DIS: Re: BUS: Becoming a Player... Again

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
> I intend to become a player.
>
> K

Welcome back!

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [RWO] Stamp Cleanup

[Aris Merchant]

Ok. I request that no one card CuddleBeam in this manner unless e
objects to my ratification without objection or does something else
really egregious.

-Aris

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:45 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> The PM is quazie, you can use QAZ to card em at your leisure until
> this election gets resolved.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Aris Merchant
>>>  wrote:
 I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document:

 {{The revision to the secretary's report, available here [1], was true
 and correct when it was published.

 The Stamps Addendum to the Secretary's report, available here [2], was
 true and correct when it was published.

 [1] 
 https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011750.html

 [2] 
 https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011751.html
 }}


 For the record, these reports are not true or correct, but them not
 being correct would invalidate a lot of gameplay, as well as a lot of
 planning by players. It's rapidly becoming clear that this situation
 will have wide-ranging destructing impacts on the gamestate unless
 someone stops it.

 To anyone who has a technical objection to this, it would be
 appreciated if you could bring them up ASAP, at least in the next day.
 I would also appreciate it if they could be brought up to a-d first,
 to see if anyone can poke holes in them. In my opinion, an additional
 minor error in one of these reports would not justify the game
 disruption of having this problem stick around for longer. To block
 one potential objection, I know that the revision to the report has an
 effective date different from its publication date, but the date is
 part of the document, and so is resolved in the same way as it would
 be if the document is self ratified. I intend to keep behaving with
 the gamestate the way we thought it was, on the basis that someone
 will ratify away the problem eventually.

 CuddleBeam, if you frivolously object to this, I and a lot of other
 players will be grouchy with you. It is widely agreed that there was
 no way you got shines, even if the bug your scam exploited worked.
 There is no outcome where you get shines out of this. Gaelan probably
 won't either, if that's a consolation. However, the long term impact
 on the game will likely be the same, as I or someone else will likely
 ratify some equivalent document by proposal. Further, everyone will be
 even more irritated at you. You will have hurt Agora at no benefit to
 yourself or anyone else. If that isn't enough to stop you, I will ask
 the PM to card you by executive order for harming the game. E might
 refuse, but do you want to take the chance?
>>>
>>> P.S. If you're PM right now, I can always wait for the next one.
>>
>> Oh wait, that's Speaker, never mind.
>>
>> -Aris
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [RWO] Stamp Cleanup

[VJ Rada]

The PM is quazie, you can use QAZ to card em at your leisure until
this election gets resolved.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>>> I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document:
>>>
>>> {{The revision to the secretary's report, available here [1], was true
>>> and correct when it was published.
>>>
>>> The Stamps Addendum to the Secretary's report, available here [2], was
>>> true and correct when it was published.
>>>
>>> [1] 
>>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011750.html
>>>
>>> [2] 
>>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011751.html
>>> }}
>>>
>>>
>>> For the record, these reports are not true or correct, but them not
>>> being correct would invalidate a lot of gameplay, as well as a lot of
>>> planning by players. It's rapidly becoming clear that this situation
>>> will have wide-ranging destructing impacts on the gamestate unless
>>> someone stops it.
>>>
>>> To anyone who has a technical objection to this, it would be
>>> appreciated if you could bring them up ASAP, at least in the next day.
>>> I would also appreciate it if they could be brought up to a-d first,
>>> to see if anyone can poke holes in them. In my opinion, an additional
>>> minor error in one of these reports would not justify the game
>>> disruption of having this problem stick around for longer. To block
>>> one potential objection, I know that the revision to the report has an
>>> effective date different from its publication date, but the date is
>>> part of the document, and so is resolved in the same way as it would
>>> be if the document is self ratified. I intend to keep behaving with
>>> the gamestate the way we thought it was, on the basis that someone
>>> will ratify away the problem eventually.
>>>
>>> CuddleBeam, if you frivolously object to this, I and a lot of other
>>> players will be grouchy with you. It is widely agreed that there was
>>> no way you got shines, even if the bug your scam exploited worked.
>>> There is no outcome where you get shines out of this. Gaelan probably
>>> won't either, if that's a consolation. However, the long term impact
>>> on the game will likely be the same, as I or someone else will likely
>>> ratify some equivalent document by proposal. Further, everyone will be
>>> even more irritated at you. You will have hurt Agora at no benefit to
>>> yourself or anyone else. If that isn't enough to stop you, I will ask
>>> the PM to card you by executive order for harming the game. E might
>>> refuse, but do you want to take the chance?
>>
>> P.S. If you're PM right now, I can always wait for the next one.
>
> Oh wait, that's Speaker, never mind.
>
> -Aris



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [RWO] Stamp Cleanup

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document:
>>
>> {{The revision to the secretary's report, available here [1], was true
>> and correct when it was published.
>>
>> The Stamps Addendum to the Secretary's report, available here [2], was
>> true and correct when it was published.
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011750.html
>>
>> [2] 
>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011751.html
>> }}
>>
>>
>> For the record, these reports are not true or correct, but them not
>> being correct would invalidate a lot of gameplay, as well as a lot of
>> planning by players. It's rapidly becoming clear that this situation
>> will have wide-ranging destructing impacts on the gamestate unless
>> someone stops it.
>>
>> To anyone who has a technical objection to this, it would be
>> appreciated if you could bring them up ASAP, at least in the next day.
>> I would also appreciate it if they could be brought up to a-d first,
>> to see if anyone can poke holes in them. In my opinion, an additional
>> minor error in one of these reports would not justify the game
>> disruption of having this problem stick around for longer. To block
>> one potential objection, I know that the revision to the report has an
>> effective date different from its publication date, but the date is
>> part of the document, and so is resolved in the same way as it would
>> be if the document is self ratified. I intend to keep behaving with
>> the gamestate the way we thought it was, on the basis that someone
>> will ratify away the problem eventually.
>>
>> CuddleBeam, if you frivolously object to this, I and a lot of other
>> players will be grouchy with you. It is widely agreed that there was
>> no way you got shines, even if the bug your scam exploited worked.
>> There is no outcome where you get shines out of this. Gaelan probably
>> won't either, if that's a consolation. However, the long term impact
>> on the game will likely be the same, as I or someone else will likely
>> ratify some equivalent document by proposal. Further, everyone will be
>> even more irritated at you. You will have hurt Agora at no benefit to
>> yourself or anyone else. If that isn't enough to stop you, I will ask
>> the PM to card you by executive order for harming the game. E might
>> refuse, but do you want to take the chance?
>
> P.S. If you're PM right now, I can always wait for the next one.

Oh wait, that's Speaker, never mind.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: [RWO] Stamp Cleanup

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document:
>
> {{The revision to the secretary's report, available here [1], was true
> and correct when it was published.
>
> The Stamps Addendum to the Secretary's report, available here [2], was
> true and correct when it was published.
>
> [1] 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011750.html
>
> [2] 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011751.html
> }}
>
>
> For the record, these reports are not true or correct, but them not
> being correct would invalidate a lot of gameplay, as well as a lot of
> planning by players. It's rapidly becoming clear that this situation
> will have wide-ranging destructing impacts on the gamestate unless
> someone stops it.
>
> To anyone who has a technical objection to this, it would be
> appreciated if you could bring them up ASAP, at least in the next day.
> I would also appreciate it if they could be brought up to a-d first,
> to see if anyone can poke holes in them. In my opinion, an additional
> minor error in one of these reports would not justify the game
> disruption of having this problem stick around for longer. To block
> one potential objection, I know that the revision to the report has an
> effective date different from its publication date, but the date is
> part of the document, and so is resolved in the same way as it would
> be if the document is self ratified. I intend to keep behaving with
> the gamestate the way we thought it was, on the basis that someone
> will ratify away the problem eventually.
>
> CuddleBeam, if you frivolously object to this, I and a lot of other
> players will be grouchy with you. It is widely agreed that there was
> no way you got shines, even if the bug your scam exploited worked.
> There is no outcome where you get shines out of this. Gaelan probably
> won't either, if that's a consolation. However, the long term impact
> on the game will likely be the same, as I or someone else will likely
> ratify some equivalent document by proposal. Further, everyone will be
> even more irritated at you. You will have hurt Agora at no benefit to
> yourself or anyone else. If that isn't enough to stop you, I will ask
> the PM to card you by executive order for harming the game. E might
> refuse, but do you want to take the chance?

P.S. If you're PM right now, I can always wait for the next one.

-Aris

DIS: Agora x Blognomic

[Cuddle Beam]

So after having an Agoran send me an email about being totally down for a
Agora x Blognomic concept (posted at
https://blognomic.com/archive/dynasty_ideas , I've just won BN) I figured
it would be good to post/link it here.

So, what would you guys like to see on BN? Any ideas you've had in mind?

I'd personally LOVE to have some cross-nomic action. One way is to have
Agora be a guest in whatever theme is chosen (for example, Agora makes some
rule to be included or a few game pieces), and another could be having
Agora have much more active involvement (the top of that being that Agora
is practically BN's Emperor, via puppeteering me or having Agora
"officially" be the Emperor with me acting as the agent which performs
Agora's will upon BN or something).

Let me know what you think and would like to have.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:49 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> <<<2017-08-24 ! K deregistered
> 
> Don't think you can invalidate this. Although it may have had the
> effect of making the amount of shinies somewhere illegal, it's always
> possible to deregister and making K a player against eir will would be
> a bad thing (tm)

This would only amount to invalidating the transfer of K’s shinies to Agora on 
deregistration, not the whole fact of eir deregistration. I don’t have the 
ability to ratify away a deregistration entirely.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:50 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> 
>> This appears to be more valid, though I’ll still need to sanity-check it. 
>> Notably, several rewards which I had previously thought would be invalidated 
>> are instead permitted. I’ve still avoided breaking any proposals or CFJs, 
>> but given the duration, I can only attribute that to the AP system taking up 
>> most of the slack.
> 
> How does this interact with already effected self-ratifications, and with 
> flipping of the Floating Value?

Existing self-ratifying reports aren’t a problem. Publishing a new, corrected 
report will deal with them by self-ratifying, assuming nobody finds an error in 
it at that time.

The Floating Value problem is much, much stickier, and I’m grateful (see me 
grating? I’m grating.) to you for calling attention to it. I’d have to check to 
be sure, but I’m reasonably confident that _none_ of my announced actions 
flipping the Floating Value were correct, and therefore that it has never 
changed except for the sole time the Registrar’s report included it.

That would invalidate quite a lot of gameplay.

Honourable Assessor, on the outside chance that an error is found in either 
your or the Promotor’s reports related to this situation that would cast doubt 
on your assessments, please cite my existing CFJ.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

The flipping of the floating value, as a note, is also probably invalid.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:52 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> this is going to be a long week for poor o. :(.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>
>>> This appears to be more valid, though I’ll still need to sanity-check it.
>>> Notably, several rewards which I had previously thought would be invalidated
>>> are instead permitted. I’ve still avoided breaking any proposals or CFJs,
>>> but given the duration, I can only attribute that to the AP system taking up
>>> most of the slack.
>>
>>
>> How does this interact with already effected self-ratifications, and with
>> flipping of the Floating Value?
>>
>> Evil grin,
>> Ørjan.
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

this is going to be a long week for poor o. :(.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> This appears to be more valid, though I’ll still need to sanity-check it.
>> Notably, several rewards which I had previously thought would be invalidated
>> are instead permitted. I’ve still avoided breaking any proposals or CFJs,
>> but given the duration, I can only attribute that to the AP system taking up
>> most of the slack.
>
>
> How does this interact with already effected self-ratifications, and with
> flipping of the Floating Value?
>
> Evil grin,
> Ørjan.



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:

This appears to be more valid, though I’ll still need to sanity-check 
it. Notably, several rewards which I had previously thought would be 
invalidated are instead permitted. I’ve still avoided breaking any 
proposals or CFJs, but given the duration, I can only attribute that to 
the AP system taking up most of the slack.


How does this interact with already effected self-ratifications, and with 
flipping of the Floating Value?


Evil grin,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

<<<2017-08-24 ! K deregistered

Don't think you can invalidate this. Although it may have had the
effect of making the amount of shinies somewhere illegal, it's always
possible to deregister and making K a player against eir will would be
a bad thing (tm)

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>>
>>>
 On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:28 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:

 If stamp creation is found by the CFJ to be invalid, what happens?
>>>
>>> I start invalidating transactions that either affect stamps or decrease 
>>> Agora’s balance, until I find a solution that leaves Agora with a positive 
>>> balance at all times, and which leaves zero stamps existing.
>>>
>>> I’m actually experimenting with that right now. The results, so far, aren’t 
>>> too bad: no proposals disappear, for example.
>>
>> Here’s what I’ve got:
>
> That list was invalid. It passed below zero balance several times.
>
> 2017-07-30 ! nichdel created a stamp
> 2017-08-21 ! o claimed reward for three reports
> 2017-08-21 ! o created a stamp
> 2017-08-21 ! ais523 created a stamp
> 2017-08-23 ! o claimed a Welcome Package for K
> 2017-08-23 ! 天火狐 created a stamp
> 2017-08-24 ! K deregistered
> 2017-08-25 ! G. claimed a Welcome Package
> 2017-09-04 ! P.S.S. created a Stamp
> 2017-09-04 ! ais523 created a Stamp
> 2017-09-04 ! o created a stamp
> 2017-09-04 ! Aris created a stamp
> 2017-09-05 ! ais523 bought a stamp from o
> 2017-09-05 ! nichdel created a stamp
> 2017-09-07 ! V.J Rada claimed a reward for ADoP
> 2017-09-07 ! Gaelan destroyed all Stamps
> 2017-09-07 ! Gaelan paid CuddleBeam
>
> This appears to be more valid, though I’ll still need to sanity-check it. 
> Notably, several rewards which I had previously thought would be invalidated 
> are instead permitted. I’ve still avoided breaking any proposals or CFJs, but 
> given the duration, I can only attribute that to the AP system taking up most 
> of the slack.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:28 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> 
>>> If stamp creation is found by the CFJ to be invalid, what happens?
>> 
>> I start invalidating transactions that either affect stamps or decrease 
>> Agora’s balance, until I find a solution that leaves Agora with a positive 
>> balance at all times, and which leaves zero stamps existing.
>> 
>> I’m actually experimenting with that right now. The results, so far, aren’t 
>> too bad: no proposals disappear, for example.
> 
> Here’s what I’ve got:

That list was invalid. It passed below zero balance several times.

