Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: humble agoran farmer cashes in your stamps

[V.J Rada]

I pledge not to reveal or exploit the information without the consent of Gaelan.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> Good enough. I’ll email you in a second. I’m probably being too careful here, 
> but just in case: let it be known that I possess the ideas contained in the 
> plaintext of the SHA512 hash 
> deb30f5971aa4e938f0714117a969bd5fac2743b6eb295cf065c9a3e0186ba8b869a0f25474a116277d8721212ea3539fda4ef1c44d7598fbe24a56d91126301.
>
>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 10:42 PM, Aris Merchant 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> I pledge not to reveal or exploit the information for 30 days unless I
>> honestly and reasonably believe that doing so is necessary for the
>> preservation of Agora. That good enough?
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>> This probably didn’t succeed. I will (privately) explain why to anybody who
>>> pledges not to reveal or exploit the information until I do, probably after
>>> the next floating value update.
>>>
>>> Gaelan
>>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 10:26 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>>
>>> Small re-attempt because what I just did likely didn't work:
>>>
>>> I destroy all stamps and cause Agora to transfer, for each, the floating
>>> value to me, IN SHINIES.
>>>
>>> There we go.
>>>
>>>
 On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

 I destroy all stamps and cause Agora to transfer, for each, the floating
 value to me.

 R2498: "Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to
 transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em."

 It doesn't need to be a Stamp I own, just "a Stamp".
>>>
>>>
>>>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Revised report

[V.J Rada]

I retract. G is the herald, accepted.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I am not interested in fighting it.
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 16:44 V.J Rada  wrote:
>>
>> Sorry yeah, I do accept this as true (sorry I got the rules wrong last
>> night) but because PSS is interested in fighting it I call a CFJ with
>> the statement "G is the Herald". He deputised for it in order to give
>> champion to all the winners. Was the time period over and was PSS
>> listing them in the report enough to fulfill his requirements?
>> Probably not.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
>> >> Effective as of 4pm AEST, 9 Sep 2017.
>> >>
>> >> > Office  Holder  Since   Last Election  Can Elect[1]
>> >> > -
>> >> > Herald  PSS[2]  2017-05-20  2017-09-06
>> >
>> > CoE (again):  there *was* a SHALL governing the patent title award,
>> > therefore my deputisation succeed and I'm herald.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Aris Merchant]

Affixed is a new draft. Notable changes include the addition of
section 1.4 with some tweaks to existing rules, adding sustenance
(read monthly fees), a few power tweaks, and several additions to the
protected actions list. Also included are numerous requested fixes and
typo corrections. I think I included everything I said I would. If I
missed anything or failed to respond to any complaints, or if you have
any other problems, please, let me know.


-Aris

P.S. I'm still working on writing that CFJ up, I haven't forgotten.

---
Title: Contracts v2
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s): o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐


Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any rules
created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
have been removed before its resolution.

# 1 Cleanup
# 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup

Destroy each organization.

Destroy each agency.

Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]

# 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
# 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations

Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").

Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").

Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").

Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").

Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").

Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").

# 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror

Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by

  * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
  * Replacing its text, entirely, with:

{{{
The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.

The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:

1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
   defined by the Rules.
2. the list of all public classes of assets.

}}}

Make o the Treasuror.

Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
"Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:

  * Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
  * Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
  * Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")

# 1.2.3 General Economy Fixes/Cleanup

Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:

  {{{
  An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
  }}}

Amend rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") by replacing its text,
entirely, with:

  {{{
  At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one
  Estate, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL put one Estate which is owned by
  Agora up for auction, by announcement. Each auction ends
  seven days after it begins.

  During an auction, any player or contract may bid a number of Shinies
  by announcement, provided that the bid is higher than all
  previously-placed bids in the same auction.

  If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
  then the player or contract who placed that bid wins the auction.
  The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to emself
  by announcement, if e pays Agora the amount of the bid. The person who
  placed the bid SHALL see to it that this is done in a timely fashion.
  }}}

Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:

  {{{
  Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
  indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
  of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.

  The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or
  contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a
  rule.
  }}}

Repeal Rule 2485 ("You can't take it with you").


# 1.3 Agency Cleanup

Repeal Rule 2467 ("Agencies")

Repeal Rule 2468 ("Superintendent")

# 1.4 Random Amendments

Amend Rule 869, "How to Join and Leave Agora", by changing its last paragraph to
read:

  The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act without their express or reasonably
  implied consent. The rules CANNOT compel players to unduly harass non-players.
  A non-person CANNOT be a player, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.


Amend Rule 2139, "The Registrar", by changing the sentence "The Registrar is
also responsible for tracking any switches that would otherwise lack an officer
to track them, unless the switch is defined as untracked." to read "The
Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches, defined in a rule
or regulation, that would otherwise lack an officer to track them, unless the
switch is defined as untracked."

Amend Rule 2466, "Acting on Behalf", by adding the sentence "Allowing a
person to act on behalf of another person is secured at power 2.0." to the
beginning of the last paragraph.

Amend Rule

# 2 Contracts
# 2.1 Core Contract Features

Create a new power 2.5 rule, entitled "Contracts", with the following text:

  A contract is a textual entity, and the ruleset described entity embodied
  therein. A document can only become a contract through the appropriate ruleset
  defined procedures. Changes to the contracts text by rule defined mechanisms
  do not change 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: humble agoran farmer cashes in your stamps

[Kyle Anderson]

Due to quantity would be my guess. The rule reads "a stamp", the attempt
was made for "all stamps". It seems to me that the rules requires an
announcement for each stamp that the player wishes to destroy.

On Sep 6, 2017 11:39 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

This probably didn’t succeed. I will (privately) explain why to anybody who
pledges not to reveal or exploit the information until I do, probably after
the next floating value update.

Gaelan

On Sep 6, 2017, at 10:26 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

Small re-attempt because what I just did likely didn't work:

I destroy all stamps and cause Agora to transfer, for each, the floating
value to me, IN SHINIES.

There we go.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I destroy all stamps and cause Agora to transfer, for each, the floating
> value to me.
>
> R2498: "Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to
> transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em."
>
> It doesn't need to be a Stamp I own, just "a Stamp".
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 1:32 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> Consent, not support. This requires 60%.

Oh, so it does. I retract my complaint - the two looked the same at first 
glance.

> Thanks for the reminder; I pend this with AP.
> 
> P.S. To clarify: this is not an attempt to kick out Cuddle or any other 
> currently active player. The only goal is to allow us to clean up old players 
> as we normally do (Cuddle is objecting to all deregistrations for some hand 
> wavy reason about things being permanently lost.)

If Aris’ proposed contract machinery allows it, I’m going to find a way to 
perpetually or automatically object to deregistering omd.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:56 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and Leave 
> Agora
> index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
>   If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
> 
>   If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
> -  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
> +  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
> +  with 2 Agoran Consent.
> 
>   The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
>   to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
> }

Without getting into the structure of the proposal, I’m very much against the 
intent - if we’re going to allow idle players to be thrown out even over 
objections, it should take a supermajority, not a fixed threshold of two 
players.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Initiating elections.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 03:15 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Hrm. This is interesting. (If they're different) Would the verdict be what
> > I intended the message to mean or the consensus on the interpretation of
> > what I've written?
> 
> It'd be pretty bad for the game if a person's actual intentions (which
> can be guessed at but never known for certain or proven) had an effect
> on the platonic gamestate. Self-ratification might be able to stem the
> issues slightly but it's better to avoid them altogether.
> 
> Conditionals are evaluated based on what they actually say. If that's
> ambiguous or there's no single clear meaning, the action typically
> fails altogether (assuming it's an action by announcement, and most
> actions are; see the last paragraph of rule 478).

Votes aren't.  You "submit a ballot ... by publishing a notice".

Otherwise you really *would* have to say "I vote as follows" for every
vote.

As to CuddleBeam's question, I think I remember a special case of an
"ambiguous" precedent somewhere, something like:  "if an action might have
been performed through more than one mechanism due to ambiguity (e.g.
statement could be either conditional or nonconditional vote), and the
mechanism chosen makes a game difference (e.g. the time of evaluation),
then it fails altogether through ambiguity."

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3555 assigned to grok

[Aris Merchant]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:34 PM grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 6, 2017 9:24 PM, "Aris Merchant" <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 18:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> I CFJ on the following (using AP if I am a Player) and barring
> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
> >>
> >>  G. and Cuddlebeam, and no one else, have won the game via
> tournament
> >>  since July 1, 2017.
> >
> > This is CFJ 3555 and does not have a judgement reward. I assign it to
> > grok.
>
> Could someone please do something about this CFJ? It seems to be long
> overdue, and has suddenly become more important (FTR, it now
> determines who the current Regkeepor is, due to a deputization
> fiasco).
>
> -Aris
>
>
> I haven't been able to give it proper thought or more than cursory glances
> at Agora recently, and that's unlikely to change until mid September. I
> recommend the Arbitor reassign the case and the Referee assign me a card
> for failing to assign judgment.
>
>
> -grok
>
You can just recuse yourself these days.

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3555 assigned to grok

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 6, 2017 9:24 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 18:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> I CFJ on the following (using AP if I am a Player) and barring
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
>>
>>  G. and Cuddlebeam, and no one else, have won the game via tournament
>>  since July 1, 2017.
>
> This is CFJ 3555 and does not have a judgement reward. I assign it to
> grok.

Could someone please do something about this CFJ? It seems to be long
overdue, and has suddenly become more important (FTR, it now
determines who the current Regkeepor is, due to a deputization
fiasco).

-Aris


I haven't been able to give it proper thought or more than cursory glances
at Agora recently, and that's unlikely to change until mid September. I
recommend the Arbitor reassign the case and the Referee assign me a card
for failing to assign judgment.


-grok

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3555 assigned to grok

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 18:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> I CFJ on the following (using AP if I am a Player) and barring
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
>>
>>  G. and Cuddlebeam, and no one else, have won the game via tournament
>>  since July 1, 2017.
>
> This is CFJ 3555 and does not have a judgement reward. I assign it to
> grok.

Could someone please do something about this CFJ? It seems to be long
overdue, and has suddenly become more important (FTR, it now
determines who the current Regkeepor is, due to a deputization
fiasco).

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Initiating elections.

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 03:15 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Hrm. This is interesting. (If they're different) Would the verdict be what
> I intended the message to mean or the consensus on the interpretation of
> what I've written?

