
language has been lost over time.[2]


[1]: I concede that, in some contexts, "flip" means "to rotate an
object along its horizontal axis."
[2]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1648

---

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> >>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.
>>
>> makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
>> legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
>> legal change.
>
> There's a causality debate to be had here.  If you set a switch from
> X to X, you weren't the one who "made it come" to have that value, it's
> whomever did it before you.  I think, just from basic definitions, it
> can be argued either way.  But your interpretation makes more sense in
> the context of Officers' duties.  If an Officer is required to set a
> switch to X, and it's already X, we want em to be able to say "I flip
> the switch to X" and have it count as a duty fulfilled.

I agree that your counter-interpretation might be slightly
semantically superior, but my interpretation might be slightly more
pragmatic [1]. If it is necessary (or if there is a decision to award
omd a card), a CFJ could certainly help iron this question out. Or it
could just be preempted by letting this time go and changing the rules
to add the word "different" and eliminating ambiguity.


[1] Of course, I think my interpretation is right, but that's because
I'm an egotist and I want my cool and good interpretation to be the
best one.


-grok

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> >>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.
>>
>> makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
>> legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
>> legal change.
>
> There's a causality debate to be had here.  If you set a switch from
> X to X, you weren't the one who "made it come" to have that value, it's
> whomever did it before you.  I think, just from basic definitions, it
> can be argued either way.  But your interpretation makes more sense in
> the context of Officers' duties.  If an Officer is required to set a
> switch to X, and it's already X, we want em to be able to say "I flip
> the switch to X" and have it count as a duty fulfilled.

I agree that your counter-interpretation might be slightly
semantically superior, but my interpretation might be slightly more
pragmatic [1]. If it is necessary (or if there is a decision to award
omd a card), a CFJ could certainly help iron this question out. Or it
could just be preempted by letting this time go and changing the rules
to add the word "different" and eliminating ambiguity.


[1] Of course, I think my interpretation is right, but that's because
I'm an egotist and I want my cool and good interpretation to be the
best one.


-grok

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> >>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.
> 
> makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
> legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
> legal change.

There's a causality debate to be had here.  If you set a switch from 
X to X, you weren't the one who "made it come" to have that value, it's 
whomever did it before you.  I think, just from basic definitions, it
can be argued either way.  But your interpretation makes more sense in
the context of Officers' duties.  If an Officer is required to set a
switch to X, and it's already X, we want em to be able to say "I flip
the switch to X" and have it count as a duty fulfilled.

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

oof, also my apologies for the walls of text. i'm playing with gmail's
plain text editor and the input box doesn't automatically line break
for me. those paragraphs are...denser than expected.


-grok


On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:51 AM, grok (caleb vines)
 wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> You can not flip a switch to a value that the switch already held or at 
>> least that would make sense.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
> I don't see any text in the ruleset that would make me believe a
> switch cannot be flipped to the value it is currently set to.
> Especially since "Flip" is a term of art defined textually, not
> contextually. In casual and contextual cases, "flip" usually indicates
> multiple exclusive states that can only be modified by changing from
> one state to another [1]. However, the ruleset definition of "flip"
> indicates to me that switches can be "flipped" to any legal value,
> including their current value. The exact language,
>
>>>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.
>
> makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
> legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
> legal change. In this case, the player flipping the switch is just
> making it come to have the given value of "player," and it is
> coincidental that its current value is also "player." If the textual
> definition of "flip a switch" made the switch come to have a DIFFERENT
> value, I would agree. But right now, all I see is that "flipping a
> switch" just means "setting the value," rather than "changing the
> value." Adding "different" may be a good decision in the future.
>
> There are immediate possible impacts on registration date in this
> specific scenario. Not a big thing in the current ruleset but it could
> affect one's ability to give and receive white ribbons. Could also
> make a player subject to any "new player restrictions" like the ones
> that used to exist and have been discussed now.
>
> Curiously, the ruleset used to have language specifically stating that
> only non-players could register (R869/9 and R869/17), but that
> language has been lost over time.[2]
>
>
> [1]: I concede that, in some contexts, "flip" means "to rotate an
> object along its horizontal axis."
> [2]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1648
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> I recommend that the Referee accept this apology and issue a green card if 
>> any card.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
> If I were a player, I would recommend avoiding punishment absent a CFJ
> indicating that omd actually committed an infraction. But I'm not, so
> idk. Maybe someone else would make that recommendation on my behalf.
>
>
> -grok