2017-07-30 ! nichdel created a stamp
2017-08-21 ! o claimed reward for three reports
2017-08-21 ! o created a stamp
2017-08-21 ! ais523 created a stamp
2017-08-23 ! o claimed a Welcome Package for K
2017-08-23 ! 天火狐 created a stamp
2017-08-24 ! K deregistered
2017-08-25 ! G. claimed a Welcome Package
2017-09-04 ! P.S.S. created a Stamp
2017-09-04 ! ais523 created a Stamp
2017-09-04 ! o created a stamp
2017-09-04 ! Aris created a stamp
2017-09-05 ! ais523 bought a stamp from o
2017-09-05 ! nichdel created a stamp
2017-09-07 ! V.J Rada claimed a reward for ADoP
2017-09-07 ! Gaelan destroyed all Stamps
2017-09-07 ! Gaelan paid CuddleBeam

This appears to be more valid, though I’ll still need to sanity-check it. 
Notably, several rewards which I had previously thought would be invalidated 
are instead permitted. I’ve still avoided breaking any proposals or CFJs, but 
given the duration, I can only attribute that to the AP system taking up most 
of the slack.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Cuddle Beam]

i don kno wat ur tahkin abot

(I know but its funny that one could include it lol)

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> CuddleBeam, please, spellcheck. Mistyping your message has nothing to
> do with how well that method works, BTW.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > Theres a hilarious way to actually rejoin before your 30 days is up and
> that
> > is to registur in a wei wich is soffisently amgibous butt undurstendabul
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Kyle Anderson 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree, Cuddle. Great Nomic. Even watching is enthralling, though I am
> >> excited for my 30 days to be up so I can get in on the action.
> >>
> >> That is fascinating, o. I'll have to see if I can find that in the
> >> archives, it seems worthy of some research. Your message implies that
> the
> >> Agora player base as a whole has not always been so reasonable. I think
> >> that's too bad, though I guess there are those who play to win, not to
> play.
> >>
> >> K
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 7, 2017 10:25 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:21 AM, Kyle Anderson 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Just as an aside, this shit is crazy. Pardon my French. It makes me
> >> > wonder how many players know of issues in the rules similar to this
> and are
> >> > just waiting for the right time to exploit them.
> >> >
> >> > K
> >>
> >> At one point, before the ratification system existed, Agora’s state was
> >> found to be so badly misunderstood and misconstrued that the only
> practical
> >> solution was to eject all but one player, have that player use eir
> de-facto
> >> dictatorship to pass proposals to fix the state of the game, and then
> for
> >> the former players to re-register.
> >>
> >> For what it’s worth, I legitimately did not see any of this coming - and
> >> I’m on deck to keep records for stamps! I can’t speculate as to which
> >> players understood which errors in the rules, but I am extremely
> impressed
> >> with the willingness of Agorans as a whole to entertain, in good faith,
> the
> >> fiction that the rules as written meant the same thing as the clear
> intent
> >> of the rules, even when that wasn’t true. Then someone tried to exploit
> one
> >> flaw, and now we have to reckon with the whole problem at once.
> >>
> >> -o
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Aris Merchant]

CuddleBeam, please, spellcheck. Mistyping your message has nothing to
do with how well that method works, BTW.

-Aris

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> Theres a hilarious way to actually rejoin before your 30 days is up and that
> is to registur in a wei wich is soffisently amgibous butt undurstendabul
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Kyle Anderson 
> wrote:
>>
>> I agree, Cuddle. Great Nomic. Even watching is enthralling, though I am
>> excited for my 30 days to be up so I can get in on the action.
>>
>> That is fascinating, o. I'll have to see if I can find that in the
>> archives, it seems worthy of some research. Your message implies that the
>> Agora player base as a whole has not always been so reasonable. I think
>> that's too bad, though I guess there are those who play to win, not to play.
>>
>> K
>>
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2017 10:25 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:21 AM, Kyle Anderson 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Just as an aside, this shit is crazy. Pardon my French. It makes me
>> > wonder how many players know of issues in the rules similar to this and are
>> > just waiting for the right time to exploit them.
>> >
>> > K
>>
>> At one point, before the ratification system existed, Agora’s state was
>> found to be so badly misunderstood and misconstrued that the only practical
>> solution was to eject all but one player, have that player use eir de-facto
>> dictatorship to pass proposals to fix the state of the game, and then for
>> the former players to re-register.
>>
>> For what it’s worth, I legitimately did not see any of this coming - and
>> I’m on deck to keep records for stamps! I can’t speculate as to which
>> players understood which errors in the rules, but I am extremely impressed
>> with the willingness of Agorans as a whole to entertain, in good faith, the
>> fiction that the rules as written meant the same thing as the clear intent
>> of the rules, even when that wasn’t true. Then someone tried to exploit one
>> flaw, and now we have to reckon with the whole problem at once.
>>
>> -o
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:31 PM Kyle Anderson  wrote:

> I agree, Cuddle. Great Nomic. Even watching is enthralling, though I am
> excited for my 30 days to be up so I can get in on the action.
>
> That is fascinating, o. I'll have to see if I can find that in the
> archives, it seems worthy of some research. Your message implies that the
> Agora player base as a whole has not always been so reasonable. I think
> that's too bad, though I guess there are those who play to win, not to play.
>

I think you're probably misinterpreting what happened. Agorans are in
general fairly sportspersonly, but we like the abstract idea of the
gamestate (the platonic gamestate) to match up with how we play.
Ratification and the method o described are both methods of making those
two different views of reality match, and the fact that they were/are both
accepted in their times shows that Agorans are fairly reasonable (possibly
a somewhat counterintuitive conclusion). I'm glad you find the game
interesting, and we'll be happy to have as a player. :)

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Cuddle Beam]

Theres a hilarious way to actually rejoin before your 30 days is up and
that is to registur in a wei wich is soffisently amgibous butt
undurstendabul

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Kyle Anderson 
wrote:

> I agree, Cuddle. Great Nomic. Even watching is enthralling, though I am
> excited for my 30 days to be up so I can get in on the action.
>
> That is fascinating, o. I'll have to see if I can find that in the
> archives, it seems worthy of some research. Your message implies that the
> Agora player base as a whole has not always been so reasonable. I think
> that's too bad, though I guess there are those who play to win, not to play.
>
> K
>
>
> On Sep 7, 2017 10:25 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:21 AM, Kyle Anderson 
> wrote:
> >
> > Just as an aside, this shit is crazy. Pardon my French. It makes me
> wonder how many players know of issues in the rules similar to this and are
> just waiting for the right time to exploit them.
> >
> > K
>
> At one point, before the ratification system existed, Agora’s state was
> found to be so badly misunderstood and misconstrued that the only practical
> solution was to eject all but one player, have that player use eir de-facto
> dictatorship to pass proposals to fix the state of the game, and then for
> the former players to re-register.
>
> For what it’s worth, I legitimately did not see any of this coming - and
> I’m on deck to keep records for stamps! I can’t speculate as to which
> players understood which errors in the rules, but I am extremely impressed
> with the willingness of Agorans as a whole to entertain, in good faith, the
> fiction that the rules as written meant the same thing as the clear intent
> of the rules, even when that wasn’t true. Then someone tried to exploit one
> flaw, and now we have to reckon with the whole problem at once.
>
> -o
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

<2017-08-28 ! o claimed a welcome package for CuddleBeam

Does this lead to CB's later transactions being also invalidated?

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:28 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> If stamp creation is found by the CFJ to be invalid, what happens?
>>
>> I start invalidating transactions that either affect stamps or decrease 
>> Agora’s balance, until I find a solution that leaves Agora with a positive 
>> balance at all times, and which leaves zero stamps existing.
>>
>> I’m actually experimenting with that right now. The results, so far, aren’t 
>> too bad: no proposals disappear, for example.
>
> Here’s what I’ve got:
>
> 2017-07-30 ! nichdel created a stamp
> 2017-08-21 ! o created a stamp
> 2017-08-21 ! ais523 created a stamp
> 2017-08-23 ! 天火狐 created a stamp
> 2017-08-28 ! o claimed a welcome package for CuddleBeam
> 2017-09-03 ! P.S.S. claimed reward for Herald
> 2017-09-04 ! P.S.S. created a Stamp
> 2017-09-04 ! ais523 created a Stamp
> 2017-09-04 ! o created a stamp
> 2017-09-04 ! Aris created a stamp
> 2017-09-05 ! ais523 bought a stamp from o
> 2017-09-05 ! nichdel created a stamp
> 2017-09-07 ! V.J Rada claimed a reward for ADoP
> 2017-09-07 ! V.J Rada claimed a reward for ADoP
> 2017-09-07 ! Gaelan destroyed all Stamps
>
> Invalidating this list appears to leave Agora in good standing at all times, 
> creates zero stamps, and avoids breaking any proposals or CFJs. It also 
> avoids unfairly invalidating a transaction when Agora would have had the 
> Shinies to support it.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:28 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> 
>> If stamp creation is found by the CFJ to be invalid, what happens?
> 
> I start invalidating transactions that either affect stamps or decrease 
> Agora’s balance, until I find a solution that leaves Agora with a positive 
> balance at all times, and which leaves zero stamps existing.
> 
> I’m actually experimenting with that right now. The results, so far, aren’t 
> too bad: no proposals disappear, for example.

Here’s what I’ve got:

2017-07-30 ! nichdel created a stamp
2017-08-21 ! o created a stamp
2017-08-21 ! ais523 created a stamp
2017-08-23 ! 天火狐 created a stamp
2017-08-28 ! o claimed a welcome package for CuddleBeam
2017-09-03 ! P.S.S. claimed reward for Herald
2017-09-04 ! P.S.S. created a Stamp
2017-09-04 ! ais523 created a Stamp
2017-09-04 ! o created a stamp
2017-09-04 ! Aris created a stamp
2017-09-05 ! ais523 bought a stamp from o
2017-09-05 ! nichdel created a stamp
2017-09-07 ! V.J Rada claimed a reward for ADoP
2017-09-07 ! V.J Rada claimed a reward for ADoP
2017-09-07 ! Gaelan destroyed all Stamps

Invalidating this list appears to leave Agora in good standing at all times, 
creates zero stamps, and avoids breaking any proposals or CFJs. It also avoids 
unfairly invalidating a transaction when Agora would have had the Shinies to 
support it.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:28 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> If stamp creation is found by the CFJ to be invalid, what happens?

I start invalidating transactions that either affect stamps or decrease Agora’s 
balance, until I find a solution that leaves Agora with a positive balance at 
all times, and which leaves zero stamps existing.

I’m actually experimenting with that right now. The results, so far, aren’t too 
bad: no proposals disappear, for example.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

Neither worked, b ut we're pretending the creations worked through
self-ratifying reports.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> As I understand it, either both the creations and the scam worked, or
> neither did. Either way we have a problem.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work?
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:04 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> The creation of stamps is done by this text: "Once per month, a player
>>> MAY, by announcement, transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies,
>>> to create a Stamp.". MAY means something is legal and not punishable,
>>> but it doesn't imply CAN, which creates a mechanism to do it.
>>> Therefore, all previous such transfers were legal, but did not
>>> actually happen. We plan to fix the problem by waving our hands and
>>> pretending that all previous transfers did happen, although that will
>>> not apply to future transfers until o's most recent proposal passes,
>>> fixing the rule.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Kyle Anderson 
>>> wrote:
>>> > I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened
>>> > with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they
>>> > no
>>> > longer exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not
>>> > entirely sure why. Did the scam work?
>>> >
>>> > Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. There's a lot to follow
>>> > tonight.
>>> >
>>> > K
>>> >
>>> > On Sep 7, 2017 9:32 PM, "Aris Merchant"
>>> > 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > FTR, for obvious reasons ratification is secured at power 3, so it
>>> > takes an AI 3 proposal to ratify something,
>>> >
>>> > -Aris
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>> >> It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent
>>> >> ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if
>>> >> you
>>> >> have the will to do so. Ratification by proposal is harder to stop
>>> >> single-handedly, but you can always outline your objections in plain
>>> >> language and hope people vote against the proposal.
>>> >>
>>> >> -o
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant
>>> >>  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would
>>> >>> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -Aris
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> > Proto-actions:
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly
>>> >>> > Secretary’s
>>> >>> > report on grounds that their author has included information which
>>> >>> > is
>>> >>> > inaccurate.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the
>>> >>> > objection
>>> >>> > above.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > 
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information
>>> >>> > like
>>> >>> > this
>>> >>> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is
>>> >>> >> wrong.
>>> >>> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure
>>> >>> >> it
>>> >>> >> out some way.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>>> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of
>>> >>> >> > dispute
>>> >>> >> > or
>>> >>> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really
>>> >>> >> > isnt
>>> >>> >> > one.
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada 
>>> >>> >> > wrote:
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam
>>> >>> >> >> 
>>> >>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >>> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right
>>> >>> >> >> > to
>>> >>> >> >> > me.
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson
>>> >>> >> >> > 
>>> >>> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >>> >> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada 
>>> >>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >>> >> >> >> >
>>> >>> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into
>>> >>> >> >> >> > having
>>> >>> >> >> >> > them.
>>> >>> >> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Kyle Anderson]

I agree, Cuddle. Great Nomic. Even watching is enthralling, though I am
excited for my 30 days to be up so I can get in on the action.