It'd be pretty bad for the game if a person's actual intentions (which
can be guessed at but never known for certain or proven) had an effect
on the platonic gamestate. Self-ratification might be able to stem the
issues slightly but it's better to avoid them altogether.

Conditionals are evaluated based on what they actually say. If that's
ambiguous or there's no single clear meaning, the action typically
fails altogether (assuming it's an action by announcement, and most
actions are; see the last paragraph of rule 478).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Initiating elections.

[Cuddle Beam]

Hrm. This is interesting. (If they're different) Would the verdict be what
I intended the message to mean or the consensus on the interpretation of
what I've written?

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> It's unclear to me if this is a statement of fact (whomever has the most
> votes
> *now*) or a conditional vote (whomever has the most votes at the end of the
> voting period).  If I had to guess, I'd go with the first one.
>
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I vote for whoever has the most votes for each currently open office
> election.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >   I endorse G. on the elections for Reportor and Herald.
> >   
> >   Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >   p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> >   > On Sep 6, 2017, at 5:38 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >   >> For Reportor, I vote [PSS], followed by the list of people
> provided by the incumbent.
> >   >
> >   > I retract my recent vote for myself for Reportor, and cast a
> >   > conditional vote:
> >   >
> >   > If PSS publishes a proto newspaper during the voting period,
> [PSS];
> >   >
> >   > otherwise, I vote for the list of players who publish a
> proto-newspaper
> >   > during the voting period, in the order of publication [ie.
> earliest
> >   > publisher first on list].
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Initiating elections.

[Kerim Aydin]

It's unclear to me if this is a statement of fact (whomever has the most votes
*now*) or a conditional vote (whomever has the most votes at the end of the
voting period).  If I had to guess, I'd go with the first one.

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I vote for whoever has the most votes for each currently open office election.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
>   I endorse G. on the elections for Reportor and Herald.
>   
>   Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
>   > On Sep 6, 2017, at 5:38 PM, Kerim Aydin  
> wrote:
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>   >> For Reportor, I vote [PSS], followed by the list of people provided 
> by the incumbent.
>   >
>   > I retract my recent vote for myself for Reportor, and cast a
>   > conditional vote:
>   >
>   > If PSS publishes a proto newspaper during the voting period, [PSS];
>   >
>   > otherwise, I vote for the list of players who publish a 
> proto-newspaper
>   > during the voting period, in the order of publication [ie. earliest
>   > publisher first on list].
>   >
>   >
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[Kerim Aydin]

Typical G. "well, in my day" incoming:

Conditionals in general crept in through the back door.  Before
conditional voting, they were mostly very simple, e.g. "If I haven't
already payed by AP, I pay by Shiny."  Usually this was in the context
of quoting a past questionable action and attempting to make sure 
something happened, or making sure you didn't accidentally do something
twice, and was very straightforward, and was accepted due to sheer
practicality and wholly unofficial.  Anything that wasn't really, really
direct was generally tossed out and failed.

However, some types of conditional specification were directly forbidden
either by rule or by custom.  In particular, things like "I award a patent
title to All people who meet X" was forbidden, because "all" wasn't a
clear and direct list specification.  You had to name names, always.
(Part of that was that timing used to be more hard-coded, if you didn't 
explicitly order the list, you hadn't suitably specified the order in
which each sub-action happened).

Conditional voting was explicitly added as a mechanic, and since it was
official, you could get convoluted (within the explicit bounds of the
rule).  This generally caused a creeping up of what was acceptable for
unofficial conditionals. There was no hard foundational CFJ or decision
IIRC (or if so, it was before my time), we just gradually allowed weaker
specification of stuff.

Still, occasional CFJs will point out that this is all unofficial, and
if it's outside "reasonable effort" to decode at the moment it's posted
(so yeah, no future stuff) it still gets tossed out in theory.

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Oh, no, we definitely have conditional actioning (consider that a
> nonce). The condition just has to be evaluable at the time it is said,
> so no future conditionals. At least, that's my understanding.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > Note: we have explicit conditional voting, but not conditional explicit
> > action-doing in general.
> >
> > I'm in favor of conditional action-doing in general because it's another
> > useful tool for doing stuff (...and the rules are silent on the issue).
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Aris Merchant
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> If there are no regulations, no part of this message beyond this
> >> paragraph has any effect.
> >>
> >> I determine the regulations for the recent tournament to be in title
> >> T1-2017, or, if that title name is invalid, 1-2017. If I am Regkeepor,
> >> this is the official designation for that title; otherwise, I deputize
> >> for the Regkeepor to assign this designation.
> >>
> >> I then assign the ID T1-2017-1 (or, if that is invalid, 1-2017-1) to
> >> the only regulation in that title. If I am still not Regkeepor, I
> >> deputize for Regkeepor to do so, and then repeat the actions attempted
> >> in the previous paragraph.
> >>
> >> In accordance with Rule 2464, I repeal each regulation in title
> >> T1-2017 (or, if invalid, 1-2017).
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[Aris Merchant]

Apology accepted. To be fair, it was reasonably clear for both of you,
it's just that ais523 was replying to my message, which made me
wonder.

-Aris

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:31 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> Oops. I didn't read the quote text and thought you were asking me. Sorry for
> the snark, Aris
>
>
> -grok
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2017 7:28 PM, "grok (caleb vines)"  wrote:
>
> I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.
>
>
> -grok
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2017 7:27 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
> wrote:
>
> Mine, or nichdel's? Mine was sent to a-d, and is extremely vague (what
> exactly is a 'provocation' anyway)? And no, there isn't a time limit,
> although there is one potential way out of any SHALL at the moment.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>> Is there a time limit or other get-out on pledges at the moment? If
>> not, this sort of indefinite promise could become problematic once it
>> outlives its usefulness.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 17:26 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Mine, or nichdel's? Mine was sent to a-d, and is extremely vague
> (what
> exactly is a 'provocation' anyway)? And no, there isn't a time limit,
> although there is one potential way out of any SHALL at the moment.

Was primarily thinking of nichdel's, although they're both worded as
indefinite obligations.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[grok (caleb vines)]

Oops. I didn't read the quote text and thought you were asking me. Sorry
for the snark, Aris


-grok

On Sep 6, 2017 7:28 PM, "grok (caleb vines)"  wrote:

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.


-grok


On Sep 6, 2017 7:27 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:

Mine, or nichdel's? Mine was sent to a-d, and is extremely vague (what
exactly is a 'provocation' anyway)? And no, there isn't a time limit,
although there is one potential way out of any SHALL at the moment.

-Aris

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> Is there a time limit or other get-out on pledges at the moment? If
> not, this sort of indefinite promise could become problematic once it
> outlives its usefulness.
>
> --
> ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[grok (caleb vines)]

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.


-grok

On Sep 6, 2017 7:27 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:

Mine, or nichdel's? Mine was sent to a-d, and is extremely vague (what
exactly is a 'provocation' anyway)? And no, there isn't a time limit,
although there is one potential way out of any SHALL at the moment.

-Aris

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> Is there a time limit or other get-out on pledges at the moment? If
> not, this sort of indefinite promise could become problematic once it
> outlives its usefulness.
>
> --
> ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[Aris Merchant]

Mine, or nichdel's? Mine was sent to a-d, and is extremely vague (what
exactly is a 'provocation' anyway)? And no, there isn't a time limit,
although there is one potential way out of any SHALL at the moment.

-Aris

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> Is there a time limit or other get-out on pledges at the moment? If
> not, this sort of indefinite promise could become problematic once it
> outlives its usefulness.
>
> --
> ais523

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

Ah, OK. I look forwards to when you do, then.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm trying not to do the 7 versions thing this time. I haven't added
> ais523's upkeep fee thing yet, as it's more complicated than most of
> these corrections, and I don't want to publish a new draft until I do.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > I see a lot of "done's" and "fixed" but I don't see a "latest version"
> part.
> > Please post it to check it out. (I do a lot/want to do a lot of Agency
> stuff
> > lol. It's my favorite mechanic, and if you make it even better, then,
> I'd be
> > super grateful)
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Aris Merchant
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >> > Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets
> >> > ("[]")
> >> > have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of
> >> > any
> >> > rules
> >> > created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes
> >> > to
> >> > have been removed before its resolution.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > <3
> >> >
> >> > [Note that, as a precaution, causing an entity to cease being a
> contract
> >> > is
> >> > not secured.]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What are the implications of this?
> >>
> >> A proposal at any AI or a rule at any power can destroy a contract.
> >>
> >> > Notary CAN destroy any excess (i.e. beyond the 3 permitted) contracts
> by
> >> > announcement in a timely fashion.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > CAN in a timely fashion is a bit of a weird combination. I guess it
> >> > works,
> >> > but I’d replace it with “CAN and SHALL in a timely fashion” or “CAN up
> >> > to 7
> >> > days after their creation.”
> >>
> >> Done.
> >>
> >> > Any public textual agreement or set of inseparably linked public
> textual
> >> > agreements between a group of two or persons, made with the intention
> >> > that
> >> > the agreement(s) be binding and governed by the rules, is a contract.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This may make pledges contracts, which could create double
> obligations.
> >>
> >>
> >> > if e/they do/does not do so
> >>
> >> It's either singular or plural. I think it has the intended effect,
> >> though I admit it sounds a bit weird. :)
> >>
> >> >
> >> > A contract CAN amend, destroy, or retitle itself if its text permits
> it
> >> > to
> >> > do
> >> > so.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This seems to make it possible for contracts to make gamestate changes
> >> > that
> >> > are not directly linked to the sending of a message, which is bad for
> >> > recordkeeping.
> >>
> >> I added a "by announcement" which forces a player to actually send a
> >> message. More details are in my reply to ais523's response.
> >>
> >> > A player CAN amend, destroy, or retitle a contract without objection,
> >> > even
> >> > if the text denies em the ability to do so. Players SHOULD only use
> this
> >> > mechanism to recover from situations where the Charter is
> underspecified
> >> > or
> >> > has unintended effects
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What Charter?
> >>
> >> Fixed.
> >>
> >> >  If a rule specifies that contract SHALL or SHALL NOT do something
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Typo
> >>
> >> Fixed.
> >>
> >> > More general comments:
> >> >
> >> > I feel like the most likely scam here is one where the scammer
> creates a
> >> > contract such as {{{ Any party may cause [scammer] to give them a
> trust
> >> > token. Any player may become a party to this contract. }}}, then
> somehow
> >> > amend the contract to give the scammer power to act on behalf of all
> >> > other
> >> > parties. I think it would be worthwhile to have multiple tiers of
> >> > “partyship,” each including the last, and requiring explicit consent
> of
> >> > both
> >> > the player and the contract to switch tiers:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Allowed to use CANs in the contract, but not subject to any
> >> > obligations
> >> > therein. This may not even require explicitly being a party.
> >> > 2) Being subject to SHALLs in the contract.
> >> > 3) Allowing the contract to act on your behalf.
> >> >
> >> > This means that a contract requiring Tier 3 for “current agency stuff”
> >> > would
> >> > be instantly suspect.
> >>
> >> I see your point, but your proposed solution violates the first design
> >> principle. You don't have to be a party to use the CAN anyway, at
> >> least unless the contract says you do. This is also why there are so
> >> many ways to destroy a contract which the contract isn't allowed to
> >> stop you from of punish you for leaving. Finally, I hope no player
> >> would ever join a contract another player could arbitrary amend and
> >> that e couldn't leave at will. The one thing that might be helpful is
> >> some minimum time delay before a contract can be amended, like for
> >> agencies, but I feel like that could violate principle two. Thoughts?
> >>
> >> 

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Aris Merchant]

I'm trying not to do the 7 versions thing this time. I haven't added
ais523's upkeep fee thing yet, as it's more complicated than most of
these corrections, and I don't want to publish a new draft until I do.