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> You can not flip a switch to a value that the switch already held or at least 
> that would make sense.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com


I don't see any text in the ruleset that would make me believe a
switch cannot be flipped to the value it is currently set to.
Especially since "Flip" is a term of art defined textually, not
contextually. In casual and contextual cases, "flip" usually indicates
multiple exclusive states that can only be modified by changing from
one state to another [1]. However, the ruleset definition of "flip"
indicates to me that switches can be "flipped" to any legal value,
including their current value. The exact language,

>>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.

makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
legal change. In this case, the player flipping the switch is just
making it come to have the given value of "player," and it is
coincidental that its current value is also "player." If the textual
definition of "flip a switch" made the switch come to have a DIFFERENT
value, I would agree. But right now, all I see is that "flipping a
switch" just means "setting the value," rather than "changing the
value." Adding "different" may be a good decision in the future.

There are immediate possible impacts on registration date in this
specific scenario. Not a big thing in the current ruleset but it could
affect one's ability to give and receive white ribbons. Could also
make a player subject to any "new player restrictions" like the ones
that used to exist and have been discussed now.

Curiously, the ruleset used to have language specifically stating that
only non-players could register (R869/9 and R869/17), but that
language has been lost over time.[2]


[1]: I concede that, in some contexts, "flip" means "to rotate an
object along its horizontal axis."
[2]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1648


On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I recommend that the Referee accept this apology and issue a green card if 
> any card.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com


If I were a player, I would recommend avoiding punishment absent a CFJ
indicating that omd actually committed an infraction. But I'm not, so
idk. Maybe someone else would make that recommendation on my behalf.


-grok

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> Why not just require that shinies may only be given in positive
> integers? Or that any entity that would give shinies may not give
> fractional parts of shinies, negative amounts of shinies, or zero
> shinies? (both also eliminate the "i give zero shinies" problem).

It's possible that all of us mathematician-types are wrong, and the
wording in R2483 currently:

 The unit for Balance
   values is shiny (pl. shinies).

   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.

is enough to infer that "X" must be specified in units (integers).  
Negative values are already forbidden, that only leaves the 0 case
to take care of.  (The paragraph break is unfortunate for the
clarity, but the fix would be tiny).

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I recommend that the Referee accept this apology and issue a green card if any 
card.

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



> On Jun 20, 2017, at 7:35 AM, omd  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> I point my finger at omd for violation of No Faking.
> 
> I do apologize for the confusion; however, I claim I didn't violate No
> Faking, as it was a good faith mistake (I figured I'd have been long
> deregistered) rather than intentional deception.

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

You can not flip a switch to a value that the switch already held or at least 
that would make sense.

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



> On Jun 20, 2017, at 7:14 AM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> 
>> I point my finger at omd for violation of No Faking.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> 
> 
> Question for you. Maybe a proto-CFJ.
> 
> What part of the ruleset makes it IMPOSSIBLE for omd to register
> or makes his registration a violation of a SHALL NOT?
> 
> Just curious. Maybe I'm missing something.
> 
> -grok

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

[omd]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I point my finger at omd for violation of No Faking.

I do apologize for the confusion; however, I claim I didn't violate No
Faking, as it was a good faith mistake (I figured I'd have been long
deregistered) rather than intentional deception.

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I believe that to resolve this we should legislate that all attempts to pay 
> shinies shall be interpreted as a vector with a certain point in octonion 
> space and the distance from the origin along the vector to the first crossed 
> lattice point, being the amount to be payed.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com


Why not just require that shinies may only be given in positive
integers? Or that any entity that would give shinies may not give
fractional parts of shinies, negative amounts of shinies, or zero
shinies? (both also eliminate the "i give zero shinies" problem).

Those solutions make the ruleset a little easier (read: prevents us
humanities majors from having to know what octonian space and lattice
points are).


-grok

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

shit. eir registration. still getting used to spivak.

apologies

-grok

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:14 AM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>>
>> I point my finger at omd for violation of No Faking.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>
> Question for you. Maybe a proto-CFJ.
>
> What part of the ruleset makes it IMPOSSIBLE for omd to register
> or makes his registration a violation of a SHALL NOT?
>
> Just curious. Maybe I'm missing something.
>
> -grok

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

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
>
> I point my finger at omd for violation of No Faking.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>

Question for you. Maybe a proto-CFJ.