That is fascinating, o. I'll have to see if I can find that in the
archives, it seems worthy of some research. Your message implies that the
Agora player base as a whole has not always been so reasonable. I think
that's too bad, though I guess there are those who play to win, not to play.

K

On Sep 7, 2017 10:25 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:


> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:21 AM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
>
> Just as an aside, this shit is crazy. Pardon my French. It makes me
wonder how many players know of issues in the rules similar to this and are
just waiting for the right time to exploit them.
>
> K

At one point, before the ratification system existed, Agora’s state was
found to be so badly misunderstood and misconstrued that the only practical
solution was to eject all but one player, have that player use eir de-facto
dictatorship to pass proposals to fix the state of the game, and then for
the former players to re-register.

For what it’s worth, I legitimately did not see any of this coming - and
I’m on deck to keep records for stamps! I can’t speculate as to which
players understood which errors in the rules, but I am extremely impressed
with the willingness of Agorans as a whole to entertain, in good faith, the
fiction that the rules as written meant the same thing as the clear intent
of the rules, even when that wasn’t true. Then someone tried to exploit one
flaw, and now we have to reckon with the whole problem at once.

-o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

We'd have to wind back all transactions with agora to the point where
agora's balance would have been positive... does that make CFJs and
proposals pended with money invalidly pended and called?

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:28 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> If stamp creation is found by the CFJ to be invalid, what happens?
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>
>>> So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work?
>>
>>
>> Even if the MAYs were to be ignored, your attempts still would fail for the
>> other reasons, although Gaelan Steele's attempt might have worked.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

If stamp creation is found by the CFJ to be invalid, what happens?

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
>> So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work?
>
>
> Even if the MAYs were to be ignored, your attempts still would fail for the
> other reasons, although Gaelan Steele's attempt might have worked.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

"So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work?"

No because that's also a MAY, but we're pretending it didn't happen
this time (because legally, it didn't)

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work?
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:04 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> The creation of stamps is done by this text: "Once per month, a player
>> MAY, by announcement, transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies,
>> to create a Stamp.". MAY means something is legal and not punishable,
>> but it doesn't imply CAN, which creates a mechanism to do it.
>> Therefore, all previous such transfers were legal, but did not
>> actually happen. We plan to fix the problem by waving our hands and
>> pretending that all previous transfers did happen, although that will
>> not apply to future transfers until o's most recent proposal passes,
>> fixing the rule.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Kyle Anderson 
>> wrote:
>> > I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened
>> > with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they
>> > no
>> > longer exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not
>> > entirely sure why. Did the scam work?
>> >
>> > Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. There's a lot to follow
>> > tonight.
>> >
>> > K
>> >
>> > On Sep 7, 2017 9:32 PM, "Aris Merchant"
>> > 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > FTR, for obvious reasons ratification is secured at power 3, so it
>> > takes an AI 3 proposal to ratify something,
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> >> It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent
>> >> ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if
>> >> you
>> >> have the will to do so. Ratification by proposal is harder to stop
>> >> single-handedly, but you can always outline your objections in plain
>> >> language and hope people vote against the proposal.
>> >>
>> >> -o
>> >>
>> >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would
>> >>> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Aris
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > Proto-actions:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly
>> >>> > Secretary’s
>> >>> > report on grounds that their author has included information which
>> >>> > is
>> >>> > inaccurate.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the
>> >>> > objection
>> >>> > above.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > 
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information
>> >>> > like
>> >>> > this
>> >>> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is
>> >>> >> wrong.
>> >>> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure
>> >>> >> it
>> >>> >> out some way.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of
>> >>> >> > dispute
>> >>> >> > or
>> >>> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really
>> >>> >> > isnt
>> >>> >> > one.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada 
>> >>> >> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam
>> >>> >> >> 
>> >>> >> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right
>> >>> >> >> > to
>> >>> >> >> > me.
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson
>> >>> >> >> > 
>> >>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada 
>> >>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into
>> >>> >> >> >> > having
>> >>> >> >> >> > them.
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly
>> >>> >> >> >> Secretary’s
>> >>> >> >> >> report will do that, thankfully.
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> -o
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> --
>> >>> >> >> From V.J Rada
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:


So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work?


Even if the MAYs were to be ignored, your attempts still would fail for 
the other reasons, although Gaelan Steele's attempt might have worked.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Kyle Anderson]

Thank you.

K

On Sep 7, 2017 10:04 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:

> The creation of stamps is done by this text: "Once per month, a player
> MAY, by announcement, transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies,
> to create a Stamp.". MAY means something is legal and not punishable,
> but it doesn't imply CAN, which creates a mechanism to do it.
> Therefore, all previous such transfers were legal, but did not
> actually happen. We plan to fix the problem by waving our hands and
> pretending that all previous transfers did happen, although that will
> not apply to future transfers until o's most recent proposal passes,
> fixing the rule.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Kyle Anderson 
> wrote:
> > I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened
> > with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they no
> > longer exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not
> > entirely sure why. Did the scam work?
> >
> > Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. There's a lot to follow
> > tonight.
> >
> > K
> >
> > On Sep 7, 2017 9:32 PM, "Aris Merchant"  gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > FTR, for obvious reasons ratification is secured at power 3, so it
> > takes an AI 3 proposal to ratify something,
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >> It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent
> >> ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if you
> >> have the will to do so. Ratification by proposal is harder to stop
> >> single-handedly, but you can always outline your objections in plain
> >> language and hope people vote against the proposal.
> >>
> >> -o
> >>
> >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >>
> >> I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would
> >>> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
> >>> > Proto-actions:
> >>> >
> >>> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly
> >>> > Secretary’s
> >>> > report on grounds that their author has included information which is
> >>> > inaccurate.
> >>> >
> >>> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the
> >>> > objection
> >>> > above.
> >>> >
> >>> > 
> >>> >
> >>> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information like
> >>> > this
> >>> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong.
> >>> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure
> it
> >>> >> out some way.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of
> >>> >> > dispute
> >>> >> > or
> >>> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really
> isnt
> >>> >> > one.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada 
> wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam <
> cuddleb...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right
> to
> >>> >> >> > me.
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson <
> o...@grimoire.ca>
> >>> >> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada 
> >>> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into
> >>> >> >> >> > having
> >>> >> >> >> > them.
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly
> >>> >> >> >> Secretary’s
> >>> >> >> >> report will do that, thankfully.
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> -o
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> --
> >>> >> >> From V.J Rada
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> From V.J Rada
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Cuddle Beam]

So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work?

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:04 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> The creation of stamps is done by this text: "Once per month, a player
> MAY, by announcement, transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies,
> to create a Stamp.". MAY means something is legal and not punishable,
> but it doesn't imply CAN, which creates a mechanism to do it.
> Therefore, all previous such transfers were legal, but did not
> actually happen. We plan to fix the problem by waving our hands and
> pretending that all previous transfers did happen, although that will
> not apply to future transfers until o's most recent proposal passes,
> fixing the rule.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Kyle Anderson 
> wrote:
> > I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened
> > with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they no
> > longer exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not
> > entirely sure why. Did the scam work?
> >
> > Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. There's a lot to follow
> > tonight.
> >
> > K
> >
> > On Sep 7, 2017 9:32 PM, "Aris Merchant"  gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > FTR, for obvious reasons ratification is secured at power 3, so it
> > takes an AI 3 proposal to ratify something,
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >> It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent
> >> ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if you
> >> have the will to do so. Ratification by proposal is harder to stop
> >> single-handedly, but you can always outline your objections in plain
> >> language and hope people vote against the proposal.
> >>
> >> -o
> >>
> >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >>
> >> I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would
> >>> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
> >>> > Proto-actions:
> >>> >
> >>> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly
> >>> > Secretary’s
> >>> > report on grounds that their author has included information which is
> >>> > inaccurate.
> >>> >
> >>> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the
> >>> > objection
> >>> > above.
> >>> >
> >>> > 
> >>> >
> >>> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information like
> >>> > this
> >>> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong.
> >>> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure
> it
> >>> >> out some way.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of
> >>> >> > dispute
> >>> >> > or
> >>> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really
> isnt
> >>> >> > one.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada 
> wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam <
> cuddleb...@gmail.com>
> >>> >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right
> to
> >>> >> >> > me.
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson <
> o...@grimoire.ca>
> >>> >> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada 
> >>> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into
> >>> >> >> >> > having
> >>> >> >> >> > them.
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly
> >>> >> >> >> Secretary’s
> >>> >> >> >> report will do that, thankfully.
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> -o
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> --
> >>> >> >> From V.J Rada
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> From V.J Rada
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:21 AM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
> 
> Just as an aside, this shit is crazy. Pardon my French. It makes me wonder 
> how many players know of issues in the rules similar to this and are just 
> waiting for the right time to exploit them.
> 
> K

At one point, before the ratification system existed, Agora’s state was found 
to be so badly misunderstood and misconstrued that the only practical solution 
was to eject all but one player, have that player use eir de-facto dictatorship 
to pass proposals to fix the state of the game, and then for the former players 
to re-register.

For what it’s worth, I legitimately did not see any of this coming - and I’m on 
deck to keep records for stamps! I can’t speculate as to which players 
understood which errors in the rules, but I am extremely impressed with the 
willingness of Agorans as a whole to entertain, in good faith, the fiction that 
the rules as written meant the same thing as the clear intent of the rules, 
even when that wasn’t true. Then someone tried to exploit one flaw, and now we 
have to reckon with the whole problem at once.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Cuddle Beam]

Imo Kyle that's just good nomic lol.

Also, creation + stamps working is just like creation working except with
the addition of a step where stamps disappear.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Kyle Anderson 
wrote:

> Just as an aside, this shit is crazy. Pardon my French. It makes me wonder
> how many players know of issues in the rules similar to this and are just
> waiting for the right time to exploit them.
>
> K
>
> On Sep 7, 2017 10:15 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Kyle Anderson 
> wrote:
> >
> > I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened
> with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they no
> longer exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not
> entirely sure why. Did the scam work?
> >
> > Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. There's a lot to follow
> tonight.
> >
> > K
>
> I hold that neither CuddleBeam’s scams, nor Gaelan’s scam, worked.
> Furthermore, there may not be any stamps at all.
>
> The rule “Mother, May I?” defines several terms. Key for unpicking this
> situation are the terms “CAN” and “MAY”. A rule stating that something CAN
> be done defines a mechanism for doing it. A rule saying that something MAY
> be done prevents the doing of a thing from drawing a penalty. This
> distinction has gone wrong several times.
>
> The rule “Economic Victory” defines stamps, and states that several things
> MAY be done, but does not state that those things CAN be done. The rule
> “Regulated Actions” is phrased in such a way that a CAN would be required
> for those actions to be possible. One of the things that the rule states
> MAY be done is the destruction, by announcement, of any stamp, with Agora
> paying the announcing player the current Stamp Value. Had MAY been CAN,
> this rule would have allowed Gaelan to sequentially destroy stamps and
> harvest their value, regardless of who owned the stamps.
>
> Gaelan’s scam would have worked, where CuddleBeam’s would not have even
> with a CAN, because Gaelan specified the order stamps should be destroyed
> in sufficiently clearly to avoid ambiguity. CuddleBeam simply said “all
> stamps”, in a situation where more stamps existed than Agora had Shinies to
> pay for. The rule only allows a single stamp to be destroyed this way at a
> time, so order matters, and depending on the order in which stamps were
> destroyed, different stamps may end up existing afterwards - hence the
> ambiguity that ruined CuddleBeam’s second attempt.
>
> CuddleBeam’s first attempt failed for a simple wording error.
>
> -o
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Kyle Anderson]

Just as an aside, this shit is crazy. Pardon my French. It makes me wonder
how many players know of issues in the rules similar to this and are just
waiting for the right time to exploit them.

K

On Sep 7, 2017 10:15 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:


> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
>
> I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened
with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they no
longer exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not
entirely sure why. Did the scam work?
>
> Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. There's a lot to follow
tonight.
>
> K

I hold that neither CuddleBeam’s scams, nor Gaelan’s scam, worked.
Furthermore, there may not be any stamps at all.

The rule “Mother, May I?” defines several terms. Key for unpicking this
situation are the terms “CAN” and “MAY”. A rule stating that something CAN
be done defines a mechanism for doing it. A rule saying that something MAY
be done prevents the doing of a thing from drawing a penalty. This
distinction has gone wrong several times.

The rule “Economic Victory” defines stamps, and states that several things
MAY be done, but does not state that those things CAN be done. The rule
“Regulated Actions” is phrased in such a way that a CAN would be required
for those actions to be possible. One of the things that the rule states
MAY be done is the destruction, by announcement, of any stamp, with Agora
paying the announcing player the current Stamp Value. Had MAY been CAN,
this rule would have allowed Gaelan to sequentially destroy stamps and
harvest their value, regardless of who owned the stamps.

Gaelan’s scam would have worked, where CuddleBeam’s would not have even
with a CAN, because Gaelan specified the order stamps should be destroyed
in sufficiently clearly to avoid ambiguity. CuddleBeam simply said “all
stamps”, in a situation where more stamps existed than Agora had Shinies to
pay for. The rule only allows a single stamp to be destroyed this way at a
time, so order matters, and depending on the order in which stamps were
destroyed, different stamps may end up existing afterwards - hence the
ambiguity that ruined CuddleBeam’s second attempt.