-Aris

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I see a lot of "done's" and "fixed" but I don't see a "latest version" part.
> Please post it to check it out. (I do a lot/want to do a lot of Agency stuff
> lol. It's my favorite mechanic, and if you make it even better, then, I'd be
> super grateful)
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> > Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets
>> > ("[]")
>> > have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of
>> > any
>> > rules
>> > created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes
>> > to
>> > have been removed before its resolution.
>> >
>> >
>> > <3
>> >
>> > [Note that, as a precaution, causing an entity to cease being a contract
>> > is
>> > not secured.]
>> >
>> >
>> > What are the implications of this?
>>
>> A proposal at any AI or a rule at any power can destroy a contract.
>>
>> > Notary CAN destroy any excess (i.e. beyond the 3 permitted) contracts by
>> > announcement in a timely fashion.
>> >
>> >
>> > CAN in a timely fashion is a bit of a weird combination. I guess it
>> > works,
>> > but I’d replace it with “CAN and SHALL in a timely fashion” or “CAN up
>> > to 7
>> > days after their creation.”
>>
>> Done.
>>
>> > Any public textual agreement or set of inseparably linked public textual
>> > agreements between a group of two or persons, made with the intention
>> > that
>> > the agreement(s) be binding and governed by the rules, is a contract.
>> >
>> >
>> > This may make pledges contracts, which could create double obligations.
>>
>>
>> > if e/they do/does not do so
>>
>> It's either singular or plural. I think it has the intended effect,
>> though I admit it sounds a bit weird. :)
>>
>> >
>> > A contract CAN amend, destroy, or retitle itself if its text permits it
>> > to
>> > do
>> > so.
>> >
>> >
>> > This seems to make it possible for contracts to make gamestate changes
>> > that
>> > are not directly linked to the sending of a message, which is bad for
>> > recordkeeping.
>>
>> I added a "by announcement" which forces a player to actually send a
>> message. More details are in my reply to ais523's response.
>>
>> > A player CAN amend, destroy, or retitle a contract without objection,
>> > even
>> > if the text denies em the ability to do so. Players SHOULD only use this
>> > mechanism to recover from situations where the Charter is underspecified
>> > or
>> > has unintended effects
>> >
>> >
>> > What Charter?
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>> >  If a rule specifies that contract SHALL or SHALL NOT do something
>> >
>> >
>> > Typo
>>
>> Fixed.
>>
>> > More general comments:
>> >
>> > I feel like the most likely scam here is one where the scammer creates a
>> > contract such as {{{ Any party may cause [scammer] to give them a trust
>> > token. Any player may become a party to this contract. }}}, then somehow
>> > amend the contract to give the scammer power to act on behalf of all
>> > other
>> > parties. I think it would be worthwhile to have multiple tiers of
>> > “partyship,” each including the last, and requiring explicit consent of
>> > both
>> > the player and the contract to switch tiers:
>> >
>> > 1) Allowed to use CANs in the contract, but not subject to any
>> > obligations
>> > therein. This may not even require explicitly being a party.
>> > 2) Being subject to SHALLs in the contract.
>> > 3) Allowing the contract to act on your behalf.
>> >
>> > This means that a contract requiring Tier 3 for “current agency stuff”
>> > would
>> > be instantly suspect.
>>
>> I see your point, but your proposed solution violates the first design
>> principle. You don't have to be a party to use the CAN anyway, at
>> least unless the contract says you do. This is also why there are so
>> many ways to destroy a contract which the contract isn't allowed to
>> stop you from of punish you for leaving. Finally, I hope no player
>> would ever join a contract another player could arbitrary amend and
>> that e couldn't leave at will. The one thing that might be helpful is
>> some minimum time delay before a contract can be amended, like for
>> agencies, but I feel like that could violate principle two. Thoughts?
>>
>> -Aris
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[Aris Merchant]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>
>
> On 09/06/17 19:05, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> >From a speech act theory standpoint, any speech act already encodes
> conditionals (that the preconditions match, that the way I invoke it
> performs it, that others recognizes the previous two points, that everyone
> assumes genuine intent). Allowing more conditionals to be included is a
> natural extension.
>
> I doubt enough people will be familiar with speech act theory to conclude
> from that that we can do conditional actions here on Agora.
>
>
> The idea of linguistics, and all other social sciences, is that they
> describe things people naturally do. You don't need to learn the theory to
> use speech acts.
>
>
>>Your conditional doesn't meet it's own requirements. This arguably requires
>> me to look through all CFJs, to make sure the doctrine hasn't been
>> overturned
>
> lol, yes! That proves my point!
>
> With that, how is anyone supposed to know that it hasn't been overturned or
> not in order to know that we can even do it in the first place without that
> dredging? We're using conditionals without even knowing if we can actually
> do them or not! If they were in rules, it would be much more clear.
>
>>For someone concerned about implicit rules, you don't show much regard for
>> explicit ones.
>
> I've mentioned before that its less punishing for me to whacked with a
> correction with what I've missed than to dredge through everything to see if
> just in case I've missed something.
>
>
> Since you lack either empathy or theory of mind and only react to personal
> damages:
>
> I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by Cuddle Beam.
>
> I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can object to.
>
> I pledge to not acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or to
> respond in a-d to anything CB does.
>
> I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies (as soon as possible) to any
> other player who also performs the above three pledges, except Cuddle Beam.

Maybe a tad harsh? I pledge not to make those three pledges without
some new provocation.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Cuddle Beam]

I see a lot of "done's" and "fixed" but I don't see a "latest version"
part. Please post it to check it out. (I do a lot/want to do a lot of
Agency stuff lol. It's my favorite mechanic, and if you make it even
better, then, I'd be super grateful)

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> > Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets
> ("[]")
> > have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any
> > rules
> > created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> > have been removed before its resolution.
> >
> >
> > <3
> >
> > [Note that, as a precaution, causing an entity to cease being a contract
> is
> > not secured.]
> >
> >
> > What are the implications of this?
>
> A proposal at any AI or a rule at any power can destroy a contract.
>
> > Notary CAN destroy any excess (i.e. beyond the 3 permitted) contracts by
> > announcement in a timely fashion.
> >
> >
> > CAN in a timely fashion is a bit of a weird combination. I guess it
> works,
> > but I’d replace it with “CAN and SHALL in a timely fashion” or “CAN up
> to 7
> > days after their creation.”
>
> Done.
>
> > Any public textual agreement or set of inseparably linked public textual
> > agreements between a group of two or persons, made with the intention
> that
> > the agreement(s) be binding and governed by the rules, is a contract.
> >
> >
> > This may make pledges contracts, which could create double obligations.
>
>
> > if e/they do/does not do so
>
> It's either singular or plural. I think it has the intended effect,
> though I admit it sounds a bit weird. :)
>
> >
> > A contract CAN amend, destroy, or retitle itself if its text permits it
> to
> > do
> > so.
> >
> >
> > This seems to make it possible for contracts to make gamestate changes
> that
> > are not directly linked to the sending of a message, which is bad for
> > recordkeeping.
>
> I added a "by announcement" which forces a player to actually send a
> message. More details are in my reply to ais523's response.
>
> > A player CAN amend, destroy, or retitle a contract without objection,
> even
> > if the text denies em the ability to do so. Players SHOULD only use this
> > mechanism to recover from situations where the Charter is underspecified
> or
> > has unintended effects
> >
> >
> > What Charter?
>
> Fixed.
>
> >  If a rule specifies that contract SHALL or SHALL NOT do something
> >
> >
> > Typo
>
> Fixed.
>
> > More general comments:
> >
> > I feel like the most likely scam here is one where the scammer creates a
> > contract such as {{{ Any party may cause [scammer] to give them a trust
> > token. Any player may become a party to this contract. }}}, then somehow
> > amend the contract to give the scammer power to act on behalf of all
> other
> > parties. I think it would be worthwhile to have multiple tiers of
> > “partyship,” each including the last, and requiring explicit consent of
> both
> > the player and the contract to switch tiers:
> >
> > 1) Allowed to use CANs in the contract, but not subject to any
> obligations
> > therein. This may not even require explicitly being a party.
> > 2) Being subject to SHALLs in the contract.
> > 3) Allowing the contract to act on your behalf.
> >
> > This means that a contract requiring Tier 3 for “current agency stuff”
> would
> > be instantly suspect.
>
> I see your point, but your proposed solution violates the first design
> principle. You don't have to be a party to use the CAN anyway, at
> least unless the contract says you do. This is also why there are so
> many ways to destroy a contract which the contract isn't allowed to
> stop you from of punish you for leaving. Finally, I hope no player
> would ever join a contract another player could arbitrary amend and
> that e couldn't leave at will. The one thing that might be helpful is
> some minimum time delay before a contract can be amended, like for
> agencies, but I feel like that could violate principle two. Thoughts?
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[Cuddle Beam]

>From a speech act theory standpoint, any speech act already encodes
conditionals (that the preconditions match, that the way I invoke it
performs it, that others recognizes the previous two points, that everyone
assumes genuine intent). Allowing more conditionals to be included is a
natural extension.