What part of the ruleset makes it IMPOSSIBLE for omd to register
or makes his registration a violation of a SHALL NOT?

Just curious. Maybe I'm missing something.

-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Pre-Resolution of Victory Election

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Let me try again, I hereby ratify the following document without 
> objection: {{Votes on any attempt to initiate a Victory Election 
> are votes on the most recent successful attempt.}}

I'd object to this myself, still too vague, and ratifying "any"
is a bad idea.

Do it this way:  Make an actual report of actual votes you want to 
count, and try to ratify that specific voting result.  Note which
votes would and wouldn't count if you didn't ratify things.

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I present these comments as evidence on the called CFJ and request that for the 
ease of all participants, the Secretary publish a preliminary report explaining 
the state of the game, if this were to be true.

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



> On Jun 19, 2017, at 7:42 PM, 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).
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Ordering

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I have tried to be somewhat consistent with new entries being in order of date, 
but I have not updated previous entries.

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



> On Jun 19, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 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
> 

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I believe that to resolve this we should legislate that all attempts to pay 
shinies shall be interpreted as a vector with a certain point in octonion space 
and the distance from the origin along the vector to the first crossed lattice 
point, being the amount to be payed.

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



> On Jun 19, 2017, at 5:48 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> Hr
> 
> I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Pre-Resolution of Victory Election

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Let me try again, I hereby ratify the following document without objection: 
{{Votes on any attempt to initiate a Victory Election are votes on the most 
recent successful attempt.}}

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



> On Jun 19, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 18:30 -0400, omd wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>  wrote:
>>> I hereby ratify the following document without objection: {{Votes
>>> on any attempt to initiate a Victory Election shall be counted as
>>> votes on the most recent successful attempt.}}
>> 
>> I object, and I'm pretty sure this wouldn't do anything if ratified
>> (the statement could only be made true through a rule change, yet the
>> document doesn't specify the exact change). :p
> 
> Just a reminder for everyone, as there have been several mistakes with
> this recently: ratification isn't a method of making rulings on "what
> should have happened", and can't "see" history; it's a method of
> changing the current gamestate to match the results of what a
> retroactive change would have been. In particular, the ratification
> mechanism mostly assumes that you're ratifying a true statement, and if
> you want to ratify a /false/ statement, that statement mustn't in of
> itself have any awareness that it's false.
> 
> -- 
> ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3524 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I find CFJ 3524 FALSE, as the ruleset clearly and undebatebly specifies in 
plain terms that any previous holding of a White Ribbon under any ruleset 
precludes the action that Murphy attempted to take to become the holder of a 
White Ribbon. Further, I point my finger at Murphy for violation of Rule 2471.

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



> On Jun 9, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 18:08 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 09:01 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
>>> I award myself a White Ribbon. (According to the latest Tailor's
>>> report, I haven't had one since Rule 2438 was adopted.)
>> 
>> I'm not convinced this works. According to old archives, you awarded
>> yourself a White Ribbon on 24 November 2009, as a consequence of
>> mentoring omd (one of the ways to get White Ribbons back then), and
>> rule 2438 says "including under previous rulesets". (At least, when
>> writing the rule, I intended it to be able to look at the old Ribbons
>> system. Maybe it doesn't, though?)
>> 
>> I call a CFJ on the statement "Murphy has a White Ribbon".
> 
> This is CFJ 3524. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
> 
>> Arguments: Does "A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
>> previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous rulesets)."
>> count White Ribbons from rulesets that predate the adoption of rule
>> 2438? If so, this is FALSE; if not, this is TRUE.
> 
> -- 
> ais523
> Arbitor

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

According to my records, you were never deregistered.

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



> On Jun 19, 2017, at 12:09 PM, omd  wrote:
> 
> I register.

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> There's a precedent (that I can't find right now, I can't remember
> the statement context)

Ah, here we go:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1813

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> 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.

There's a precedent (that I can't find right now, I can't remember
the statement context) from a past economic system where this scam was
tried, and the precedent says that in common English, it's nonsense to 
'decrease' something by a 'negative' amount, so you can't pay someone 
in negative currency.

This may mean we treat currency unit values more like common sense
exchanges, rather than translating words piecemeal to mathematical 
equivalents (by, say, 'multiplying' two words for negativity to get a 
positive transaction).

[V.J. Rada, that's the only precedent I can think off hand, so I think
you're safe judging straight from the current rules text and first
principles/common sense, no delving required...]