CuddleBeam’s first attempt failed for a simple wording error.

-o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

< wrote:
>
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
>>
>> I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened 
>> with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they no 
>> longer exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not 
>> entirely sure why. Did the scam work?
>>
>> Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. There's a lot to follow 
>> tonight.
>>
>> K
>
> I hold that neither CuddleBeam’s scams, nor Gaelan’s scam, worked. 
> Furthermore, there may not be any stamps at all.
>
> The rule “Mother, May I?” defines several terms. Key for unpicking this 
> situation are the terms “CAN” and “MAY”. A rule stating that something CAN be 
> done defines a mechanism for doing it. A rule saying that something MAY be 
> done prevents the doing of a thing from drawing a penalty. This distinction 
> has gone wrong several times.
>
> The rule “Economic Victory” defines stamps, and states that several things 
> MAY be done, but does not state that those things CAN be done. The rule 
> “Regulated Actions” is phrased in such a way that a CAN would be required for 
> those actions to be possible. One of the things that the rule states MAY be 
> done is the destruction, by announcement, of any stamp, with Agora paying the 
> announcing player the current Stamp Value. Had MAY been CAN, this rule would 
> have allowed Gaelan to sequentially destroy stamps and harvest their value, 
> regardless of who owned the stamps.
>
> Gaelan’s scam would have worked, where CuddleBeam’s would not have even with 
> a CAN, because Gaelan specified the order stamps should be destroyed in 
> sufficiently clearly to avoid ambiguity. CuddleBeam simply said “all stamps”, 
> in a situation where more stamps existed than Agora had Shinies to pay for. 
> The rule only allows a single stamp to be destroyed this way at a time, so 
> order matters, and depending on the order in which stamps were destroyed, 
> different stamps may end up existing afterwards - hence the ambiguity that 
> ruined CuddleBeam’s second attempt.
>
> CuddleBeam’s first attempt failed for a simple wording error.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:15 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
>> 
>> I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened 
>> with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they no 
>> longer exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not 
>> entirely sure why. Did the scam work?
>> 
>> Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. There's a lot to follow 
>> tonight.
>> 
>> K
> 
> I hold that neither CuddleBeam’s scams, nor Gaelan’s scam, worked. 
> Furthermore, there may not be any stamps at all.
> 
> The rule “Mother, May I?” defines several terms. Key for unpicking this 
> situation are the terms “CAN” and “MAY”. A rule stating that something CAN be 
> done defines a mechanism for doing it. A rule saying that something MAY be 
> done prevents the doing of a thing from drawing a penalty. This distinction 
> has gone wrong several times.
> 
> The rule “Economic Victory” defines stamps, and states that several things 
> MAY be done, but does not state that those things CAN be done. The rule 
> “Regulated Actions” is phrased in such a way that a CAN would be required for 
> those actions to be possible. One of the things that the rule states MAY be 
> done is the destruction, by announcement, of any stamp, with Agora paying the 
> announcing player the current Stamp Value. Had MAY been CAN, this rule would 
> have allowed Gaelan to sequentially destroy stamps and harvest their value, 
> regardless of who owned the stamps.

Oh, and:

Nobody who noticed this flaw in the wording of the rules chose to remark on it 
- I think out of sportsagoranship, since the intent of the rules regarding 
stamps is pretty clear - which allowed several “impossible” actions to be 
treated as if they happened for long enough for the results to become true 
through self-ratifying reports.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:58 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
> 
> I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened with 
> stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they no longer 
> exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not entirely sure 
> why. Did the scam work?
> 
> Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. There's a lot to follow 
> tonight.
> 
> K

I hold that neither CuddleBeam’s scams, nor Gaelan’s scam, worked. Furthermore, 
there may not be any stamps at all.

The rule “Mother, May I?” defines several terms. Key for unpicking this 
situation are the terms “CAN” and “MAY”. A rule stating that something CAN be 
done defines a mechanism for doing it. A rule saying that something MAY be done 
prevents the doing of a thing from drawing a penalty. This distinction has gone 
wrong several times.

The rule “Economic Victory” defines stamps, and states that several things MAY 
be done, but does not state that those things CAN be done. The rule “Regulated 
Actions” is phrased in such a way that a CAN would be required for those 
actions to be possible. One of the things that the rule states MAY be done is 
the destruction, by announcement, of any stamp, with Agora paying the 
announcing player the current Stamp Value. Had MAY been CAN, this rule would 
have allowed Gaelan to sequentially destroy stamps and harvest their value, 
regardless of who owned the stamps.

Gaelan’s scam would have worked, where CuddleBeam’s would not have even with a 
CAN, because Gaelan specified the order stamps should be destroyed in 
sufficiently clearly to avoid ambiguity. CuddleBeam simply said “all stamps”, 
in a situation where more stamps existed than Agora had Shinies to pay for. The 
rule only allows a single stamp to be destroyed this way at a time, so order 
matters, and depending on the order in which stamps were destroyed, different 
stamps may end up existing afterwards - hence the ambiguity that ruined 
CuddleBeam’s second attempt.

CuddleBeam’s first attempt failed for a simple wording error.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Aris Merchant]

As I understand it, either both the creations and the scam worked, or
neither did. Either way we have a problem.

-Aris

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work?
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:04 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> The creation of stamps is done by this text: "Once per month, a player
>> MAY, by announcement, transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies,
>> to create a Stamp.". MAY means something is legal and not punishable,
>> but it doesn't imply CAN, which creates a mechanism to do it.
>> Therefore, all previous such transfers were legal, but did not
>> actually happen. We plan to fix the problem by waving our hands and
>> pretending that all previous transfers did happen, although that will
>> not apply to future transfers until o's most recent proposal passes,
>> fixing the rule.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Kyle Anderson 
>> wrote:
>> > I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened
>> > with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they
>> > no
>> > longer exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not
>> > entirely sure why. Did the scam work?
>> >
>> > Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. There's a lot to follow
>> > tonight.
>> >
>> > K
>> >
>> > On Sep 7, 2017 9:32 PM, "Aris Merchant"
>> > 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > FTR, for obvious reasons ratification is secured at power 3, so it
>> > takes an AI 3 proposal to ratify something,
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> >> It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent
>> >> ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if
>> >> you
>> >> have the will to do so. Ratification by proposal is harder to stop
>> >> single-handedly, but you can always outline your objections in plain
>> >> language and hope people vote against the proposal.
>> >>
>> >> -o
>> >>
>> >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would
>> >>> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Aris
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > Proto-actions:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly
>> >>> > Secretary’s
>> >>> > report on grounds that their author has included information which
>> >>> > is
>> >>> > inaccurate.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the
>> >>> > objection
>> >>> > above.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > 
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information
>> >>> > like
>> >>> > this
>> >>> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is
>> >>> >> wrong.
>> >>> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure
>> >>> >> it
>> >>> >> out some way.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of
>> >>> >> > dispute
>> >>> >> > or
>> >>> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really
>> >>> >> > isnt
>> >>> >> > one.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada 
>> >>> >> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam
>> >>> >> >> 
>> >>> >> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right
>> >>> >> >> > to
>> >>> >> >> > me.
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson
>> >>> >> >> > 
>> >>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada 
>> >>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into
>> >>> >> >> >> > having
>> >>> >> >> >> > them.
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly
>> >>> >> >> >> Secretary’s
>> >>> >> >> >> report will do that, thankfully.
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> -o
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> --
>> >>> >> >> From V.J Rada
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> --
>> >>> >> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

The creation of stamps is done by this text: "Once per month, a player
MAY, by announcement, transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies,
to create a Stamp.". MAY means something is legal and not punishable,
but it doesn't imply CAN, which creates a mechanism to do it.
Therefore, all previous such transfers were legal, but did not
actually happen. We plan to fix the problem by waving our hands and
pretending that all previous transfers did happen, although that will
not apply to future transfers until o's most recent proposal passes,
fixing the rule.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
> I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened
> with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they no
> longer exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not
> entirely sure why. Did the scam work?
>
> Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. There's a lot to follow
> tonight.
>
> K
>
> On Sep 7, 2017 9:32 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
> wrote:
>
> FTR, for obvious reasons ratification is secured at power 3, so it
> takes an AI 3 proposal to ratify something,
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent
>> ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if you
>> have the will to do so. Ratification by proposal is harder to stop
>> single-handedly, but you can always outline your objections in plain
>> language and hope people vote against the proposal.
>>
>> -o
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>
>> I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would
>>> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>> > Proto-actions:
>>> >
>>> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly
>>> > Secretary’s
>>> > report on grounds that their author has included information which is
>>> > inaccurate.
>>> >
>>> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the
>>> > objection
>>> > above.
>>> >
>>> > 
>>> >
>>> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information like
>>> > this
>>> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong.
>>> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure it
>>> >> out some way.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of
>>> >> > dispute
>>> >> > or
>>> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt
>>> >> > one.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to
>>> >> >> > me.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson 
>>> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada 
>>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into
>>> >> >> >> > having
>>> >> >> >> > them.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly
>>> >> >> >> Secretary’s
>>> >> >> >> report will do that, thankfully.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> -o
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> From V.J Rada
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> From V.J Rada
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Kyle Anderson]

I hate to be annoying, but will someone explain to me what just happened
with stamps? I've read through the posts, but I'm confused at why they no
longer exist. I thought that the scam did not succeed, though I'm not
entirely sure why. Did the scam work?

Sorry, just trying to wrap my head around this. There's a lot to follow
tonight.

K

On Sep 7, 2017 9:32 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:

FTR, for obvious reasons ratification is secured at power 3, so it
takes an AI 3 proposal to ratify something,

-Aris

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent
> ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if you
> have the will to do so. Ratification by proposal is harder to stop
> single-handedly, but you can always outline your objections in plain
> language and hope people vote against the proposal.
>
> -o
>
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
> I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would
>> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> > Proto-actions:
>> >
>> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly
Secretary’s
>> > report on grounds that their author has included information which is
>> > inaccurate.
>> >
>> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the
>> > objection
>> > above.
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information like
>> > this
>> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong.
>> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure it
>> >> out some way.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of
dispute
>> >> > or
>> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt
>> >> > one.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to
>> >> >> > me.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson 
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada 
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into
>> >> >> >> > having
>> >> >> >> > them.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly
>> >> >> >> Secretary’s
>> >> >> >> report will do that, thankfully.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> -o
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> From V.J Rada
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J Rada
>> >
>> >
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Aris Merchant]

FTR, for obvious reasons ratification is secured at power 3, so it
takes an AI 3 proposal to ratify something,

-Aris

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent
> ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if you
> have the will to do so. Ratification by proposal is harder to stop
> single-handedly, but you can always outline your objections in plain
> language and hope people vote against the proposal.
>
> -o
>
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
> I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would
>> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> > Proto-actions:
>> >
>> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly Secretary’s
>> > report on grounds that their author has included information which is
>> > inaccurate.
>> >
>> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the
>> > objection
>> > above.
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information like
>> > this
>> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong.
>> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure it
>> >> out some way.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute
>> >> > or
>> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt
>> >> > one.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to
>> >> >> > me.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson 
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada 
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into
>> >> >> >> > having
>> >> >> >> > them.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly
>> >> >> >> Secretary’s
>> >> >> >> report will do that, thankfully.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> -o
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> From V.J Rada
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J Rada
>> >
>> >
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

Notably you would have to CoE, not object, to those reports.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent
> ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if you
> have the will to do so. Ratification by proposal is harder to stop
> single-handedly, but you can always outline your objections in plain
> language and hope people vote against the proposal.
>
> -o
>
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
> I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would
>> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> > Proto-actions:
>> >
>> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly Secretary’s
>> > report on grounds that their author has included information which is
>> > inaccurate.
>> >
>> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the
>> > objection
>> > above.
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information like
>> > this
>> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong.
>> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure it
>> >> out some way.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute
>> >> > or
>> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt
>> >> > one.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to
>> >> >> > me.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson 
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada 
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into
>> >> >> >> > having
>> >> >> >> > them.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly
>> >> >> >> Secretary’s
>> >> >> >> report will do that, thankfully.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> -o
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> From V.J Rada
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J Rada
>> >
>> >
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent 
ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if you have 
the will to do so. Ratification by proposal is harder to stop single-handedly, 
but you can always outline your objections in plain language and hope people 
vote against the proposal.