I doubt enough people will be familiar with speech act theory to conclude
from that that we can do conditional actions here on Agora.

>Your conditional doesn't meet it's own requirements. This arguably requires
me to look through all CFJs, to make sure the doctrine hasn't been
overturned

lol, yes! That proves my point!

With that, how is anyone supposed to know that it hasn't been overturned or
not in order to know that we can even do it in the first place without that
dredging? We're using conditionals without even knowing if we can actually
do them or not! If they were in rules, it would be much more clear.

>For someone concerned about implicit rules, you don't show much regard for
explicit ones.

I've mentioned before that its less punishing for me to whacked with a
correction with what I've missed than to dredge through everything to see
if just in case I've missed something.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> On 09/06/17 18:16, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> Note: we have explicit conditional voting, but not conditional explicit
> action-doing in general.
>
> I'm in favor of conditional action-doing in general because it's another
> useful tool for doing stuff (...and the rules are silent on the issue).
>
>
> Voting has an explicit conditional mechanism because it's a delayed
> action. The conditional for a vote doesn't need to be interpretable at time
> of declaration, but instead at time of resolution.
>
> Other things don't need explicit mechanisms because we don't generally
> care about the manner of an action. The exceptions being listed in the
> rules, when something need be 'by announcement' or with a previously
> announced intent.
>
> From a speech act theory standpoint, any speech act already encodes
> conditionals (that the preconditions match, that the way I invoke it
> performs it, that others recognizes the previous two points, that everyone
> assumes genuine intent). Allowing more conditionals to be included is a
> natural extension.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If there are no regulations, no part of this message beyond this
>> paragraph has any effect.
>>
>> I determine the regulations for the recent tournament to be in title
>> T1-2017, or, if that title name is invalid, 1-2017. If I am Regkeepor,
>> this is the official designation for that title; otherwise, I deputize
>> for the Regkeepor to assign this designation.
>>
>> I then assign the ID T1-2017-1 (or, if that is invalid, 1-2017-1) to
>> the only regulation in that title. If I am still not Regkeepor, I
>> deputize for Regkeepor to do so, and then repeat the actions attempted
>> in the previous paragraph.
>>
>> In accordance with Rule 2464, I repeal each regulation in title
>> T1-2017 (or, if invalid, 1-2017).
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:

>> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
>> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any 
>> rules
>> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
>> have been removed before its resolution.
>
> It might be worth getting some confirmation on whether this actually
> works. (The last paragraph of rule 106 would suggest yes, but I think
> this is untested territory in Agora. B Nomic and BlogNomic both
> explored this space quite thoroughly, though, so it certainly can work
> in a successful nomic.)

I'll CFJ this.

> What about pledges? (Note that in the past, a pledge was just a
> contract with one member.)

If I'm going to follow your suggestion about paying for contracts, it
makes sense to keep pledges separate.


>> Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").
>
> This isn't technically tied to Organizations, but I agree with
> repealing it anyway just because it's likely to become a dead-end
> mechanic without them.

It's not doing much as is, either.

>> Create a new power 2.5 rule, entitled "Contracts", with the following text:
>
> Any reason behind the choice in power here? I vaguely remembered
> Contracts working at power 1.7, although looking through the actual old
> rules, they were at power 2.0. If we're going to have a power split
> between 2.0 and 2.5, it'd be helpful to have guidelines and reasoning
> for which goes there.
>
> Incidentally, my feelings on the matter are that contract rules should
> definitely be below the power of rule 2166 (but that's power 3 anyway),
> probably below the security limit of voting strength (which is 2.0; see
> rule 2422), and arguably below the security limit of Cards (1.7). I
> can't see any reason to take the power below 1.5, and as such, I'd
> consider 1.6 to be a reasonable Power for most contract actions.
>
> Note that "escalator mousetraps", where a player is forced into a
> contract via a scam-created rule, probably aren't worth worrying about
> much as it'd be easier to place the restrictions on the player
> directly. The exception is related to the use of contracts as Agencies,
> which is very powerful (and probably needs to be power 3 to function);
> that might need to be in a separate rule that specifically requires the
> player to have explicitly consented to the contract and any changes to
> it (or in a form of "constitutional law").

I have thought about it a little bit. Basically, I want contracts to
be bellow the power ~3 rules. I also want the core structural rules to
be above the other contract rules, but just by a little bit.
"Contracts as Agreements" needs to be more powerful than the highest
powered card rule, which is 2.0. Hence I decided to camp out the
relatively unused ~2.5 range. Any way I could satisfy you by tweaking
the power of other rules?

>>   A contract is a document, and the ruleset described entity embodied 
>> therein.
>
> Need something like "A contract is a document that has been made into a
> contract via a process described in the Rules", to stop random
> documents becoming contracts by default when the proposal is enacted.
> "Document" also has a rules-defined meaning, which may not be what we
> want; and the ability to amend a contract's text can easily interfere
> with several possible wordings (I'm finding it hard to make a good one
> where the contract /is/ its text). Perhaps better to make a contract
> /have/ text, rather than /be/ text.

Will this do: "A contract is a textual entity, and the ruleset
described entity embodied
  therein. A document can only become a contract through the appropriate ruleset
  defined procedures. Changes to the contracts text by rule defined mechanisms
  do not change the identity of the contract."? I really like the "a
contract is just special text that can do stuff" abstraction.


>> Create a new power 2.5 rule, entitled "Parties to Contracts", with the 
>> following
>> text:
>>
>>   Contracts have parties, who are persons. The person(s) who create(s) a
>>   contract is/are automatically a party/parties. Other persons CAN become
>>   parties by announcement if the contract permits them do so. Parties can 
>> leave
>>   a contract by announcement, ceasing being parties, if the contract permits
>>   the to do so. A contract CAN expel a party or group of parties, causing em
>>   to cease being parties.
>
> "A contract CAN" is very hard to define; by what mechanism does it do
> so? Is it pragmatic or platonic? I'd recommend pragmatising this, so
> that some player (/ contract party?) has to explicitly expel the
> players by announcement.

I've added a distinction between "a contract can by announcement" and
"the text of a contract CAN".  The former is pragmatic, the later
isn't. This case would fall into the former category.

>>   It is IMPOSSIBLE, by any means, for a person to become a party to a 
>> contract,
>>   or for an 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[Aris Merchant]

Your conditional doesn't meet it's own requirements. This arguably
requires me to look through all CFJs, to make sure the doctrine hasn't
been overturned. I therefore determine that you haven't submitted a
proposal. I'd also just add it to the last paragraph, rather than
making a new one.

-Aris

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I think that's great for Agora but if its based on a CFJ or tradition,
> that's more of the "implicit rules" (or "obscure rules") phenomenon which I
> dislike. Conditional-ing stuff is as powerful as a real mechanic imo, and
> one of the most powerful ones. Luckily proposals are real cheap now, and I
> get rewarded for making good proposals, time to make it explicit! I'll pend
> this next week once I get APs back.
>
> If adding conditions to actions performed via fora is a mechanic which is
> explicitly acknowledged to exist in CFJs but not in the current Rules, I
> create the following Proposal:
>
> Name: "Conditionaling" actions is a very useful mechanic
> Content: Add to the rule "Fora" the following as a new paragraph at the
> bottom of the rule:
>
> "Actions can be stated to be performed conditionally, if such conditions are
> evaluable (by any player, with a reasonable amount of effort) at the time it
> is stated and at any future moment from then.
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> Oh, no, we definitely have conditional actioning (consider that a
>> nonce). The condition just has to be evaluable at the time it is said,
>> so no future conditionals. At least, that's my understanding.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> > Note: we have explicit conditional voting, but not conditional explicit
>> > action-doing in general.
>> >
>> > I'm in favor of conditional action-doing in general because it's another
>> > useful tool for doing stuff (...and the rules are silent on the issue).
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Aris Merchant
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If there are no regulations, no part of this message beyond this
>> >> paragraph has any effect.
>> >>
>> >> I determine the regulations for the recent tournament to be in title
>> >> T1-2017, or, if that title name is invalid, 1-2017. If I am Regkeepor,
>> >> this is the official designation for that title; otherwise, I deputize
>> >> for the Regkeepor to assign this designation.
>> >>
>> >> I then assign the ID T1-2017-1 (or, if that is invalid, 1-2017-1) to
>> >> the only regulation in that title. If I am still not Regkeepor, I
>> >> deputize for Regkeepor to do so, and then repeat the actions attempted
>> >> in the previous paragraph.
>> >>
>> >> In accordance with Rule 2464, I repeal each regulation in title
>> >> T1-2017 (or, if invalid, 1-2017).
>> >>
>> >> -Aris
>> >
>> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[Nic Evans]

On 09/06/17 18:47, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I think that's great for Agora but if its based on a CFJ or tradition,
> that's more of the "implicit rules" (or "obscure rules") phenomenon
> which I dislike. Conditional-ing stuff is as powerful as a real
> mechanic imo, and one of the most powerful ones. Luckily proposals are
> real cheap now, and I get rewarded for making good proposals, time to
> make it explicit! I'll pend this next week once I get APs back.
>
> If adding conditions to actions performed via fora is a mechanic which
> is explicitly acknowledged to exist in CFJs but not in the current
> Rules, I create the following Proposal:
>
> Name: "Conditionaling" actions is a very useful mechanic
> Content: Add to the rule "Fora" the following as a new paragraph at
> the bottom of the rule:
>
> "Actions can be stated to be performed conditionally, if such
> conditions are evaluable (by any player, with a reasonable amount of
> effort) at the time it is stated and at any future moment from then.

If adopted this proposal would have no effect. Default AI is 1.0, which
is too low to amend Fora.

>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Aris Merchant
>  > wrote:
>
> Oh, no, we definitely have conditional actioning (consider that a
> nonce). The condition just has to be evaluable at the time it is said,
> so no future conditionals. At least, that's my understanding.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Cuddle Beam  > wrote:
> > Note: we have explicit conditional voting, but not conditional
> explicit
> > action-doing in general.
> >
> > I'm in favor of conditional action-doing in general because it's
> another
> > useful tool for doing stuff (...and the rules are silent on the
> issue).
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Aris Merchant
> >  > wrote:
> >>
> >> If there are no regulations, no part of this message beyond this
> >> paragraph has any effect.
> >>
> >> I determine the regulations for the recent tournament to be in
> title
> >> T1-2017, or, if that title name is invalid, 1-2017. If I am
> Regkeepor,
> >> this is the official designation for that title; otherwise, I
> deputize
> >> for the Regkeepor to assign this designation.
> >>
> >> I then assign the ID T1-2017-1 (or, if that is invalid,
> 1-2017-1) to
> >> the only regulation in that title. If I am still not Regkeepor, I
> >> deputize for Regkeepor to do so, and then repeat the actions
> attempted
> >> in the previous paragraph.
> >>
> >> In accordance with Rule 2464, I repeal each regulation in title
> >> T1-2017 (or, if invalid, 1-2017).
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >
> >
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[Nic Evans]

On 09/06/17 18:16, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Note: we have explicit conditional voting, but not conditional
> explicit action-doing in general.
>
> I'm in favor of conditional action-doing in general because it's
> another useful tool for doing stuff (...and the rules are silent on
> the issue).