-o

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  > wrote:
> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would
> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam  > wrote:
> > Proto-actions:
> >
> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly Secretary’s
> > report on grounds that their author has included information which is
> > inaccurate.
> >
> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the objection
> > above.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information like this
> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  > > wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong.
> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure it
> >> out some way.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam  >> > wrote:
> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute or
> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt one.
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada  >> > > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam  >> >> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to me.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson  >> >> > >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada  >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having
> >> >> >> > them.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly
> >> >> >> Secretary’s
> >> >> >> report will do that, thankfully.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> -o
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> From V.J Rada
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J Rada
> >
> >
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

You wouldn't be carded.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would
>> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> > Proto-actions:
>> >
>> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly Secretary’s
>> > report on grounds that their author has included information which is
>> > inaccurate.
>> >
>> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the
>> > objection
>> > above.
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information like
>> > this
>> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong.
>> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure it
>> >> out some way.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute
>> >> > or
>> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt
>> >> > one.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to
>> >> >> > me.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson 
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada 
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into
>> >> >> >> > having
>> >> >> >> > them.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly
>> >> >> >> Secretary’s
>> >> >> >> report will do that, thankfully.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> -o
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> From V.J Rada
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J Rada
>> >
>> >
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Cuddle Beam]

I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would
> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > Proto-actions:
> >
> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly Secretary’s
> > report on grounds that their author has included information which is
> > inaccurate.
> >
> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the
> objection
> > above.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information like
> this
> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong.
> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure it
> >> out some way.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute
> or
> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt
> one.
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to
> me.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson 
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada 
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having
> >> >> >> > them.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly
> >> >> >> Secretary’s
> >> >> >> report will do that, thankfully.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> -o
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> From V.J Rada
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J Rada
> >
> >
>

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

[VJ Rada]

reminder that there's also an election for regkeepor, with only 1 vote
on it (and PSS's VP=0 vote).

also fact: if the elections were resolved now, G would be the herald,
I would be the PM, o. would be the ADoP, and 天火狐 would be the
reportor.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:19 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 2:51 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> I vote for [天火狐]. I strongly encourage others to do the same, as e has
>> a good vision for the office, something that's hard to come by these
>> days.
>
> I change my vote on this election to endorse Aris.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Aris Merchant]

You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would
disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess.

-Aris

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> Proto-actions:
>
> I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly Secretary’s
> report on grounds that their author has included information which is
> inaccurate.
>
> I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the objection
> above.
>
> 
>
> Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information like this
> (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong.
>> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure it
>> out some way.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute or
>> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt one.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to me.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson 
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having
>> >> >> > them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly
>> >> >> Secretary’s
>> >> >> report will do that, thankfully.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -o
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J Rada
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Cuddle Beam]

Proto-actions:

I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly Secretary’s
report on grounds that their author has included information which is
inaccurate.

I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the objection
above.



Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information like this
(for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"?

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong.
> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure it
> out some way.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute or
> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt one.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>
> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to me.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson 
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having
> >> >> > them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly
> Secretary’s
> >> >> report will do that, thankfully.
> >> >>
> >> >> -o
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J Rada
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Aris Merchant]

This is what ratification without objection and ratification by
proposal (which isn't mentioned in the rules, but strongly implied)
are for. They allow you to "fix" the past, either because of a dispute
or because there's something we want to collectively ignore.

-Aris

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute or
> ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt one.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to me.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having
>> >> > them.
>> >>
>> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly Secretary’s
>> >> report will do that, thankfully.
>> >>
>> >> -o
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong.
If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure it
out some way.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute or
> ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt one.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to me.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having
>> >> > them.
>> >>
>> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly Secretary’s
>> >> report will do that, thankfully.
>> >>
>> >> -o
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

It’s also to deal with situations where the platonic gamestate and the 
apprehended gamestate have diverged too radically to be resolved.

G., were you around when Agora had exactly 1 player, for long enough to pass 
some proposals to fix game state?

-o

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute or 
> ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt one.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada  > wrote:
> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam  > wrote:
> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to me.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson  > > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada  >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having them.
> >>
> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly Secretary’s
> >> report will do that, thankfully.
> >>
> >> -o
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> >From V.J Rada
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Cuddle Beam]

Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute or
ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt one.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> i mean, that's why ratification exists.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to me.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having them.
> >>
> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly Secretary’s
> >> report will do that, thankfully.
> >>
> >> -o
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

i mean, that's why ratification exists.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to me.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >
>> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having them.
>>
>> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly Secretary’s
>> report will do that, thankfully.
>>
>> -o
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Cuddle Beam]

Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to me.


On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >
> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having them.
>
> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly Secretary’s
> report will do that, thankfully.
>
> -o
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] September Estate Auction

[Cuddle Beam]

I bid 62 shinies on the auction, my blurb shall be the same as I posted
before.

I have to agree with that japanese culture is much more sexist than western
but I'm just a huge fan of horrible anime : P

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 2, 2017, at 12:02 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> > As Surveyor, it is my pleasure to annouce that the September estate
> auction, for the estate of Cagliostro, has begun.
> >
> > For those of you who are new, please review Rule 2491 (“Estate
> Auctions”). In summary:
> >
> > * Bids may only be placed by announcement.
> > * Players may bid on their own behalf, to win the Estate for themselves.
> > * Players may bid on behalf of any Organization whose charter makes such
> a bid Appropriate, to win the Estate for that Organization.
> >
> > The auction will end in exactly seven days.
> >
> > As is my custom, I pledge as follows:
> >
> > * If there is exactly one winning bid, and it includes a blurb
> describing the region of Cagliostro, of at least 70 words, I will include
> that blurb in at least one future Surveyor’s report if it is possible for
> me to do so.
> >
> > * If there is exactly one winning bid, I will pay Shinies to the player
> who made the bid. The amount paid will be the lesser of 10% the winning
> bid, rounded up, or 50 Shinies. I will do so immediately after resolving
> the auction.
> >
> > I bid 1 Shiny on this auction.
>
> I bid 61 shinies on this auction.
>
> My blurb:
>
> {{{
> Cagliostro is the bread basket of the Agoran realm. Wherever the
> eye may roam, the land rolls in gentle hills and glows with the gold of
> wheat and the green of unripe corn. There is little adventure to find here,
> but much peace.
>
> Visitors to the area are especially encouraged to visit the pubs
> of Port Hugo, where the witbeer - made of and named for the golden wheats
> of the province - is plentiful and crisp. Those of more agrarian tastes
> should visit in the fall, when villages throughout the estate throw
> festivals and parties. A Cagliostrian corn maze is a thing of wonder,
> covering most of an acre.
> }}}
>
> I was all set to reuse CuddleBeam’s blurb, attempted scam and all, and to
> pay em for the privilege so e wouldn’t feel slighted that I locked em out,
> but I don’t feel comfortable helping promote the tired and extremely sexist
> “busty catgirl cafe” trope.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having them.

Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly Secretary’s report 
will do that, thankfully.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having them.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>
>> I was about to mention that lol. Basically: Stamps are gone, or stamps are 
>> gone.
>>
>> I think it's possible to just recalculate each person's true balance based 
>> on Secretary info. The creation of Stamps were just bogus (would your 
>> insight be accurate) but the transactions weren’t.
>
> You’re forgiven for thinking so, but if we invalidate every transaction 
> involving stamps, Agora owns -61 Shinies - which is impossible, because of 
> the way Assets are defined. Invalidating stamp transactions would also imply 
> invalidating a number of other transactions, which may have cascading effects.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I was about to mention that lol. Basically: Stamps are gone, or stamps are 
> gone.
> 
> I think it's possible to just recalculate each person's true balance based on 
> Secretary info. The creation of Stamps were just bogus (would your insight be 
> accurate) but the transactions weren’t.

You’re forgiven for thinking so, but if we invalidate every transaction 
involving stamps, Agora owns -61 Shinies - which is impossible, because of the 
way Assets are defined. Invalidating stamp transactions would also imply 
invalidating a number of other transactions, which may have cascading effects.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> I CFJ on the following statement, paying Agora 1 sh. to do so: "The 
> above-quoted part of Proposal 7871 had no effect.”

I’ve been spending aggressively today for a few reasons, which I thought I’d 
share for discussion and for transparency’s sake:

* It’s cheap. 1 sh. per proposal/per CFJ is the lowest price I can conceive of 
us reaching without a scam. I might as well enjoy it.
* It’s clearly in the game’s interests. I’m not using this period of low prices 
to pend frivolity, and I hope my CFJs are on point, as well. Using this to fix 
obvious defects and to see matters of serious question resolved seems smart.
* It’s clearly in the players’ interests. I have the highest personal Shiny 
balance in the game, and while I do have a plan for the Shinies I’ve 
accumulated, squatting on them directly denies other players the opportunity to 
participate.
* I’m sincerely interested in these matters. I’m literally putting my money 
where my mouth is.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Agoran Offices: Should there be more of them?

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 7, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
> 
>> Agora has many offices. But are there enough? Probably not.
> 
> I intend to award V.J. Rada a D.N.Phil. with 2 Agoran Consent.

I support.

-o

(Distribution list chosen carefully.)



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Proto: Cards are liquid Assets

[Ørjan Johansen]

A previous economic system included a currency, Blots, which could be 
spent to resolve penalties early.


When I was around, the currency was Indulgences, and Blots were the 
penalties you could remove with them.


(At one point the definition was 1 Blot = -1 Indulgence, but that was 
changed later when currencies became more asset-like, or something.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871

[VJ Rada]

I'm not CFJing bc I promised not to spend money but you can if you want to.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> "Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this
>> rule change fails due to ambiguity?"
>>
>> No because "currently" refers to when the proposal was promulgated and
>> it is abundantly clear which rule I mean: there is only one "Rewards"
>> with the sentence being replaced.
>
>
> I am not convinced. It is customary for proposals to contain conditions like
> "if proposal  has passed", which only make sense if conditions are
> evaluated when the proposal takes effect.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


"Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this
rule change fails due to ambiguity?"

No because "currently" refers to when the proposal was promulgated and
it is abundantly clear which rule I mean: there is only one "Rewards"
with the sentence being replaced.


I am not convinced. It is customary for proposals to contain conditions 
like "if proposal  has passed", which only make sense if conditions 
are evaluated when the proposal takes effect.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871

[VJ Rada]

I give myself the reward for both authoring and pending minor fixes.
if agora has any money, of course. poor o.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:14 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> I award myself red, orange and transparent ribbons
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:56 AM, nichdel  wrote:
>> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7869-7871as below.
>>
>> 
>>
>> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
>>  following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
>>  Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!). If a
>>  decision's voting period is still ongoing, I end it immediately
>>  before resolving it and after resolving the previous decision.]
>>
>> ID  Author(s) AI   Title   Pender  Pend fee
>> ---
>> 7869x   babelian  2.0  Agoraculture v. 2.0 babelian10 sh.
>> 7870x   V.J Rada  2.0  Cards are appealable 2.0V.J Rada10 sh.
>> 7871*   V.J Rada  3.0  Minor fixes (sans typos)V.J Rada10 sh.
>>
>> Beginning Quorum: 2
>>
>> |  | 7869 | 7870 | 7871 |
>> |--+--+--+--+
>> |ais523| A| A| F|
>> |Aris  | A| F| F|
>> |Gaelan| P| F| F|
>> |PSS   | A| A| F|
>> |V.J. Rada | P| F| F|
>> |--+--+--+--+
>> |F/A   | 0/3  | 3/2  | 5/0  |
>> |AI| 2.0  | 2.0  | 3.0  |
>> |V | 5| 5| 5|
>> |Q | 2| 2| 2|
>> |P | F| F| T|
>>
>>
>> The full text of the adopted proposal(s) is included below.
>>
>> //
>>
>> ID: 7871
>> Title: Minor fixes (sans typos)
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: V.J Rada
>> Co-author(s):
>>
>>
>> In rule 2474, entitled "Green cards",
>>   replace the text
>> {{When a person is issued a Green Card, they are ENCOURAGED to travel to 
>> the
>> United States.}}
>>   with
>> {{When a person is issued a Green Card, e is ENCOURAGED to travel to the
>> United States. }}
>>
>> In rule 1728, entitled "Dependent Actions"
>>   replace the text
>> {{If the action is to be performed With N Objections, With N Agoran 
>> Consent,
>> or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days earlier. }}
>>   with
>> {{If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran
>> Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days
>> earlier. }}
>>
>> In rule 2446 entitled "The Agoran Newspaper"
>>   Append to the second last paragraph, the sentence
>> {{The Reportor's reports are still subject to the requirements of rule 
>> 2143
>> }}
>>   replace the text
>> {{The Reportor should keep in mind that the goal of eir weekly report
>> is to create
>> more informed population.}}
>>   With
>> {{The Reportor SHALL include at least one piece of information relevant 
>> to
>> Agora in the last week and SHALL write with the goal of creating a more
>> informed population.}}
>>
>> In the rule currently not assigned a number called "Rewards", replace the 
>> text
>>   {{  * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies.}}
>> with
>>   {{ *Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies. This reward can be 
>> claimed
>>   a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and once per 
>> office
>>   per month for a monthly report.}}
>>
>> //
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Proto: Cards are liquid Assets

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 7, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> How about it? Currently, via Agencies, the blame for a certain action goes on 
> who is puppeteered via the Agency, not the puppet-master (I think it may work 
> the same with Contracts but I haven't read the latest draft yet but I'm eager 
> to asap). So this is very similar to that.

Making them assets has some extremely weird consequences.

Right now, being “issued a card” is a singular event. It happens, and the 
recipient may experience long-lived consequences, but the card is not in any 
sense possessed by the recipient for a non-zero length of time.

Making them assets would, I suppose, mean attaching the consequences to the 
asset in some way - if you own a Yellow Card, your voting strength is zero, for 
example. This is more complex than it appears, as - to continue the Yellow Card 
example - the current system causes the consequences to end naturally, whereas 
an Asset must be explicitly destroyed.

A previous economic system included a currency, Blots, which could be spent to 
resolve penalties early.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

Another approach would be wait till your fix is adopted then ratify a
document saying "this proposal was adopted [months ago]". In the mean
time, continue to act like it works. A bit sketchy and very pragmatic
but fully legal after the ratification happens.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 9:07 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> Ratify the floating value, pretending it's always worked?
>
> Ratify all values the Floating Value switch has taken, just to be sure. I 
> actually have records.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 9:07 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Ratify the floating value, pretending it's always worked?

Ratify all values the Floating Value switch has taken, just to be sure. I 
actually have records.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think we can retroactively ratify the floating value to make things work.

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



> On Sep 7, 2017, at 9:06 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:58 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> I believe the guiding CFJ is CFJ 2412 
>>> :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I should read my own citations. This CFJ cites CFJ 2120 
>>> ,
>>> which in turn cites CFJ 1765 
>>> . Reading
>>> that ultimate CFJ is worthwhile; it’s short.
>> 
>> Very valuable sleuthing, thank you.
>> 
>> Key point:  assuming this is still guiding, you still have to have
>> the mechanism ("by announcement") in the Rule.
> 
> I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t still be binding. CFJ 1765 specifically cites 
> Mother, May I, though I haven’t read the history of that rule to see whether 
> the changes are so substantial as to threaten the line of reasoning presented 
> there.
> 
>> Rule 2497 (Floating Value) doesn't even have that much - bet the only way 
>> it's ever changed is ratification…
> 
> … which has happened exactly once. This is a serious problem, as quite a 
> number of actions dependant on the Floating Value have happened.
> 
> Would anyone mind if I pretended that Floating Value has always worked, and 
> RWOed the value after my next report? I believe my proposal titled “Float On” 
> fixes this problem longer-term.
> 
> -o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[VJ Rada]

Ratify the floating value, pretending it's always worked?

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:58 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> I believe the guiding CFJ is CFJ 2412 
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>> I should read my own citations. This CFJ cites CFJ 2120 
>>> ,
>>> which in turn cites CFJ 1765 
>>> . Reading
>>> that ultimate CFJ is worthwhile; it’s short.
>>
>> Very valuable sleuthing, thank you.
>>
>> Key point:  assuming this is still guiding, you still have to have
>> the mechanism ("by announcement") in the Rule.
>
> I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t still be binding. CFJ 1765 specifically cites 
> Mother, May I, though I haven’t read the history of that rule to see whether 
> the changes are so substantial as to threaten the line of reasoning presented 
> there.
>
>> Rule 2497 (Floating Value) doesn't even have that much - bet the only way 
>> it's ever changed is ratification…
>
> … which has happened exactly once. This is a serious problem, as quite a 
> number of actions dependant on the Floating Value have happened.
>
> Would anyone mind if I pretended that Floating Value has always worked, and 
> RWOed the value after my next report? I believe my proposal titled “Float On” 
> fixes this problem longer-term.
>
> -o



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:58 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> I believe the guiding CFJ is CFJ 2412 
>> :
>> 
>> 
>> I should read my own citations. This CFJ cites CFJ 2120 
>> ,
>> which in turn cites CFJ 1765 
>> . Reading
>> that ultimate CFJ is worthwhile; it’s short.
> 
> Very valuable sleuthing, thank you.
> 
> Key point:  assuming this is still guiding, you still have to have
> the mechanism ("by announcement") in the Rule.

I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t still be binding. CFJ 1765 specifically cites 
Mother, May I, though I haven’t read the history of that rule to see whether 
the changes are so substantial as to threaten the line of reasoning presented 
there.

> Rule 2497 (Floating Value) doesn't even have that much - bet the only way 
> it's ever changed is ratification…

… which has happened exactly once. This is a serious problem, as quite a number 
of actions dependant on the Floating Value have happened.

Would anyone mind if I pretended that Floating Value has always worked, and 
RWOed the value after my next report? I believe my proposal titled “Float On” 
fixes this problem longer-term.

-o


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871

[VJ Rada]

"Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this
rule change fails due to ambiguity?"

No because "currently" refers to when the proposal was promulgated and
it is abundantly clear which rule I mean: there is only one "Rewards"
with the sentence being replaced.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I think it fails because "the rule currently not assigned a number called
> "Rewards"," just doesn't exist anymore. I think it would fail similarly to
> how something like "In the rule called 'Cuddlebeam is amazing', add: yadda
> yadda" would also fail, because such a rule just doesn't exist.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, nichdel wrote:
>>
>>> In the rule currently not assigned a number called "Rewards", replace the
>>> text
>>>  {{  * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies.}}
>>> with
>>>  {{ *Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies. This reward can be
>>> claimed
>>>  a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and once per
>>> office
>>>  per month for a monthly report.}}
>>
>>
>> Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this rule
>> change fails due to ambiguity?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Kerim Aydin]

Silly me of course I knew that.  I was conflating it with my other idea of
making it One Big File for loading/searching.  Don't mind it being public,
I'll twiddle it when I'm off mobile (might be tomorrow).

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> GitHub also generates tar balls for private repositories.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:54 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>  On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>  On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >> Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to 
> >> transfer
> >> the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em.
>  
>  I wondered about this but I didn't like to say anything.
>  
>  I never got an answer to my question about whether SHALL implies CAN is
>  good standing precedent (e.g. setting the Floating Value).
>  
>  If it is, and there's a good argument in whatever CFJ, it might be
>  extended to MAY implies CAN.
>  
>  Or maybe not.
> >>> 
> >>> Is there any chance you can send me a copy of the CFJ archive in a 
> >>> grep-friendly form? The web view is great, but it’s hard to search.
> >> 
> >> *sigh* I just never got around to that search function did I.  It's 
> >> niggled at me
> >> on occasion, sorry.
> >> 
> >> Immediate solutions:
> >> 
> >> - Looping through cases with no ? or # before the number gives you raw 
> >> text versions:
> >>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3543
> >> 
> >> - It's on github but private I think, I can make public later.
> > 
> > As an interim solution, if you collab me into the repo (github username: 
> > ojacobson) I promise not to fork it or push to it.
> > 
> >> - I could make a snapshot tarball/big file, main reason I didn't is didn't 
> >> want
> >>  to maintain more stuff, but I could update that every few months.
> > 
> > If it’s public on Github, they’ll do this for you.
> > 
> > -o
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> I believe for a good of Agora reason, we shouldn’t allow it to be tied 
> together and must require to explicit CANs.

I tend to agree.

If a player fails to complete a SHALL, they’ve broken the rules. This is 
pointlessly cruel if the SHALL-constrained action isn’t possible, and it makes 
no sense to impose such a constraint on impossible actions generically. 
Specific exceptions, were we to ever want one, could easily be handled 
explicitly, by stating that a player both SHALL and CANNOT perform an action.

If a player fails to complete a MAY, nothing happens. There’s no similarly 
forceful argument that a player who MAY do something without breaking the rules 
must necessarily have the ability to do so. As an example, there are plenty of 
things I MAY do without breaking the rules that are nonetheless ineffective - 
granting Patent Titles springs to mind.

I doubt it was originally meant to be interpreted this way, but this clause

> The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unrestricted actions.

suggests that the Referee can card people for their thoughts, where such 
thoughts can be reasonably inferred from eir actions and writing...

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I believe the guiding CFJ is CFJ 2412 
> :
> 
> 
> I should read my own citations. This CFJ cites CFJ 2120 
> , 
> which in turn cites CFJ 1765 
> . Reading
> that ultimate CFJ is worthwhile; it’s short.

Very valuable sleuthing, thank you.

Key point:  assuming this is still guiding, you still have to have
the mechanism ("by announcement") in the Rule.  Rule 2497 (Floating Value)
doesn't even have that much - bet the only way it's ever changed
is ratification...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

GitHub also generates tar balls for private repositories.

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



> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:54 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
 On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
 
 
 
 On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to transfer
>> the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em.
 
 I wondered about this but I didn't like to say anything.
 
 I never got an answer to my question about whether SHALL implies CAN is
 good standing precedent (e.g. setting the Floating Value).
 
 If it is, and there's a good argument in whatever CFJ, it might be
 extended to MAY implies CAN.
 
 Or maybe not.
>>> 
>>> Is there any chance you can send me a copy of the CFJ archive in a 
>>> grep-friendly form? The web view is great, but it’s hard to search.
>> 
>> *sigh* I just never got around to that search function did I.  It's niggled 
>> at me
>> on occasion, sorry.
>> 
>> Immediate solutions:
>> 
>> - Looping through cases with no ? or # before the number gives you raw text 
>> versions:
>>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3543
>> 
>> - It's on github but private I think, I can make public later.
> 
> As an interim solution, if you collab me into the repo (github username: 
> ojacobson) I promise not to fork it or push to it.
> 
>> - I could make a snapshot tarball/big file, main reason I didn't is didn't 
>> want
>>  to maintain more stuff, but I could update that every few months.
> 
> If it’s public on Github, they’ll do this for you.
> 
> -o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: protest voting intention

[Quazie]

I dislike free parking because it perpetuates the worst monopoly house rule
- fines and fees are supposed to vanish to the bank, not be some magic
money pool that causes a game that should be about auctions and
negotiations into a perpetual slog where nothing interesting happens.
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 17:52 Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Ah, OK. Well, if it's cool with you then I think it can be pretty good.
>
> I also like the free parking idea.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> I would make it the Secretary/Treasuror’s responsibility to mediate it,
>> as that information is incidental to tracking e already has to do.
>>
>> Source: am Secretary, have a perfectly good picture of everyone’s Shinies
>> at all times.
>>
>> -o
>>
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>
>> Socialism : D
>>
>> I'm alright with it, but the logistics for knowing who is the benefactor
>> of it might be a hassle, because we don't always have a clear image of what
>> everyone's balance is a lot of the time.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I like this.
>>> 
>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:06 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>  It doesn't take 30 days due to a bug.
>>> >>> [...]
>>>  I'd think about doing so as a protest; the difficulty towards casual
>>>  player economic participation has been pointed out and so far in
>>>  conversations, the designers of the system either aren't seeing the
>>>  great urgency to fix it, or think it's a feature.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Actually, as I think of it, maybe some political hardball is in order
>>> >>> here (there's not enough political wheeling-dealing that goes along
>>> >>> here - among other things, this game is legislative simulation after
>>> >>> all!)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The registration bug is a form of economic protest, usable by the
>>> >>> have-nots.  So I state my intention:  I will vote AGAINST any fix to
>>> >>> the registration bug (which requires AI-3 to pass) until economic
>>> >>> reforms for basic income are included/addressed.
>>> >>
>>> >> I am, at least, already well convinced of the necessity. I just
>>> haven’t made the time to write a proposal about it. I do have a couple of
>>> loose ideas:
>>> >>
>>> >> * Allow any player to receive a payment from Agora at most once a
>>> week, without objection, if and only if no player has fewer shinies than
>>> they do.
>>> >>
>>> >> * Allow the Secretary/Treasuror to cause Agora to pay anyone, with
>>> consent, out of Agora’s coffers, with a SHOULD guideline to use that power
>>> to compensate for income gaps, or at the expense of immediately triggering
>>> an election for the office, or something.
>>> >
>>> > * Redirect some proportion of each payment to Agora to the player with
>>> the fewest Shinies, with a mechanism for breaking ties (such as “in
>>> registration order”).
>>> >
>>> > -o
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to transfer
> the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em.
>>> 
>>> I wondered about this but I didn't like to say anything.
>>> 
>>> I never got an answer to my question about whether SHALL implies CAN is
>>> good standing precedent (e.g. setting the Floating Value).
>>> 
>>> If it is, and there's a good argument in whatever CFJ, it might be
>>> extended to MAY implies CAN.
>>> 
>>> Or maybe not.
>> 
>> Is there any chance you can send me a copy of the CFJ archive in a 
>> grep-friendly form? The web view is great, but it’s hard to search.
> 
> *sigh* I just never got around to that search function did I.  It's niggled 
> at me
> on occasion, sorry.
> 
> Immediate solutions:
> 
> - Looping through cases with no ? or # before the number gives you raw text 
> versions:
>   https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3543
> 
> - It's on github but private I think, I can make public later.

As an interim solution, if you collab me into the repo (github username: 
ojacobson) I promise not to fork it or push to it.

> - I could make a snapshot tarball/big file, main reason I didn't is didn't 
> want
>   to maintain more stuff, but I could update that every few months.

If it’s public on Github, they’ll do this for you.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: protest voting intention

[Cuddle Beam]

Ah, OK. Well, if it's cool with you then I think it can be pretty good.

I also like the free parking idea.



On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> I would make it the Secretary/Treasuror’s responsibility to mediate it, as
> that information is incidental to tracking e already has to do.
>
> Source: am Secretary, have a perfectly good picture of everyone’s Shinies
> at all times.
>
> -o
>
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
> Socialism : D
>
> I'm alright with it, but the logistics for knowing who is the benefactor
> of it might be a hassle, because we don't always have a clear image of what
> everyone's balance is a lot of the time.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I like this.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:06 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>  It doesn't take 30 days due to a bug.
>> >>> [...]
>>  I'd think about doing so as a protest; the difficulty towards casual
>>  player economic participation has been pointed out and so far in
>>  conversations, the designers of the system either aren't seeing the
>>  great urgency to fix it, or think it's a feature.
>> >>>
>> >>> Actually, as I think of it, maybe some political hardball is in order
>> >>> here (there's not enough political wheeling-dealing that goes along
>> >>> here - among other things, this game is legislative simulation after
>> >>> all!)
>> >>>
>> >>> The registration bug is a form of economic protest, usable by the
>> >>> have-nots.  So I state my intention:  I will vote AGAINST any fix to
>> >>> the registration bug (which requires AI-3 to pass) until economic
>> >>> reforms for basic income are included/addressed.
>> >>
>> >> I am, at least, already well convinced of the necessity. I just
>> haven’t made the time to write a proposal about it. I do have a couple of
>> loose ideas:
>> >>
>> >> * Allow any player to receive a payment from Agora at most once a
>> week, without objection, if and only if no player has fewer shinies than
>> they do.
>> >>
>> >> * Allow the Secretary/Treasuror to cause Agora to pay anyone, with
>> consent, out of Agora’s coffers, with a SHOULD guideline to use that power
>> to compensate for income gaps, or at the expense of immediately triggering
>> an election for the office, or something.
>> >
>> > * Redirect some proportion of each payment to Agora to the player with
>> the fewest Shinies, with a mechanism for breaking ties (such as “in
>> registration order”).
>> >
>> > -o
>>
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: 
> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >>> Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to transfer
> >>> the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em.
> > 
> > I wondered about this but I didn't like to say anything.
> > 
> > I never got an answer to my question about whether SHALL implies CAN is
> > good standing precedent (e.g. setting the Floating Value).
> > 
> > If it is, and there's a good argument in whatever CFJ, it might be
> > extended to MAY implies CAN.
> > 
> > Or maybe not.
> 
> Is there any chance you can send me a copy of the CFJ archive in a 
> grep-friendly form? The web view is great, but it’s hard to search.