Voting has an explicit conditional mechanism because it's a delayed
action. The conditional for a vote doesn't need to be interpretable at
time of declaration, but instead at time of resolution.

Other things don't need explicit mechanisms because we don't generally
care about the manner of an action. The exceptions being listed in the
rules, when something need be 'by announcement' or with a previously
announced intent.

From a speech act theory standpoint, any speech act already encodes
conditionals (that the preconditions match, that the way I invoke it
performs it, that others recognizes the previous two points, that
everyone assumes genuine intent). Allowing more conditionals to be
included is a natural extension.

>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Aris Merchant
>  > wrote:
>
> If there are no regulations, no part of this message beyond this
> paragraph has any effect.
>
> I determine the regulations for the recent tournament to be in title
> T1-2017, or, if that title name is invalid, 1-2017. If I am Regkeepor,
> this is the official designation for that title; otherwise, I deputize
> for the Regkeepor to assign this designation.
>
> I then assign the ID T1-2017-1 (or, if that is invalid, 1-2017-1) to
> the only regulation in that title. If I am still not Regkeepor, I
> deputize for Regkeepor to do so, and then repeat the actions attempted
> in the previous paragraph.
>
> In accordance with Rule 2464, I repeal each regulation in title
> T1-2017 (or, if invalid, 1-2017).
>
> -Aris
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[Aris Merchant]

Oh, no, we definitely have conditional actioning (consider that a
nonce). The condition just has to be evaluable at the time it is said,
so no future conditionals. At least, that's my understanding.

-Aris

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> Note: we have explicit conditional voting, but not conditional explicit
> action-doing in general.
>
> I'm in favor of conditional action-doing in general because it's another
> useful tool for doing stuff (...and the rules are silent on the issue).
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> If there are no regulations, no part of this message beyond this
>> paragraph has any effect.
>>
>> I determine the regulations for the recent tournament to be in title
>> T1-2017, or, if that title name is invalid, 1-2017. If I am Regkeepor,
>> this is the official designation for that title; otherwise, I deputize
>> for the Regkeepor to assign this designation.
>>
>> I then assign the ID T1-2017-1 (or, if that is invalid, 1-2017-1) to
>> the only regulation in that title. If I am still not Regkeepor, I
>> deputize for Regkeepor to do so, and then repeat the actions attempted
>> in the previous paragraph.
>>
>> In accordance with Rule 2464, I repeal each regulation in title
>> T1-2017 (or, if invalid, 1-2017).
>>
>> -Aris
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[Cuddle Beam]

Note: we have explicit conditional voting, but not conditional explicit
action-doing in general.

I'm in favor of conditional action-doing in general because it's another
useful tool for doing stuff (...and the rules are silent on the issue).

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If there are no regulations, no part of this message beyond this
> paragraph has any effect.
>
> I determine the regulations for the recent tournament to be in title
> T1-2017, or, if that title name is invalid, 1-2017. If I am Regkeepor,
> this is the official designation for that title; otherwise, I deputize
> for the Regkeepor to assign this designation.
>
> I then assign the ID T1-2017-1 (or, if that is invalid, 1-2017-1) to
> the only regulation in that title. If I am still not Regkeepor, I
> deputize for Regkeepor to do so, and then repeat the actions attempted
> in the previous paragraph.
>
> In accordance with Rule 2464, I repeal each regulation in title
> T1-2017 (or, if invalid, 1-2017).
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Initiating elections.

[Cuddle Beam]

Could work as a good place for ads too.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Josh T  wrote:

> I intend to also make news sections freelance-able, to be included if
> deemed worthy and author paid if used. Should I win and contracts pass, I
> intend to make a contract which allows me to pay people for articles if
> they wish to submit them and I choose to include them.
>
> Please find a proto-newspaper below:
>
> {{{
> 
> ===
>  News of Agora
> 
> ==vol.
> 0===
>
>Elections Sweep Agora, Citizens Turn to Polls
>
> In a recent flurry of activity where different offices are vacated and
> claimed
> by upstanding Agorans, elections for Prime Minister, Herald, ADoP, and
> Reportor
> have been initiated. Citizens head towards the polls as they cast their
> ballots
> and await the results with bated breath. In addition, the Agoran Decision
> for
> Silver Quill 2016 is also underway, taking advantage of the activity to
> try and
> be done. As of publication, the polls have yet to close, so one may still
> cast
> their votes if they wish to be heard.
>  —天火狐
>
> An Editorial Piece
>
>
> Wherein the author of the piece pontificates about recent happenings in
> Agora.
>
> —Hypothetical Author
>
> News about Estates
>
> Wherein I exercise my writing writing fiction about our Estates which has
> no
> intended bearing on the game state whatsoever and is provided for
> entertainment
> purposes only
>  —天火狐
>
> }}}
>
> 天火狐
>
>
>
>
> On 6 September 2017 at 17:38, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> > For Reportor, I vote [PSS], followed by the list of people provided by
>> the incumbent.
>>
>> I retract my recent vote for myself for Reportor, and cast a
>> conditional vote:
>>
>> If PSS publishes a proto newspaper during the voting period, [PSS];
>>
>> otherwise, I vote for the list of players who publish a proto-newspaper
>> during the voting period, in the order of publication [ie. earliest
>> publisher first on list].
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Initiating elections.

[Josh T]

I intend to also make news sections freelance-able, to be included if
deemed worthy and author paid if used. Should I win and contracts pass, I
intend to make a contract which allows me to pay people for articles if
they wish to submit them and I choose to include them.

Please find a proto-newspaper below:

{{{

===
 News of Agora

==vol.
0===

   Elections Sweep Agora, Citizens Turn to Polls

In a recent flurry of activity where different offices are vacated and
claimed
by upstanding Agorans, elections for Prime Minister, Herald, ADoP, and
Reportor
have been initiated. Citizens head towards the polls as they cast their
ballots
and await the results with bated breath. In addition, the Agoran Decision
for
Silver Quill 2016 is also underway, taking advantage of the activity to try
and
be done. As of publication, the polls have yet to close, so one may still
cast
their votes if they wish to be heard.
 —天火狐

An Editorial Piece


Wherein the author of the piece pontificates about recent happenings in
Agora.

  —Hypothetical Author

News about Estates

Wherein I exercise my writing writing fiction about our Estates which has no
intended bearing on the game state whatsoever and is provided for
entertainment
purposes only
 —天火狐

}}}

天火狐




On 6 September 2017 at 17:38, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > For Reportor, I vote [PSS], followed by the list of people provided by
> the incumbent.
>
> I retract my recent vote for myself for Reportor, and cast a
> conditional vote:
>
> If PSS publishes a proto newspaper during the voting period, [PSS];
>
> otherwise, I vote for the list of players who publish a proto-newspaper
> during the voting period, in the order of publication [ie. earliest
> publisher first on list].
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Revised report

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I am not interested in fighting it.
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 16:44 V.J Rada  wrote:

> Sorry yeah, I do accept this as true (sorry I got the rules wrong last
> night) but because PSS is interested in fighting it I call a CFJ with
> the statement "G is the Herald". He deputised for it in order to give
> champion to all the winners. Was the time period over and was PSS
> listing them in the report enough to fulfill his requirements?
> Probably not.
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
> >> Effective as of 4pm AEST, 9 Sep 2017.
> >>
> >> > Office  Holder  Since   Last Election  Can Elect[1]
> >> > -
> >> > Herald  PSS[2]  2017-05-20  2017-09-06
> >
> > CoE (again):  there *was* a SHALL governing the patent title award,
> > therefore my deputisation succeed and I'm herald.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Rabbons

[V.J Rada]

I gained it above, w/ G's message.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 15:48 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
>> I award myself white and ultraviolet ribbons
>
> What's the timing on the Ultraviolet ribbon like? I can see how the
> White ribbon works. Did you gain Champion within the previous week? (I
> can see you reported as having it in the Herald's Report, but can't see
> where you actually /gained/ it; it's pragmatic, not platonic, so merely
> winning is not enough. I also don't think the report in question has
> self-ratified yet.)
>
> --
> ais523
> Tailor



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Silver Quill for the Agoran Year ending on October 31, 2016

[Kerim Aydin]

Oh, sorry: as is obvious from my attempt to re-start it, I thought you were 
talking
about the Quill election.

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> The argument that it failed was a combination of the ability to add to the 
> pool of options mid-decision and the confusion regarding the definition of 
> announcement as a candidate.
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 16:20 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   That's another CFJ then - from what I can tell from searching you never 
> said
>   it didn't work, and I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the 
> announcement -
>   can you point me to any arguments that it failed?
> 
>   On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>   > I don't believe that it had ever correctly started.
>   > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 16:06 Quazie  wrote:
>   >       I vote for G in the Herald election if it is still ongoing.
>   > I request that the Herald finally tally the results of the Victory 
> Election held many moons ago.
>   >
>   >
>   > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM Kerim Aydin  
> wrote:
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >       On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>   >       > I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision for the Silver Quill 
> 2016. The vote
>   >       > collector is the Herald and the options are any proposals 
> adopted between
>   >       > November 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016 (inclusive).
>   >
>   >       I deputize for the Herald to resolve the Silver Quill 2016 
> Agoran Decision.
>   >
>   >       Votes: 0 valid
>   >       Results: FAILED QUORUM
>   >
>   >       [Quazie submitted a vote that was beyond a reasonable effort to 
> determine].
>   >
>   >       CAMPAIGN SPEECH:
>   >
>   >       While the current Officeholder has done an admirable job 
> attempted to fill many
>   >       offices, e has not had the time nor attention to devote to the 
> Herald:
>   >
>   >       1.  E left this decision unresolved, made no attempt to raise 
> quorum or interest
>   >           in the vote.
>   >
>   >       2.  He showed limited effort in resolving patent titles (e.g. 
> recent Champion).
>   >
>   >       3.  Limited/delayed response for the recent Tournament 
> resolution (regardless
>   >           of whether the tournament was destroyed, e was late in 
> weighing in).
>   >
>   >       With the greatest of respect to my Honorable opponent, I 
> believe I am the
>   >       candidate to pay attention to the job.
>   >
>   >       [Note:  was thinking of saving the Quill Deputization for after 
> the election,
>   >       but I think a rousing campaign with no such after-tricks is 
> more fun/refreshing].
>   >
>   >       -Candidate G.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
> 
> 
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Silver Quill for the Agoran Year ending on October 31, 2016

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I can't do it first because there is no SHALL requiring resolution, the
SHALL only applies if the initiation is required.
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 16:21 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> At a glance, that's messier and I can't look into it as my lunch break is
> almost
> over.  That leaves an opening for PSS :).
>
> As a campaign promise, I pledge to do so in a timely fashion from this
> message,
> provided I still CAN (i.e. provided PSS doesn't do it first, or I'm
> otherwise
> removed or failed to become the Herald).
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > I vote for G in the Herald election if it is still ongoing.
> > I request that the Herald finally tally the results of the Victory
> Election held many moons ago.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >   On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >   > I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision for the Silver Quill 2016.
> The vote
> >   > collector is the Herald and the options are any proposals
> adopted between
> >   > November 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016 (inclusive).
> >
> >   I deputize for the Herald to resolve the Silver Quill 2016 Agoran
> Decision.
> >
> >   Votes: 0 valid
> >   Results: FAILED QUORUM
> >
> >   [Quazie submitted a vote that was beyond a reasonable effort to
> determine].
> >
> >   CAMPAIGN SPEECH:
> >
> >   While the current Officeholder has done an admirable job attempted
> to fill many
> >   offices, e has not had the time nor attention to devote to the
> Herald:
> >
> >   1.  E left this decision unresolved, made no attempt to raise
> quorum or interest
> >   in the vote.
> >
> >   2.  He showed limited effort in resolving patent titles (e.g.
> recent Champion).
> >
> >   3.  Limited/delayed response for the recent Tournament resolution
> (regardless
> >   of whether the tournament was destroyed, e was late in
> weighing in).
> >
> >   With the greatest of respect to my Honorable opponent, I believe I
> am the
> >   candidate to pay attention to the job.
> >
> >   [Note:  was thinking of saving the Quill Deputization for after
> the election,
> >   but I think a rousing campaign with no such after-tricks is more
> fun/refreshing].
> >
> >   -Candidate G.
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Silver Quill for the Agoran Year ending on October 31, 2016

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

The argument that it failed was a combination of the ability to add to the
pool of options mid-decision and the confusion regarding the definition of
announcement as a candidate.
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 16:20 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> That's another CFJ then - from what I can tell from searching you never
> said
> it didn't work, and I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the
> announcement -
> can you point me to any arguments that it failed?
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > I don't believe that it had ever correctly started.
> > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 16:06 Quazie  wrote:
> >   I vote for G in the Herald election if it is still ongoing.
> > I request that the Herald finally tally the results of the Victory
> Election held many moons ago.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >   On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >   > I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision for the Silver Quill 2016.
> The vote
> >   > collector is the Herald and the options are any proposals
> adopted between
> >   > November 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016 (inclusive).
> >
> >   I deputize for the Herald to resolve the Silver Quill 2016 Agoran
> Decision.
> >
> >   Votes: 0 valid
> >   Results: FAILED QUORUM
> >
> >   [Quazie submitted a vote that was beyond a reasonable effort to
> determine].
> >
> >   CAMPAIGN SPEECH:
> >
> >   While the current Officeholder has done an admirable job attempted
> to fill many
> >   offices, e has not had the time nor attention to devote to the
> Herald:
> >
> >   1.  E left this decision unresolved, made no attempt to raise
> quorum or interest
> >   in the vote.
> >
> >   2.  He showed limited effort in resolving patent titles (e.g.
> recent Champion).
> >
> >   3.  Limited/delayed response for the recent Tournament resolution
> (regardless
> >   of whether the tournament was destroyed, e was late in
> weighing in).
> >
> >   With the greatest of respect to my Honorable opponent, I believe I
> am the
> >   candidate to pay attention to the job.
> >
> >   [Note:  was thinking of saving the Quill Deputization for after
> the election,
> >   but I think a rousing campaign with no such after-tricks is more
> fun/refreshing].
> >
> >   -Candidate G.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Silver Quill for the Agoran Year ending on October 31, 2016

[Kerim Aydin]

That's another CFJ then - from what I can tell from searching you never said
it didn't work, and I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the announcement -
can you point me to any arguments that it failed?

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I don't believe that it had ever correctly started.
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 16:06 Quazie  wrote:
>   I vote for G in the Herald election if it is still ongoing.
> I request that the Herald finally tally the results of the Victory Election 
> held many moons ago.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>   On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>   > I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision for the Silver Quill 2016. The 
> vote
>   > collector is the Herald and the options are any proposals adopted 
> between
>   > November 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016 (inclusive).
> 
>   I deputize for the Herald to resolve the Silver Quill 2016 Agoran 
> Decision.
> 
>   Votes: 0 valid
>   Results: FAILED QUORUM
> 
>   [Quazie submitted a vote that was beyond a reasonable effort to 
> determine].
> 
>   CAMPAIGN SPEECH:
> 
>   While the current Officeholder has done an admirable job attempted to 
> fill many
>   offices, e has not had the time nor attention to devote to the Herald:
> 
>   1.  E left this decision unresolved, made no attempt to raise quorum or 
> interest
>       in the vote.
> 
>   2.  He showed limited effort in resolving patent titles (e.g. recent 
> Champion).
> 
>   3.  Limited/delayed response for the recent Tournament resolution 
> (regardless
>       of whether the tournament was destroyed, e was late in weighing in).
> 
>   With the greatest of respect to my Honorable opponent, I believe I am 
> the
>   candidate to pay attention to the job.
> 
>   [Note:  was thinking of saving the Quill Deputization for after the 
> election,
>   but I think a rousing campaign with no such after-tricks is more 
> fun/refreshing].
> 
>   -Candidate G.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Silver Quill for the Agoran Year ending on October 31, 2016

[Quazie]

I disagree, I judged the CFJ that noted that it did, indeed, start
correctly. [CFJ 3513]

The problem with the victory election rule is that there is no requirement
for the herald to every resolve the decision.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:15 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't believe that it had ever correctly started.
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 16:06 Quazie  wrote:
>
>> I vote for G in the Herald election if it is still ongoing.
>>
>> I request that the Herald finally tally the results of the Victory
>> Election held many moons ago.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> > I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision for the Silver Quill 2016. The
>>> vote
>>> > collector is the Herald and the options are any proposals adopted
>>> between
>>> > November 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016 (inclusive).
>>>
>>> I deputize for the Herald to resolve the Silver Quill 2016 Agoran
>>> Decision.
>>>
>>> Votes: 0 valid
>>> Results: FAILED QUORUM
>>>
>>> [Quazie submitted a vote that was beyond a reasonable effort to
>>> determine].
>>>
>>> CAMPAIGN SPEECH:
>>>
>>> While the current Officeholder has done an admirable job attempted to
>>> fill many
>>> offices, e has not had the time nor attention to devote to the Herald:
>>>
>>> 1.  E left this decision unresolved, made no attempt to raise quorum or
>>> interest
>>> in the vote.
>>>
>>> 2.  He showed limited effort in resolving patent titles (e.g. recent
>>> Champion).
>>>
>>> 3.  Limited/delayed response for the recent Tournament resolution
>>> (regardless
>>> of whether the tournament was destroyed, e was late in weighing in).
>>>
>>> With the greatest of respect to my Honorable opponent, I believe I am the
>>> candidate to pay attention to the job.
>>>
>>> [Note:  was thinking of saving the Quill Deputization for after the
>>> election,
>>> but I think a rousing campaign with no such after-tricks is more
>>> fun/refreshing].
>>>
>>> -Candidate G.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Silver Quill for the Agoran Year ending on October 31, 2016

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I don't believe that it had ever correctly started.
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 16:06 Quazie  wrote:

> I vote for G in the Herald election if it is still ongoing.
>
> I request that the Herald finally tally the results of the Victory
> Election held many moons ago.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> > I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision for the Silver Quill 2016. The vote
>> > collector is the Herald and the options are any proposals adopted
>> between
>> > November 1, 2015 and October 31, 2016 (inclusive).
>>
>> I deputize for the Herald to resolve the Silver Quill 2016 Agoran
>> Decision.
>>
>> Votes: 0 valid
>> Results: FAILED QUORUM
>>
>> [Quazie submitted a vote that was beyond a reasonable effort to
>> determine].
>>
>> CAMPAIGN SPEECH:
>>
>> While the current Officeholder has done an admirable job attempted to
>> fill many
>> offices, e has not had the time nor attention to devote to the Herald:
>>
>> 1.  E left this decision unresolved, made no attempt to raise quorum or
>> interest
>> in the vote.
>>
>> 2.  He showed limited effort in resolving patent titles (e.g. recent
>> Champion).
>>
>> 3.  Limited/delayed response for the recent Tournament resolution
>> (regardless
>> of whether the tournament was destroyed, e was late in weighing in).
>>
>> With the greatest of respect to my Honorable opponent, I believe I am the
>> candidate to pay attention to the job.
>>
>> [Note:  was thinking of saving the Quill Deputization for after the
>> election,
>> but I think a rousing campaign with no such after-tricks is more
>> fun/refreshing].
>>
>> -Candidate G.
>>
>>
>>
>>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Silver Quill for the Agoran Year ending on October 31, 2016

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 13:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If I was the Herald before the below, I resolve the below decision as
> indicated (without deputization).

I think you can deputise for your own office as long as the other
deputisation criteria are met (e.g. the action being late).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Revised Monthly Report and Other Stuff

[Kerim Aydin]

That's not how the Rule actually reads, even if it's more convenient.
Please CFJ if you disagree with the plain reading of the rule:

- The win was announced over 14 days from when I deputized.
- There was no open CFJ when the win was announced, nor when I
   deputized.

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I have read the rules. However, I believe the question is as to when the case 
> was closed.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On Sep 6, 2017, at 7:55 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >> Good point. Given the lack of a SHALL, no requirement was unfulfilled
> >> and he didn’t take the office. If you want to CFJ this, you can, but
> >> it seems clear to me.
> > 
> > Read the rules pls.  The SHALL requirement is in R649:
> >A person
> >   permitted and enabled to award (revoke) a Patent Title SHALL do
> >   so in a timely fashion after the conditions authorizing em to do
> >   so are announced, unless there is an open judicial case
> >   contesting the validity of those conditions.
> > 
> > Note there is some unclarity into what happens to the SHALL if there
> > was an open case, but it's closed now.
> > 
> > [Also:  I'm a bit surprised at someone holding an office for a while
> > being unfamiliar with their sole job with that office...]
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbon

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 20:55 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> I also award myself a violet ribbon for deputisation.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:42 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> > I once again cause myself to receive an ultraviolet ribbon.
> > --
> > From V.J Rada

a) NttPF, b) that's the wrong colour of ribbon anyway.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Rabbons

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 15:37 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 15:48 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > I award myself white and ultraviolet ribbons
> 
> What's the timing on the Ultraviolet ribbon like? I can see how the
> White ribbon works. Did you gain Champion within the previous week? (I
> can see you reported as having it in the Herald's Report, but can't see
> where you actually /gained/ it; it's pragmatic, not platonic, so merely
> winning is not enough. I also don't think the report in question has
> self-ratified yet.)

(Note: G.'s since cleared the situation with Champion up, but it was
/after/ your post, so you'd need to repeat the attempt to award the
ribbon.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 19:24 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> E could stash his money in an organization. 

FWIW, I saw this scam ages ago, decided it was too risky to try to use
(partly due to the risk of accidentally deregistering myself, but
mostly because AFAICT the Shinies would be stuck in the Organization
under the ruleset at the time), and gave everyone a Welcome Package to
limit the potential gains from it if someone else tried it.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becums teh registored

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I am becum reg1stored for dis geim of thigners and monies and offises wich we 
> pley ere.
> By paying 1 AP. I CFJ: "Cuddlebeam is now eligible to claim another Welcome 
> Package".

Counterarguments:

The action in question is registering.

To me, this still is a clear announcement that you register, therefore is
an attempt to register by aannouncement.  "I am becum reg1stored for dis geim"
has some typos, but is clearly readable.

Just saying "I intend to become a player at this time" wouldn't assert
that you were registering.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Revised Monthly Report and Other Stuff

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Good point. Given the lack of a SHALL, no requirement was unfulfilled 
> and he didn’t take the office. If you want to CFJ this, you can, but 
> it seems clear to me.

Read the rules pls.  The SHALL requirement is in R649:
A person
   permitted and enabled to award (revoke) a Patent Title SHALL do
   so in a timely fashion after the conditions authorizing em to do
   so are announced, unless there is an open judicial case
   contesting the validity of those conditions.

Note there is some unclarity into what happens to the SHALL if there
was an open case, but it's closed now.

[Also:  I'm a bit surprised at someone holding an office for a while
being unfamiliar with their sole job with that office...]

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Revised report

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Thank you. I think mainly in UTC.

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



> On Sep 6, 2017, at 7:09 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> Australian eastern standard time. 4pm aest = 6am gmt.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> What is AEST?
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 6:40 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>>> 
>>> AEST
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Revised report

[V.J Rada]

Australian eastern standard time. 4pm aest = 6am gmt.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> What is AEST?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 6:40 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>>
>> AEST
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Revised report

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

What is AEST?

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



> On Sep 6, 2017, at 6:40 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> AEST



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbon

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

You can’t I already did.

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



> On Sep 6, 2017, at 6:42 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> I once again cause myself to receive an ultraviolet ribbon.
> --
> From V.J Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbon

[V.J Rada]

I also award myself a violet ribbon for deputisation.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:42 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> I once again cause myself to receive an ultraviolet ribbon.
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Rabbons

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

That is correct I had failed to award the title, explicitly. I was intending 
for the award to be made implicitly by their inclusion.

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



> On Sep 6, 2017, at 3:21 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
>>> I award myself white and ultraviolet ribbons
>> 
>> Actually, I'm not sure the actual Patent Title Champion was ever awarded.
>> (for ultraviolet).  Good thing if not, as the ribbon timer would have
>> expired.
>> 
>> I CoE on the Herald's Report:
>>   The "Champions" listed under Apathy have not actually been awarded
>>   the Champion Patent Title for their win.
> 
> Actually, I might get a job :)
> 
> I deputize for the Herald to award the following persons the Champion
> patent title (patent title award over 14 days late):
>  ais523, Aris, Murphy, o, Sprocklem, 天火狐
>   Zachary Watterson, Quazie,
>   Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, tmanthe2nd
>   Gaelan, Ienpw III, Veggiekeks, omd,
>   V.J. Rada, Bayushi. nichdel, grok, babelian
> 
> I award the persons above ultraviolet ribbons.
> 
> (no effect if I missed P.S.S. making these awards somewhere!).
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: routine deregistration

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

What things could be lost forever?

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



> On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:40 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> That and other things which could be lost forever if they are deregistered so 
> I'm a bit wary for now.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:31 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> probs because there's a current proposal that will likely pass that
> will make him the agoracultoror.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > Why?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:37 PM Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >>
> >> I object.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:34 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Without objection, I intend to deregister bablien/Ajay Kumar Raja, who
> >>> has not posted since Jul 31.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> From V.J Rada
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J Rada
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I take an action

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

We did that with I think o or omd, a while ago.

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



> On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:55 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> Actually, is being non-registered a requirement to register? Couldn't 
> registered people just... Register again?
> 
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> My 1-2-3 step thing was intentionally sent to DIS :P Just posted it as an 
> example.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> Definitely.
> 
> > On Sep 5, 2017, at 7:29 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >
> > < >
> > So...let's reinstate the 30 day rule?
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J Rada
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: routine deregistration

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Why? This process is intended to deregister anyone who isn’t participating.

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



> On Sep 5, 2017, at 11:36 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I object.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:34 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> Without objection, I intend to deregister bablien/Ajay Kumar Raja, who
> has not posted since Jul 31.
> 
> --
> From V.J Rada
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
> I won't accept or deny this until e responds.
> 
> Unrelated, are you voting on the elections other than Herald?

Yah I'll vote when I see if there's multiple people who want any of
these or not.  competitive elections are more fun  :)

DIS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN

[Aris Merchant]

First of all, I don't think it's overdue enough. Second, the reason I
haven't published lately is because there's an outstanding CoE, tied to a
judicial case that was never judged, and the report is basicly empty
anyway. Try to ask before you take offices, would you? If you actually hold
this now, I'm going to call elections.

-Aris

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:31 AM V.J Rada  wrote:

> I deputise for the regkeepor and publish the following.
>
> > The ACORN (Agora Nomic Code of Regulations)
> >
> > ==
> > TITLE 0
> > Contains no regulations, and is reserved for the use of the Regkeepor.
> > --
>
> --
> From V.J Rada
>

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

[V.J Rada]

I won't accept or deny this until e responds.

Unrelated, are you voting on the elections other than Herald?

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
>> Office  Holder  Since   Last Election  Can Elect[1]
>> -
>> Herald  PSS[2]  2017-05-20  2015-07-02 Y
>
> Waiting for PSS's response if I missed em awarding champion, but to
> prevent self-ratification:
>
> CoE:  I am the Herald, via deputisation.
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Initiating elections.

[V.J Rada]

you can take reportor

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
>> As the ADoP, I initiate elections for the positions of Prime Minister,
>> Herald, ADoP. and Reportor.
>>
>> I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Herald. The vote
>> collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 3.0, and the valid options are
>> the players (PRESENT is a valid vote).
>
> I need a job.  I vote for myself for Herald.
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

NTTPF

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:


I point my finger at Quazie for never resolving this CoE. I accept this CoE.

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:



On 08/21/17 18:46, Owen Jacobson wrote:

Through the mechanism described in the agency “Quazie’s Autonomous Zeal,” I 
cause Quazie to publish the following report:

Offices and Reports
Date of this report: 2017-08-21
Date of last report: 2017-07-08

Informal measures
-
Administrative Health [1]: 90.0%
Consolidation [2]: 2.14

[1] Calculated by the weighted average of # of offices filled/total and
# of reports not late/total. A higher Administrative Health % indicates
a more active bureaucracy.

[2] Calculated by dividing the # of filled offices by the number of
unique officeholders. A higher consolidation rating is not necessarily
bad, but means Agora is putting more power & responsibility in a small
group's hands.

NB: The "Holder" column of this report is self-ratifying.

Office  Holder  Since   Last Election  Can Elect[1]
-
Arbitor ais523  2017-05-15  2017-05-26
AssessorQuazie  2017-06-05  2017-05-26


CoE: I am the Assessor.


ADoP[3] Quazie  2017-06-05  2017-06-09
Herald  PSS[2]  2017-05-20  2015-07-02 Y
Prime Minister  Quazie  2017-05-21  2016-10-22 Y
PromotorAris2016-10-21  2017-05-26
Referee o   2017-04-17  2017-06-09
Registrar   PSS[2]  2017-04-18  2017-06-09
Regkeepor   Aris2017-07-16  Never  Y
Reportor2017-08-10  2016-08-30 Y
Rulekeepor  Gaelan  2017-05-17  2017-05-26
Secretary   o   2016-11-06  2017-06-27
Speaker ais523  2017-06-01  2014-04-21 Never
Superintendent  PSS[2]  2017-06-27  2017-06-27
Surveyoro   2017-05-08  2017-05-10 Y
Tailor  ais523  2017-05-17  2017-06-27
-
[1] Whether an election for this position can be initiated by
announcement, as per R2154(1). Note any player can initiate an
election for any office with 4 Support per R2154(2).
[2] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
[3] Associate Director of Personnel


Office  M[1]  Report  Last Published  Late[2]
---
ADoP[3]   Offices 2017-08-21
Herald  Y Patent titles   2017-08-09
Promotor  Proposal pool   2017-08-14
Referee   Rule violations 2017-08-21
Registrar Players, Fora   2017-08-20
Registrar   Y Player history  2017-07-01  !
Regkeepor Regulations 2017-08-14
Reportor  The Agoran Newspaper2017-08-01  !!
RulekeeporShort Logical Ruleset   2017-08-17
Rulekeepor  Y Full Logical Ruleset2017-08-17
Secretary OLEBaS[4]   2017-08-21
Secretary   Y Charters2017-08-01
SuperintendentAgencies (incremental)  2017-08-17
Superintendent  Y Agencies (Full) 2017-07-30
Surveyor  Estates 2017-08-21
Tailor  Y Ribbons 2017-07-06  !
---
[1] Monthly
[2] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed.
[3] Associate Director of Personnel
[4] Organizations, Lockout, Expediture, Balances, and Shinies

EVENTS
--
2016-07-19 nichdel deputizes to become Assessor
2016-09-10 nichdel deputizes to become Reportor
2016-10-21 Aris deputizes to become Promotor
2016-11-06 o deputizes to become Secretary
2017-04-16 Quazie deputizes to become Superintendent
2017-04-17 o deputizes to become Referee
2017-04-18 PSS deputizes to become Registrar
2017-05-01 o publishes monthly Secretary report
2017-05-08 o deputizes to become Surveyor
2017-05-10 o elected to Surveyor
2017-05-15 ais523 deputizes to become Arbitor
2017-05-16 Aris publishes weekly Promotor report
2017-05-17 Gaelan deputizes to become Rulekeepor
2017-05-17 Gaelan publishes weekly Rulekeepor report
2017-05-17 ais523 deputizes to become Tailor
2017-05-18 nichdel deputizes to become ADoP
2017-05-18 PSS publishes weekly Registrar report
2017-05-18 Quazie publishes monthly Superintendent report
2017-05-18 ais523 publishes monthly Tailor report
2017-05-20 PSS deputizes to become Herald
2017-05-20 PSS publishes monthly Herald report
2017-05-21 Quazie deputizes to become Prime Minister
2017-05-21 Aris publishes weekly Promotor report
2017-05-21 o publishes weekly Referee report
2017-05-21 Gaelan publishes monthly Rulekeepor report
2017-05-21 nichdel appointed to Speaker
2017-05-22 o publishes weekly Secretary report
2017-05-22 o publishes weekly Surveyor report
2017-05-24 nichdel publishes weekly Reportor report
2017-05-25 Quazie 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Resolving Herald Election

[Ørjan Johansen]

NTTPF

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:


This is not correct. The quorum was 3.0 as the most recently assessed
proposal had 5 voters. The outcome is FAILED QUORUM and PSS remains
Herald anyway.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:36 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

I deputize for ADoP. I resolve the election for Herald. Publius
Scribonius is the winner and remains the holder of the office. The
quorum was 2.0 and the votes are as follows.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
As Cast: "I declare my candidacy for Herald and vote for myself."

o: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
As Cast: "I vote ENDORSE for the incumbent."

Congrats PSS!
--
From V.J Rada




--

From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Initiating elections.

[Ørjan Johansen]

NTTPF

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:


For the Herald, I vote PSS. For the Prime Minister, I vote for myself.
For the ADoP, I vote for myself. For the Reportor, I endorse the first
person to vote non-conditionally for a player.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:51 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

As the ADoP, I initiate elections for the positions of Prime Minister,
Herald, ADoP. and Reportor.

I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Herald. The vote
collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 3.0, and the valid options are
the players (PRESENT is a valid vote).

I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Prime Minister.
The vote collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 3.0, and the valid
options are the players (PRESENT is a valid vote).

I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new ADoP. The vote
collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 3.0, and the valid options are
the players (PRESENT is a valid vote).

I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Reportor. The vote
collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 3.0, and the valid options are
the players (PRESENT is a valid vote).

--
From V.J Rada




--

From V.J Rada

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

[V.J Rada]

I point my finger at Quazie for never resolving this CoE. I accept this CoE.

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>
>
> On 08/21/17 18:46, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> Through the mechanism described in the agency “Quazie’s Autonomous Zeal,” I 
>> cause Quazie to publish the following report:
>>
>> Offices and Reports
>> Date of this report: 2017-08-21
>> Date of last report: 2017-07-08
>>
>> Informal measures
>> -
>> Administrative Health [1]: 90.0%
>> Consolidation [2]: 2.14
>>
>> [1] Calculated by the weighted average of # of offices filled/total and
>> # of reports not late/total. A higher Administrative Health % indicates
>> a more active bureaucracy.
>>
>> [2] Calculated by dividing the # of filled offices by the number of
>> unique officeholders. A higher consolidation rating is not necessarily
>> bad, but means Agora is putting more power & responsibility in a small
>> group's hands.
>>
>> NB: The "Holder" column of this report is self-ratifying.
>>
>> Office  Holder  Since   Last Election  Can Elect[1]
>> -
>> Arbitor ais523  2017-05-15  2017-05-26
>> AssessorQuazie  2017-06-05  2017-05-26
>
> CoE: I am the Assessor.
>
>> ADoP[3] Quazie  2017-06-05  2017-06-09
>> Herald  PSS[2]  2017-05-20  2015-07-02 Y
>> Prime Minister  Quazie  2017-05-21  2016-10-22 Y
>> PromotorAris2016-10-21  2017-05-26
>> Referee o   2017-04-17  2017-06-09
>> Registrar   PSS[2]  2017-04-18  2017-06-09
>> Regkeepor   Aris2017-07-16  Never  Y
>> Reportor2017-08-10  2016-08-30 Y
>> Rulekeepor  Gaelan  2017-05-17  2017-05-26
>> Secretary   o   2016-11-06  2017-06-27
>> Speaker ais523  2017-06-01  2014-04-21 Never
>> Superintendent  PSS[2]  2017-06-27  2017-06-27
>> Surveyoro   2017-05-08  2017-05-10 Y
>> Tailor  ais523  2017-05-17  2017-06-27
>> -
>> [1] Whether an election for this position can be initiated by
>> announcement, as per R2154(1). Note any player can initiate an
>> election for any office with 4 Support per R2154(2).
>> [2] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> [3] Associate Director of Personnel
>>
>>
>> Office  M[1]  Report  Last Published  Late[2]
>> ---
>> ADoP[3]   Offices 2017-08-21
>> Herald  Y Patent titles   2017-08-09
>> Promotor  Proposal pool   2017-08-14
>> Referee   Rule violations 2017-08-21
>> Registrar Players, Fora   2017-08-20
>> Registrar   Y Player history  2017-07-01  !
>> Regkeepor Regulations 2017-08-14
>> Reportor  The Agoran Newspaper2017-08-01  !!
>> RulekeeporShort Logical Ruleset   2017-08-17
>> Rulekeepor  Y Full Logical Ruleset2017-08-17
>> Secretary OLEBaS[4]   2017-08-21
>> Secretary   Y Charters2017-08-01
>> SuperintendentAgencies (incremental)  2017-08-17
>> Superintendent  Y Agencies (Full) 2017-07-30
>> Surveyor  Estates 2017-08-21
>> Tailor  Y Ribbons 2017-07-06  !
>> ---
>> [1] Monthly
>> [2] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed.
>> [3] Associate Director of Personnel
>> [4] Organizations, Lockout, Expediture, Balances, and Shinies
>>
>> EVENTS
>> --
>> 2016-07-19 nichdel deputizes to become Assessor
>> 2016-09-10 nichdel deputizes to become Reportor
>> 2016-10-21 Aris deputizes to become Promotor
>> 2016-11-06 o deputizes to become Secretary
>> 2017-04-16 Quazie deputizes to become Superintendent
>> 2017-04-17 o deputizes to become Referee
>> 2017-04-18 PSS deputizes to become Registrar
>> 2017-05-01 o publishes monthly Secretary report
>> 2017-05-08 o deputizes to become Surveyor
>> 2017-05-10 o elected to Surveyor
>> 2017-05-15 ais523 deputizes to become Arbitor
>> 2017-05-16 Aris publishes weekly Promotor report
>> 2017-05-17 Gaelan deputizes to become Rulekeepor
>> 2017-05-17 Gaelan publishes weekly Rulekeepor report
>> 2017-05-17 ais523 deputizes to become Tailor
>> 2017-05-18 nichdel deputizes to become ADoP
>> 2017-05-18 PSS publishes weekly Registrar report
>> 2017-05-18 Quazie publishes monthly Superintendent report
>> 2017-05-18 ais523 publishes monthly Tailor report
>> 2017-05-20 PSS deputizes to become Herald
>> 2017-05-20 PSS publishes monthly Herald report
>> 2017-05-21 Quazie deputizes to become Prime Minister
>> 2017-05-21 Aris publishes weekly Promotor report
>> 2017-05-21 o publishes weekly Referee report
>> 2017-05-21 

DIS: Re: OFF: Initiating elections.

[V.J Rada]

For the Herald, I vote PSS. For the Prime Minister, I vote for myself.
For the ADoP, I vote for myself. For the Reportor, I endorse the first
person to vote non-conditionally for a player.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:51 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> As the ADoP, I initiate elections for the positions of Prime Minister,
> Herald, ADoP. and Reportor.
>
> I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Herald. The vote
> collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 3.0, and the valid options are
> the players (PRESENT is a valid vote).
>
> I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Prime Minister.
> The vote collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 3.0, and the valid
> options are the players (PRESENT is a valid vote).
>
> I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new ADoP. The vote
> collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 3.0, and the valid options are
> the players (PRESENT is a valid vote).
>
> I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Reportor. The vote
> collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 3.0, and the valid options are
> the players (PRESENT is a valid vote).
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Resolving Herald Election

[V.J Rada]

This is not correct. The quorum was 3.0 as the most recently assessed
proposal had 5 voters. The outcome is FAILED QUORUM and PSS remains
Herald anyway.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:36 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> I deputize for ADoP. I resolve the election for Herald. Publius
> Scribonius is the winner and remains the holder of the office. The
> quorum was 2.0 and the votes are as follows.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> As Cast: "I declare my candidacy for Herald and vote for myself."
>
> o: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> As Cast: "I vote ENDORSE for the incumbent."
>
> Congrats PSS!
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> [This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to 
>> re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]
>
> I don't object to this as a one time "does it even work" experiment,
> but I don't like the idea of it becoming any more common than that.
>
> -Aris

To expand on what I said, my opinion is based on the idea that
automation should be aimed at making things easier for people, not the
other way around. To me, a proposal written as a diff is significantly
harder to read than one written in prose. That's fine once, with a
short proposal like this, where the whole thing is simple and easy to
understand. However, if it was used for longer proposals, or more
regularly, that would become an annoyance.

-Aris