*sigh* I just never got around to that search function did I.  It's niggled at 
me
on occasion, sorry.

Immediate solutions:

- Looping through cases with no ? or # before the number gives you raw text 
versions:
   https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3543

- It's on github but private I think, I can make public later.

- I could make a snapshot tarball/big file, main reason I didn't is didn't want
   to maintain more stuff, but I could update that every few months.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:49 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
 Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to transfer
 the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em.
>> 
>> I wondered about this but I didn't like to say anything.
>> 
>> I never got an answer to my question about whether SHALL implies CAN is
>> good standing precedent (e.g. setting the Floating Value).
>> 
>> If it is, and there's a good argument in whatever CFJ, it might be
>> extended to MAY implies CAN.
> 
> I believe the guiding CFJ is CFJ 2412 
>  >:

I should read my own citations. This CFJ cites CFJ 2120 
>, which in turn cites 
CFJ 1765 >. Reading that 
ultimate CFJ is worthwhile; it’s short.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I believe for a good of Agora reason, we shouldn’t allow it to be tied together 
and must require to explicit CANs.

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



> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:49 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
 Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to transfer
 the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em.
>> 
>> I wondered about this but I didn't like to say anything.
>> 
>> I never got an answer to my question about whether SHALL implies CAN is
>> good standing precedent (e.g. setting the Floating Value).
>> 
>> If it is, and there's a good argument in whatever CFJ, it might be
>> extended to MAY implies CAN.
> 
> I believe the guiding CFJ is CFJ 2412 
> :
> 
>> Judge ehird's Arguments:
>> 
>> "X SHALL Y by Z" is fairly obvious shorthand for "X CAN Y by Z and X
>> SHALL Y using the mechanism Z". The two things are separate.
>> 
>> And "SHALL NOT" does not in any way imply CANNOT. There are actions we
>> CAN perform, but SHALL NOT. The SHALL NOT only cancels the SHALL; not
>> the CAN. (In fact, the SHALL might take precedence of it; I'm assuming
>> SHALL NOT power > SHALL).
> 
> I can’t see anything that would invalidate it as precedent. Unfortunately, 
> ehird did not see fit to clarify the reasoning behind eir finding, so I think 
> it might be worth hashing it out anew in this CFJ.
> 
> -o
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to transfer
>>> the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em.
> 
> I wondered about this but I didn't like to say anything.
> 
> I never got an answer to my question about whether SHALL implies CAN is
> good standing precedent (e.g. setting the Floating Value).
> 
> If it is, and there's a good argument in whatever CFJ, it might be
> extended to MAY implies CAN.

I believe the guiding CFJ is CFJ 2412 
>:

> Judge ehird's Arguments:
> 
> "X SHALL Y by Z" is fairly obvious shorthand for "X CAN Y by Z and X
> SHALL Y using the mechanism Z". The two things are separate.
> 
> And "SHALL NOT" does not in any way imply CANNOT. There are actions we
> CAN perform, but SHALL NOT. The SHALL NOT only cancels the SHALL; not
> the CAN. (In fact, the SHALL might take precedence of it; I'm assuming
> SHALL NOT power > SHALL).

I can’t see anything that would invalidate it as precedent. Unfortunately, 
ehird did not see fit to clarify the reasoning behind eir finding, so I think 
it might be worth hashing it out anew in this CFJ.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: protest voting intention

[Kerim Aydin]

I started coming up with a mechanism, but it turned into its own little
game that might be too unstable for basic income:

Free Parking.

Fines or other payments go to free parking.

You can grab everything from Free Parking if your balance is below something.

However, you can't grab from free parking if you have in the last [long time,
I'd say at least 2 months].

How big do you let free parking get before you grab?

Alternate:  you can't grab from free parking until everyone else has.
Last person to grab gets lots (probably unworkable though).

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Socialism : D
> I'm alright with it, but the logistics for knowing who is the benefactor of 
> it 
> might be a hassle, because we don't always have a clear image of what 
> everyone's 
> balance is a lot of the time.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to transfer
>>> the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em.
> 
> I wondered about this but I didn't like to say anything.
> 
> I never got an answer to my question about whether SHALL implies CAN is
> good standing precedent (e.g. setting the Floating Value).
> 
> If it is, and there's a good argument in whatever CFJ, it might be
> extended to MAY implies CAN.
> 
> Or maybe not.

Is there any chance you can send me a copy of the CFJ archive in a 
grep-friendly form? The web view is great, but it’s hard to search.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stamp CAN patches

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> So. You paid the game, but the game itself is made up all of our actions, 
> including the payment you just did. So there's a part of your payment that 
> paid itself.

[...]

> Treating the game itself as an abstract entity has a fairly long history in 
> Agora. Have a look at the definition of “singleton” switches, and associated
> CFJs, too.

While it's no problem or anything, I've always mentally pictured "Agora the
owning entity" as the bank in Monopoly or something, distinct from "Agora the
gamestate".

So thinking of it as gamestate, "the state of having been transferred a shiny
has been transferred a shiny" kind of makes be go whoa, dude.

Thanks for that.

DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to transfer 
> >the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em.

I wondered about this but I didn't like to say anything.

I never got an answer to my question about whether SHALL implies CAN is
good standing precedent (e.g. setting the Floating Value).

If it is, and there's a good argument in whatever CFJ, it might be
extended to MAY implies CAN.

Or maybe not.

Re: DIS: protest voting intention

[Owen Jacobson]

I would make it the Secretary/Treasuror’s responsibility to mediate it, as that 
information is incidental to tracking e already has to do.

Source: am Secretary, have a perfectly good picture of everyone’s Shinies at 
all times.

-o

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> Socialism : D
> 
> I'm alright with it, but the logistics for knowing who is the benefactor of 
> it might be a hassle, because we don't always have a clear image of what 
> everyone's balance is a lot of the time.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  > wrote:
> I like this.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Owen Jacobson  > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:06 PM, Owen Jacobson  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin  >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>  It doesn't take 30 days due to a bug.
> >>> [...]
>  I'd think about doing so as a protest; the difficulty towards casual
>  player economic participation has been pointed out and so far in
>  conversations, the designers of the system either aren't seeing the
>  great urgency to fix it, or think it's a feature.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, as I think of it, maybe some political hardball is in order
> >>> here (there's not enough political wheeling-dealing that goes along
> >>> here - among other things, this game is legislative simulation after
> >>> all!)
> >>>
> >>> The registration bug is a form of economic protest, usable by the
> >>> have-nots.  So I state my intention:  I will vote AGAINST any fix to
> >>> the registration bug (which requires AI-3 to pass) until economic
> >>> reforms for basic income are included/addressed.
> >>
> >> I am, at least, already well convinced of the necessity. I just haven’t 
> >> made the time to write a proposal about it. I do have a couple of loose 
> >> ideas:
> >>
> >> * Allow any player to receive a payment from Agora at most once a week, 
> >> without objection, if and only if no player has fewer shinies than they do.
> >>
> >> * Allow the Secretary/Treasuror to cause Agora to pay anyone, with 
> >> consent, out of Agora’s coffers, with a SHOULD guideline to use that power 
> >> to compensate for income gaps, or at the expense of immediately triggering 
> >> an election for the office, or something.
> >
> > * Redirect some proportion of each payment to Agora to the player with the 
> > fewest Shinies, with a mechanism for breaking ties (such as “in 
> > registration order”).
> >
> > -o
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: protest voting intention

[Cuddle Beam]

Socialism : D

I'm alright with it, but the logistics for knowing who is the benefactor of
it might be a hassle, because we don't always have a clear image of what
everyone's balance is a lot of the time.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I like this.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:06 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>  It doesn't take 30 days due to a bug.
> >>> [...]
>  I'd think about doing so as a protest; the difficulty towards casual
>  player economic participation has been pointed out and so far in
>  conversations, the designers of the system either aren't seeing the
>  great urgency to fix it, or think it's a feature.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, as I think of it, maybe some political hardball is in order
> >>> here (there's not enough political wheeling-dealing that goes along
> >>> here - among other things, this game is legislative simulation after
> >>> all!)
> >>>
> >>> The registration bug is a form of economic protest, usable by the
> >>> have-nots.  So I state my intention:  I will vote AGAINST any fix to
> >>> the registration bug (which requires AI-3 to pass) until economic
> >>> reforms for basic income are included/addressed.
> >>
> >> I am, at least, already well convinced of the necessity. I just haven’t
> made the time to write a proposal about it. I do have a couple of loose
> ideas:
> >>
> >> * Allow any player to receive a payment from Agora at most once a week,
> without objection, if and only if no player has fewer shinies than they do.
> >>
> >> * Allow the Secretary/Treasuror to cause Agora to pay anyone, with
> consent, out of Agora’s coffers, with a SHOULD guideline to use that power
> to compensate for income gaps, or at the expense of immediately triggering
> an election for the office, or something.
> >
> > * Redirect some proportion of each payment to Agora to the player with
> the fewest Shinies, with a mechanism for breaking ties (such as “in
> registration order”).
> >
> > -o
>
>

Re: DIS: protest voting intention

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I like this.

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



> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:06 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 It doesn't take 30 days due to a bug.
>>> [...]
 I'd think about doing so as a protest; the difficulty towards casual
 player economic participation has been pointed out and so far in
 conversations, the designers of the system either aren't seeing the
 great urgency to fix it, or think it's a feature.
>>> 
>>> Actually, as I think of it, maybe some political hardball is in order
>>> here (there's not enough political wheeling-dealing that goes along
>>> here - among other things, this game is legislative simulation after
>>> all!)
>>> 
>>> The registration bug is a form of economic protest, usable by the
>>> have-nots.  So I state my intention:  I will vote AGAINST any fix to
>>> the registration bug (which requires AI-3 to pass) until economic
>>> reforms for basic income are included/addressed.
>> 
>> I am, at least, already well convinced of the necessity. I just haven’t made 
>> the time to write a proposal about it. I do have a couple of loose ideas:
>> 
>> * Allow any player to receive a payment from Agora at most once a week, 
>> without objection, if and only if no player has fewer shinies than they do.
>> 
>> * Allow the Secretary/Treasuror to cause Agora to pay anyone, with consent, 
>> out of Agora’s coffers, with a SHOULD guideline to use that power to 
>> compensate for income gaps, or at the expense of immediately triggering an 
>> election for the office, or something.
> 
> * Redirect some proportion of each payment to Agora to the player with the 
> fewest Shinies, with a mechanism for breaking ties (such as “in registration 
> order”).
> 
> -o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stamp CAN patches

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:19 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> >I pay Agora 1 sh. to pend this proposal.
> 
> Philosophical hocus pocus but you have pretty much paid the action of 
> performing that very payment itself (or at least part of the payment is), 
> because Agora itself is: "a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in 
> accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of 
> these actions via Fora  in order to 
> play the game."
> 
> So. You paid the game, but the game itself is made up all of our actions, 
> including the payment you just did. So there's a part of your payment that 
> paid itself.

This philosophical conundrum is directly addressed in the rule titled “Assets.” 
Payment is the transfer of an asset from one owner to another, and Agora, in 
the abstract, is defined as being able to own assets (as well as being able to 
own Shinies specifically). We could just as easily define a separate legal 
fiction to be the fallback owner for assets.

Treating the game itself as an abstract entity has a fairly long history in 
Agora. Have a look at the definition of “singleton” switches, and associated 
CFJs, too.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871

[Cuddle Beam]

I think it fails because "the rule currently not assigned a number called
"Rewards"," just doesn't exist anymore. I think it would fail similarly to
how something like "In the rule called 'Cuddlebeam is amazing', add: yadda
yadda" would also fail, because such a rule just doesn't exist.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, nichdel wrote:
>
> In the rule currently not assigned a number called "Rewards", replace the
>> text
>>  {{  * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies.}}
>> with
>>  {{ *Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies. This reward can be
>> claimed
>>  a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and once per
>> office
>>  per month for a monthly report.}}
>>
>
> Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this rule
> change fails due to ambiguity?
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stamp CAN patches

[Cuddle Beam]

>I pay Agora 1 sh. to pend this proposal.

Philosophical hocus pocus but you have pretty much paid the action of
performing that very payment itself (or at least part of the payment is),
because Agora itself is: "a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in
accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of
these actions via Fora  in order
to play the game."

So. You paid the game, but the game itself is made up all of our actions,
including the payment you just did. So there's a part of your payment that
paid itself.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:39 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> > I submit the following proposal, and pay Agora 1 sh. to pend it.
> >
> > Title: Stamp CAN Patch
> > Author: o
> > Co-Authors: V.J Rada, Aris, ais523
> > AI: 1.0
>
> I retract the proposal “Stamp CAN Patch” and submit the following propsal
> in its place.
>
> Title: Stamp CAN Patch
> Author: o
> Co-Authors: V.J Rada, Aris, ais523
> AI: 1.0
>
> {{{
> Amend rule 2498 ("Economic Wins") by replacing its text, in full,
> with:
>
> {{{
> Stamps are an asset. The Secretary is the recordkeepor of Stamps.
>
> The Stamp Value is always 1/5th the current Floating Value.
>
> Once per month, a player CAN, by announcement, create a stamp
> by transferring the Stamp Value, in shinies, to Agora.
>
> If Agora owns at least as many Shinies as the current Stamp
> Value, a player CAN, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns to
> cause Agora to transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to emself.
>
> If a player owns Stamps created by at least 10 different
> players, e CAN win the game by announcement, by destroying 10
> stamps e owns, each of which was created by a distinct player.
> }}}
> }}}
>
> I pay Agora 1 sh. to pend this proposal.
>
> -o
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, nichdel wrote:


In the rule currently not assigned a number called "Rewards", replace the text
 {{  * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies.}}
with
 {{ *Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies. This reward can be claimed
 a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and once per office
 per month for a monthly report.}}


Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this rule 
change fails due to ambiguity?


Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Cuddle Beam]

I like how this aspect of nomic feels like Poker lol.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
> > $ echo 'It is possible to win by destroying Stamps in the possession of
> others' | shasum -a 256
> > 204aa33ed7c42e58d6f391b3878dc89738c8a1bb95b39b3ebcda2609c1fabe3c  -
>
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:55 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>
> > Can you explain to a technological neophate how to decrypt that?
>
> It’s not really encryption, so you can’t decrypt it. The idea is that the
> ‘sha256’ algorithm takes a document as input, and produces an opaque value
> as output. The output value has the interesting property that if two
> outputs are equal, it is nearly certain[0] that the inputs are equal.
>
> Yesterday, I said I knew something whose SHA256 hash is
> 204aa33ed7c42e58d6f391b3878dc89738c8a1bb95b39b3ebcda2609c1fabe3c.
>
> Today, I provided the input document, and a command you can use to verify
> that it has the same hash. This means it’s almost certainly the same
> document I already knew, yesterday - you can verify it yourself, without
> having to have access to either a time machine or psychic powers.
>
> Gaelan did a similar thing, though he used a larger hash.
>
> -o
>
> [0] Specifically, given to arbitrary documents as inputs, there is a 1 in
> 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,687,907,853,269,
> 984,665,640,564,039,457,584,007,913,129,639,936 chance that they have the
> same SHA256 hash. For all intents and purposes, unless there’s an
> as-yet-undiscovered weakness in the algorithm, a SHA256 hash uniquely
> identifies a document.
>

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

[Owen Jacobson]

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> $ echo 'It is possible to win by destroying Stamps in the possession of 
> others' | shasum -a 256
> 204aa33ed7c42e58d6f391b3878dc89738c8a1bb95b39b3ebcda2609c1fabe3c  -

On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:55 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> Can you explain to a technological neophate how to decrypt that?

It’s not really encryption, so you can’t decrypt it. The idea is that the 
‘sha256’ algorithm takes a document as input, and produces an opaque value as 
output. The output value has the interesting property that if two outputs are 
equal, it is nearly certain[0] that the inputs are equal.

Yesterday, I said I knew something whose SHA256 hash is 
204aa33ed7c42e58d6f391b3878dc89738c8a1bb95b39b3ebcda2609c1fabe3c.

Today, I provided the input document, and a command you can use to verify that 
it has the same hash. This means it’s almost certainly the same document I 
already knew, yesterday - you can verify it yourself, without having to have 
access to either a time machine or psychic powers.

Gaelan did a similar thing, though he used a larger hash.

-o

[0] Specifically, given to arbitrary documents as inputs, there is a 1 in 
115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,687,907,853,269,984,665,640,564,039,457,584,007,913,129,639,936
 chance that they have the same SHA256 hash. For all intents and purposes, 
unless there’s an as-yet-undiscovered weakness in the algorithm, a SHA256 hash 
uniquely identifies a document.


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[Nic Evans]

On 09/07/17 18:53, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>> Seeing as I have to recordkeep the damn thing, I also so pledge. Gaelan, can 
>> you send that my way, as well? My From: address is fine.
>>
>> Note that I am already in possession of information whose sha256 is 
>> 204aa33ed7c42e58d6f391b3878dc89738c8a1bb95b39b3ebcda2609c1fabe3c which is 
>> likely relevant, and I make no promises about exploiting _that_ information. 
>> If the two are substantially the same, then you’ll just have to trust me to 
>> do the right thing.
> Since the cat’s out of the bag on this:
>
> $ echo 'It is possible to win by destroying Stamps in the possession of 
> others' | shasum -a 256
> 204aa33ed7c42e58d6f391b3878dc89738c8a1bb95b39b3ebcda2609c1fabe3c  -

Note that this still doesn't allow cashing in others' stamps because
that's a MAY, not a CAN.

>
> -o
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[VJ Rada]

Can you explain to a technological neophate how to decrypt that?

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>> Seeing as I have to recordkeep the damn thing, I also so pledge. Gaelan, can 
>> you send that my way, as well? My From: address is fine.
>>
>> Note that I am already in possession of information whose sha256 is 
>> 204aa33ed7c42e58d6f391b3878dc89738c8a1bb95b39b3ebcda2609c1fabe3c which is 
>> likely relevant, and I make no promises about exploiting _that_ information. 
>> If the two are substantially the same, then you’ll just have to trust me to 
>> do the right thing.
>
> Since the cat’s out of the bag on this:
>
> $ echo 'It is possible to win by destroying Stamps in the possession of 
> others' | shasum -a 256
> 204aa33ed7c42e58d6f391b3878dc89738c8a1bb95b39b3ebcda2609c1fabe3c  -
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

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

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> Seeing as I have to recordkeep the damn thing, I also so pledge. Gaelan, can 
> you send that my way, as well? My From: address is fine.
> 
> Note that I am already in possession of information whose sha256 is 
> 204aa33ed7c42e58d6f391b3878dc89738c8a1bb95b39b3ebcda2609c1fabe3c which is 
> likely relevant, and I make no promises about exploiting _that_ information. 
> If the two are substantially the same, then you’ll just have to trust me to 
> do the right thing.

Since the cat’s out of the bag on this:

$ echo 'It is possible to win by destroying Stamps in the possession of others' 
| shasum -a 256
204aa33ed7c42e58d6f391b3878dc89738c8a1bb95b39b3ebcda2609c1fabe3c  -

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Agency Typo Fix

[Cuddle Beam]

my keks, them some dank maymays xD

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> I submit the following proposal, and pay Agora 1 sh. to pend it.
>
> Title: Agency Typo Fix
> Author: o
> Co-authors:
> AI: 1.0
>
> {{{
> Amend rule 2467 ("Agencies") by replacing the phrase "may may" with
> the word "may" wherever it appears.
> }}}
>
> -o
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7872-7875

[VJ Rada]

You probably already know this: but you didn't resolve 3869-3871:
"minor fixes" by me, "cards are appealable 2.0" by me and
"agoraculture 2.0" by babalien.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:47 AM, nichdel  wrote:
> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 78572-7875as below.
>
> 
>
> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
>  following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
>  Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!). If a
>  decision's voting period is still ongoing, I end it immediately
>  before resolving it and after resolving the previous decision.]
>
> ID Author(s) AI   Title   Pender  Pend fee
> ---
> 7872*  o 2.0  Estate Auction Cleanup  o   1 AP
> 7873*  o, babelian   2.0  Agoracultureo   1 AP
> 7874*  o 2.0  Shorter Apologies   o   3 sh.
> 7845*  nichdel   1.0  Better Accounting   o   1 AP
>
> || 7872 | 7873 | 7874 | 7875 |
> |+--+--+--+--+
> |Aris| F| P| F| F|
> |nichdel | P| P| F| F|
> |o   | F| F| F| F|
> |+--+--+--+--+
> |F/A | 2/0  | 1/0  | 3/0  | 3/0  |
> |AI  | 2.0  | 2.0  | 2.0  | 1.0  |
> |V   | 3| 3| 3| 3|
> |Q   | 3| 3| 3| 3|
> |P   | T| T| T| T|
>
>
> The full text of the adopted proposal(s) is included below.
>
> //
> ID: 7872
> Title: Estate Auction Cleanup
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: o
> Co-authors:
>
>
> In Rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions"), replace the second paragraph with:
>
>   During an auction, any player may bid a number of Shinies on eir
>   own behalf by announcement, or on behalf of any Organization for
>   which such a bid is Appropriate by announcement, provided the bid
>   is higher than any previously-placed bid in the same auction.
>
>   If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid, then
>   that player or Organization wins the auction. The player who
>   placed the winning bid CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned
>   Estate to the winner by announcement, by paying Agora the amount
>   of the bid, or by causing the winning Organization to pay Agora
>   the amount of the bid. E SHALL do so in a timely fashion.
>
>
> //
> ID: 7873
> Title: Agoraculture
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: o
> Co-authors: babelian
>
>
> Enact a new rule, with power 1.0, titled "Farm Rate", with the following text:
>
>   The Farm Rate is a natural singleton switch, tracked by the
>   Agronomist.
>
> Set the Farm Rate to 20.
>
> Enact a new rule, with power 2.0, titled "Agoraculture", with the following
> text:
>
>   Each Estate has a Farm switch, tracked by the Agronomist, with
>   values "farmed" and "unfarmed", defaulting to "unfarmed". Changes
>   to Farm switches are secured. An Estate whose Farm switch is
>   "farmed" is a Farm, and its owner is the Farmer of that Estate.
>
>   In the first week of an Agoran month, the owner of an unfarmed
>   Estate MAY flip its Farm switch to "farmed" by announcement, if e
>   pays Agora a number of shinies equal to the Farm Rate.
>
>   In the first week of an Agoran month, the owner of a Farm MAY till
>   the farm by announcement, if e pays Agora a number of shinies equal
>   to the Farm Rate. If the Farmer of an Estate does not till it
>   within the first week of an Agoran month, the Agronomist CAN flip
>   its Farm switch to "unfarmed" by announcement, and SHALL do so in a
>   timely fashion.
>
>   When an Estate is transferred to Agora or to an Organization, its
>   Farm switch is set to "unfarmed" immediately afterwards.
>
> Enact a new rule, with power 2.0, titled "Comestibles", with the following 
> text:
>
>   A Comestible is a type of liquid asset, which can be owned by
>   players. Creating Comestibles is secured. The recordkeepor of
>   Comestibles is the Agronomist.
>
>   The Farmer of an Estate may offer Comestibles by announcement,
>   naming a number of Comestibles offered and a price per Comestible
>   in Shinies. A player CANNOT offer more Comestibles in a month than
>   10 times the number of Farms e owns. The Farmer is ENCOURAGED to
>   name the kind of Comestibles on offer after a plant, vegetable,
>   grain, livestock, or other farm good.
>
>   A player other than the offering Farmer may accept a Comestibles
>   offer by announcement to create that number of Comestibles in eir
>   possession, if e pays the offering Farmer the price per Comestible
>   named in the offer times the number of Comestbiles offered. The
>   Value of a Comestible created this 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7872-7875

[Owen Jacobson]

> 7874*  o 2.0  Shorter Apologies   o   3 sh.

I claim a reward of 1 sh. for authoring this proposal, and a reward of 1 sh. 
for pending it.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stamp CAN patches

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 7:42 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:40 PM Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, and pay Agora 1 sh. to pend it.
> 
> Title: Stamp CAN Patch
> Author: o
> Co-Authors: V.J Rada, Aris, ais523
> AI: 1.0
> 
> {{{
> Amend rule 2498 ("Economic Wins") by replacing its text, in full,
> with:
> 
> {{{
> Stamps are an asset. The Secretary is the recordkeepor of Stamps.
> 
> The Stamp Value is always 1/5th the current Floating Value.
> 
> Once per month, a player CAN, by announcement, create a stamp
> by transferring the Stamp Value, in shinies, to Agora.
> 
> If Agora owns at least as many Shinies as the current Stamp
> Value, a player CAN, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns to
> cause Agora to transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to emself.
> 
> If a player owns Stamps created by at least 10 different
> players, e CAN destroy 10 stamps made by 10 different players
> by announcement to win the game.
> 
> The way I read this, e CAN destroy stamps owned by any player if e has at 
> least 10 emself. I don't think that's what you were going for.

Sorry, nichdel, you’re rumbled.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stamp CAN patches

[VJ Rada]

"If a player owns Stamps created by at least 10 different
players, e CAN destroy 10 stamps made by 10 different players
by announcement to win the game."

should be amended to

"If a player owns Stamps created by at least 10 different
players, e CAN destroy THOSE STAMPS
by announcement to win the game."

The rule as you have it would allow someone who has 10 different
stamps to destroy other peoples' stamps to win, thus winning possibly
multiple times.


On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, and pay Agora 1 sh. to pend it.
>
> Title: Stamp CAN Patch
> Author: o
> Co-Authors: V.J Rada, Aris, ais523
> AI: 1.0
>
> {{{
> Amend rule 2498 ("Economic Wins") by replacing its text, in full,
> with:
>
> {{{
> Stamps are an asset. The Secretary is the recordkeepor of Stamps.
>
> The Stamp Value is always 1/5th the current Floating Value.
>
> Once per month, a player CAN, by announcement, create a stamp
> by transferring the Stamp Value, in shinies, to Agora.
>
> If Agora owns at least as many Shinies as the current Stamp
> Value, a player CAN, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns to
> cause Agora to transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to emself.
>
> If a player owns Stamps created by at least 10 different
> players, e CAN destroy 10 stamps made by 10 different players
> by announcement to win the game.
> }}}
> }}}
>
> This is a somewhat more comprehensive rework, to smooth out some
> irregular language. I've included V.J Rada's fix for stamp destruction,
> and the obvious fix for impossible actions.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada