DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Proletarian Revolution v2

[Cuddle Beam]

If this passes, I'm up for allying up with other players to even out our
Shinies to help dodge being the hot potato (we can automatize it with
Agencies/Contracts too, so that we always have our "real" amounts available
and limited to just that, while all of our shiny balances are equal).
Ideally, we'd keep all of our balances below 50 so that we can toss Welcome
Packages to newbies/other people to make them the Hot Potato, when needed.

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 5:52 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I’ve learned my lesson about insta-pending. I create this proposal
> “Proletarian Rerevolution” with AI 1 by Gaelan and o: {{{
>
> Create a Power 1 rule titled “The Hot Potato” (or amend it, if it already
> exists) with the following text: {{
>
> For the purposes of this rule, the Wealth of a player may be calculated by
> taking their shiny balance, then, for each organization they are a member
> of, adding the shiny balance of that organization divided by that
> organization’s member count, rounded down.
>
> The player with the largest Wealth value is said to have the Hot Potato.
>
>
> Combustibility is defined as (x/500)*(y/30) where x is the difference
> between the lowest and highest player Wealth values, and y is the number of
> days in the past 30 days in which the current holder of the Hot Potato has
> held the Hot Potato at any point in the day. If Combustibility would be
> greater than 1 according to the above formula, it is instead defined as 1.
>
>
> The Pyromaniac is an office.
>
>
> Once per day, the Pyromaniac SHALL randomly select whether or not
> Combustion occurs, such that the probability of Combustion occurring is
> equal to the current Combustibility. If Combustion occurs, the Pyromaniac
> SHALL announce this publicly. The Pyromaniac NEED NOT announce that
> Combustion has not occurred. When Combustion occurs, half of the current
> Hot Potato holder’s shinies are evenly distributed among the remaining
> players, with players with lower wealth receiving more shinies if even
> division is not possible. Then, for each organization the Combusted player
> is a member of, a portion of the organization’s shiny balance, calculated
> via the formula 1/(2x) where x is the number of members, is evenly
> distributed among all players, breaking ties with players with lower wealth
> receiving more shinies if even division is not possible.
>
> If the rules define a concept known a as a Contract, any player may cause
> this rule to amend itself by announcement, replacing the word
> “organization” with “contract” and “member” with “party,” then removing
> this paragraph. If the current date is after November 2017, any player may
> cause this rule to amend itself by removing this paragraph.
>
> }}
> Make Gaelan the Pyromaniac.
>
> }}}
>
> Gaelan
>

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

[Josh T]

I actually messed up in one place: "certain" begins with an s sound so
shouldn't have been included. I'm glad you enjoyed it regardless though.

天火狐

On 9 September 2017 at 11:48, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 9, 2017, at 10:42 AM, Josh T  wrote:
> >
> > Oh well, I had fun writing my blurb. It was kind of hard to not use
> common words like "the" or "of".
> >
> > 天火狐
>
> I rather liked your blurb. You picked an interesting writing challenge to
> riff on.
>
> Thank you for writing it.
>
> -o
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Yellow card apology

[Gaelan Steele]

I’m very not sorry, but this probably failed. R2427: "When a Yellow Card is 
issued, the bad sport SHOULD publish a formal apology of at least 200 words 
explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.” 
This explained none of those things.

Gaelan
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd 
> little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada 
> banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to 
> make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I 
> hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, 
> and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I 
> am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd 
> little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada 
> banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to 
> make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I 
> hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, 
> and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I 
> am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd 
> little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada 
> banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to 
> make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I 
> hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, 
> and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I 
> am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd 
> little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada 
> banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to 
> make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I 
> hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, 
> and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I 
> am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd 
> little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada 
> banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to 
> make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I 
> hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, 
> and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I 
> am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd 
> little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada 
> banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to 
> make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I 
> hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, 
> and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I 
> am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd 
> little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada 
> banned from my odd little agency.  

DIS: Re: BUS: Yellow card apology

[VJ Rada]

This doesn't count as a "ormal apology of at least 200 words
explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for
self-improvement.". It's not an apology and it expresses none of the
above. I'm counting your voting strength as 0 unless everyone else
tells me otherwise.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd
> little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada
> banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had
> to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I
> wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am
> not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little
> agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from
> my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ
> Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't
> had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I
> wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am
> not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little
> agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from
> my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ
> Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't
> had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I
> wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am
> not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little
> agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from
> my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ
> Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't
> had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I
> wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am
> not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little
> agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from
> my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ
> Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't
> had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I
> wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am
> not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little
> agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from
> my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ
> Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't
> had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I
> wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little agency.  I am
> not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from my odd little
> agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ Rada banned from
> my odd little agency.  I am not sorry, and I wish I hadn't had to make VJ
> Rada banned from my odd little agency.



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Improved Buoyancy

[Aris Merchant]

I retract the proposal "Improved Buoyancy". I submit the following proposal.

-Aris

---
Title: Improved Buoyancy v2
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G.

[Note to the Assessor: please resolve after "Float On".]

[It is my belief that the current floating value problem was primarily caused
by the Secretary only being able to set the floating value correctly. This
erases certainty, as any flaw in the Secretary's report likely invalidates all
rule-defined transactions until the flaw is discovered unless the switch
self-ratifies. The probability of deliberate abuse by the secretary is small,
the probability of error is large.]

If the proposal "Float On" been adopted: {
Amend Rule 2497, "Floating Value", by changing its first paragraph to read:

  Floating Value is a natural singleton switch, tracked by the Secretary.

Amend Rule 2456, "The Secretary", by changing the paragraph "As part of the
Secretary's weekly duties, e CAN and SHALL flip the Floating Value to the
number of Shinies owned by Agora. E SHOULD do this while publishing eir
weekly report." to read as follows:

  The Secretary CAN flip the floating value once a week by announcement. As part
  of eir weekly duties, e SHALL flip the Floating Value to the number of Shinies
  owned by Agora; e SHALL NOT ever set it to a different value.
  E SHOULD do this while publishing eir weekly report. If the Secretary
  discovers that e last flipped the floating value to an incorrect value and e
  would not otherwise be able to set it again yet, e CAN and SHALL set the value
  to what it should have been set to in the first place by announcement.

} Otherwise, if the proposal "Float On" has been resolved, but not adopted: {
Amend Rule 2497, "Floating Value", by changing it to read in full:

  Floating Value is a natural singleton switch, tracked by the Secretary.

  The Secretary CAN flip the floating value once a week by announcement. As part
  of eir weekly duties, e SHALL flip the Floating Value to the number of Shinies
  owned by Agora; e SHALL NOT ever set it to a different value. E SHOULD do
  this while publishing eir weekly report. If the Secretary discovers that e
  last flipped the floating value to an incorrect value and e would not
  otherwise be able to set it again yet, e CAN and SHALL set the value to what
  it should have been set to in the first place by announcement.

} Otherwise: {
  Glare pointedly at the Assessor.
  std::abort();
}

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I submit the following proposal. o, does this seem workable?
>
> -Aris
>
> ---
> Title: Improved Buoyancy
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
> [Note to the Assessor: please resolve after "Float On".]
>
> [It is my belief that the current floating value problem was primarily caused
> by the Secretary only being able to set the floating value correctly. This
> erases certainty, as any flaw in the Secretary's report likely invalidates all
> rule-defined transactions until the flaw is discovered unless the switch
> self-ratifies. The probability of deliberate abuse by the secretary is small,
> the probability of error is large.]
>
> If the proposal "float on" been adopted: {
> Amend Rule 2497, "Floating Value", by changing its first paragraph to read:
>
>   Floating Value is a natural singleton switch, tracked by the Secretary.
>
> Amend Rule 2456, "The Secretary", by changing the paragraph "As part of the
> Secretary's weekly duties, e CAN and SHALL flip the Floating Value to the
> number of Shinies owned by Agora. E SHOULD do this while publishing eir
> weekly report." to read as follows:
>
>   The Secretary CAN flip the floating value once a week. As part of
>   eir weekly duties, e SHALL flip the Floating Value to the number of Shinies
>   owned by Agora; e SHALL NOT ever set it to a different value. E SHOULD do
>   this while publishing eir weekly report. If the Secretary discovers that e
>   flipped the floating value to an incorrect value and e is not yet able to 
> set
>   it again, e CAN and SHALL set the value to what it should have been set to
>   in the first place.
>
> } Otherwise, if the proposal "Float On" has been resolved, but not adopted: {
>   Amend Rule 2497, "Floating Value", by changing it to read in full:
>
> Floating Value is a natural singleton switch, tracked by the Secretary.
>
> The Secretary CAN flip the floating value once a week. As part of
> eir weekly duties, e SHALL flip the Floating Value to the number of 
> Shinies
> owned by Agora; e SHALL NOT ever set it to a different value. E SHOULD do
> this while publishing eir weekly report. If the Secretary discovers that e
> flipped the floating value to an incorrect value and e is not yet
> able to set
> it again, e CAN and SHALL set the value to what it should have been set to
> in the first place.
>
> } Otherwise: {
>   Glare pointedly at the Assessor.
>   std::abort();
> }

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Improved Buoyancy

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>   The Secretary CAN flip the floating value once a week. As part of
>   eir weekly duties, e SHALL flip the Floating Value to the number of Shinies
>   owned by Agora;

by announcement by announcement by announcement by announcement
by announcement by announcement by announcement by announcement
by announcement by announcement by announcement by announcement
by announcement by announcement by announcement by announcement

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agora Protection Act

[Aris Merchant]

I'm going to see whether this passes as is. I pend the proposal "Agora
Protection Act" for 1 shiny.

-Aris

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I submit the following proposal. I don't think anything in it should
> be objectionable, but let me know if that isn't true. I seem to recall
> someone mentioning that R101 probably didn't need to be at power 4,
> but it's nice symbolism and I don't remember any specific problems.
>
> ---
> Title: Agora Protection Act
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
> Amend Rule 1698 by:
> Replacing the words "any other single change" with "any other single change or
> inseparable group of changes".
>
> Change the power of Rule 1698 to 4.0.
>
> Change the power of Rule 101 to 4.0.
> ---
>
> -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Conditionals and Determinacy

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > So, in the balance of legislative and common law, I'd put conditionals
> > on the common law side.  Probably, among everything else that's common
> > law, this is the one I would most want to keep there.
> >
> > -G.
> 
> I don't object to having it be common law, but every time I add a game
> mechanic, like when I made it possible to add conditionals to
> agencies, someone always tells me I need to paradox proof it. [1]
> Agoran common law only works if everyone agrees to believe in it, and
> from experience they don't seem to on this one.

I see your point, let's see if we can meet halfway!

So a few specific comments:

- It doesn't seem to explicitly permit or prohibit conditional
actions in general.  Does adding this rule imply that all "by announcement"
actions can be done conditionally if the conditions are clear
enough, or is it "when other rules say something CAN be done
conditionally, then these are the standards we apply."

You weakly imply that "by anouncement conditionals" are subject
to a SHALL NOT, but nowhere has that been permitted, and in fact,
a strict textual reading of "by announcement" would forbid 
conditionals ("unambiguously and clearly specifying the action").
This works ok when it's common law, we shrug and say "this
is clear enough", but if you put it in a rule, then I'd say
"R478 conflicts with this rule, R478 wins, no conditional by 
announcements allowed".

This is not hard to fix, rather than say what is "unclear", you
need to define positively:  "An attempt to perform a by announcement
action conditionally is unambigousuly specified [i.e. for the
purposes of R478] if and only if it is extricable".

This is how it works for ballots:  "option [...] is clearly 
specified if and only if [the conditions are clear]" and "clearly 
specified" is a callback to the R683(4) requirement to "clearly"
identify a valid vote.  So basically you re-defined "clearly"
to include clear conditionals.


- Timing.  Be specific that the conditional must be extricable
at the time of the posting (rather than when a judge later
interprets it), if that's your intent.  So to the "if and only
if it is extricable", add "at the time the action is attempted"
(or other if you really want a different option).


- I think my big worry is loops.  Conditionals imply loops
("I do X, Y, Z, then repeat 100 times").  Loops are frequently
used and frequently a source of abuse, even when the intent is
clear and obvious.  I think you should have some specific
mention that long loops may fit in the "unreasonable effort"
category.  We don't want to hard-code exact # of loops (this is
why common law is great here), so here's a place where we might
explicitly say "determining unreasonable effort is at the
discretion of a judge".

In fact, this last point may swing the balance for me; if we
*explitly* say that "a judge can declare that a loop is too 
long", it has an extra preventative effect on stopping people
from trying it - that would be a good result!

Hope this helps...

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] You can take it with you

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, and pend it by paying Agora 1 sh.
>
> Title: You can take it with you
> Author: o
> Co-authors: Aris
> AI: 1
>
> {{{
> Repeal rule 2485 (“You can’t take it with you”).
> }}}
>
> This rule is moribund: it refers to Balance, which is a Switch which is no 
> longer defined or meaningful.
>
> -o
>

Technically still meaningful (see below), but I do agree that no one
seems to be using it.

Rule 2166, "Assets":

"The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x that
entity possesses. If a rule, proposal, or other competent authority attempts
to increase or decrease the balance of an entity without specifying a source
or destination, then the currency is created or destroyed."

and

"Where it resolves ambiguity, the asset or currency being referred to is the
currency designated as "Agora's official currency", if there is one."

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Conditionals and Determinacy

[Aris Merchant]

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> I pend "Conditionals and Determinacy" by paying 1 shiny to Agora.
>
> Having read this, this is a place that has functioned through the Courts
> for at least 15 years, and I prefer to keep it that way.
>
> First because attempting to legislate and codify circular logic leaves
> it more open to breaking via that very circular logic, whereas "unwritten
> common sense" can cut through logical loops.  (Suber has a nice article
> on this topic in the Metamagical Themas chapter on nomic).
>
> Second because I think it's interesting gameplay-wise to continue to leave
> some deep mechanisms under the purview of the judiciary.
>
> So, in the balance of legislative and common law, I'd put conditionals
> on the common law side.  Probably, among everything else that's common
> law, this is the one I would most want to keep there.
>
> -G.

I don't object to having it be common law, but every time I add a game
mechanic, like when I made it possible to add conditionals to
agencies, someone always tells me I need to paradox proof it. [1]
Agoran common law only works if everyone agrees to believe in it, and
from experience they don't seem to on this one.

[1] 
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2017-April/041656.html

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Conditionals and Determinacy

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I pend "Conditionals and Determinacy" by paying 1 shiny to Agora.

Having read this, this is a place that has functioned through the Courts
for at least 15 years, and I prefer to keep it that way.

First because attempting to legislate and codify circular logic leaves 
it more open to breaking via that very circular logic, whereas "unwritten
common sense" can cut through logical loops.  (Suber has a nice article
on this topic in the Metamagical Themas chapter on nomic).

Second because I think it's interesting gameplay-wise to continue to leave
some deep mechanisms under the purview of the judiciary.

So, in the balance of legislative and common law, I'd put conditionals
on the common law side.  Probably, among everything else that's common
law, this is the one I would most want to keep there.

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

[Aris Merchant]

Which proposal exactly did you retract, anyway? Both of them?

-Aris

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:13 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> I retract the above.
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:01 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called
>> a CFJ on my playerhood)
>> Title: No messin' with Stamps
>> AI: 1
>> Amend rule 2498 "Economic Wins" by removing the sentence
>> "Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and  cause Agora to
>> transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em."
>>  and adding the sentence
>> "A player MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns and
>> cause Agora to transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em." in its place.
>>
>> I also submit but do not pend the following proposal
>> Title: Agora's broke
>> AI: 2
>> Amend the rule "Shiny Supply Level" by replacing the number 1000 with 1200.
>> Cause a Shiny Relevelling Event
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada

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

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 9, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I'm not entirely sure how many shinies I have right now but I believe I 
> should have 66 (Welcome Package [50] + Gaelan Transfer [10] + o Transfer [7] 
> - Stamp Purchase [1] = 66)
> 
> If I have 66 shinies right now, I pledge to give my Stamp to the first player 
> who sends me 5 shinies.

You made no pledge. The stamp value was not 1 at that time.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 9, 2017, at 10:42 AM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> Oh well, I had fun writing my blurb. It was kind of hard to not use common 
> words like "the" or "of".
> 
> 天火狐

I rather liked your blurb. You picked an interesting writing challenge to riff 
on.

Thank you for writing it.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[Josh T]

Oh well, I had fun writing my blurb. It was kind of hard to not use common
words like "the" or "of".

天火狐

On 9 September 2017 at 03:20, 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.
>
> This auction ended at 12:02 AM, Eastern Daylight Time, on September 9th
> 2017. The following bids were placed:
>
> DatePlaced by   sh.
> ---
> 2 Sep   o 1
> 2 Sep   nichdel  11
> 2 Sep   Quazie   12
> 2 Sep   P.S.S.   13
> 2 Sep   G.   15
> 2 Sep   天火狐-2
> 2 Sep   nichdel  15
> 2 Sep   Quazie   16
> 2 Sep   CuddleBeam   50
> 7 Sep   o61
> 7 Sep   CuddleBeam   62
> 9 Sep   o67
> 9 Sep   CuddleBeam   68
>
> All bids were placed on the issuing player’s own behalf; no Organization
> bids were placed.
>
> As there is exactly one highest bid, CuddleBeam wins this auction. At any
> time until 12:02 AM, EDT, on September 16th, 2017, while Agora owns the
> estate of Cagliostro, e may pay Agora 68 Shinies to transfer that estate to
> emself, by announcement.
>
> In satisfaction of my pledge, I pay CuddleBeam 7 sh.. Eir blurb will
> appear in a future Surveyors’ report.
>
> -o
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I strongly oppose this rule because it is dangerous. We just need to be more 
careful in the future.

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



> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:50 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Title: Mother, May I?
> AI: 3
> Amend rule 2152 by replacing "MAY: Performing the described action
> does not violate the rules." with "MAY: Performing the described
> action does not violate the rules and attempts to perform the
> described action are successful"
> 
> I submit and pend the above paying 1 shiny.
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: MAYS that should be CANS PLEASE READ THIS WE'RE SO FUCKED

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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



> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:39 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> "Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously by the
> Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part of it, e may
> submit a document to the Registrar, clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus"
> sure
> 
> " A repealed rule identified by its most recent rule number may be
> reenacted with the same ID number and the next change identifier"
> UH OH. Reenactments are probably legal though, looking at context.
> 
> "A regulation (or set of regulations), authorized by another rule, may
> generally be enacted or modified by its promulgator without 2
> objections, or with Agoran consent."
> Looks like regulations are illegal ayy

Again this is resolved by ratification.

> 
> "When a person initiates a Call for Judgment, e may optionally bar one
> person from the case."
> Balls
> 
> "A judge may recuse emself from a CFJ they are assigned to."
> Nice
> 
> "Grand Hero of Agora Nomic (GHAN) -- This title may be awarded to any
> person obviously and directly responsible for the existence of Agora
> and/or Nomic in general. As this title is the highest honour that
> Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this title OUGHT to be treated right
> good forever.
> 
> Hero of Agora Nomic (HAN) -- This title may be awarded to any person
> for outstanding meritorious service to Agora above and beyond the call
> of duty."
> 
> suck it, GHANS and HANs.

This should continue to work because this may is not the MAY, which gives 
authorization for awardance.

> 
> "An Agency is a document empowering persons to act on behalf of
> another player. A player MAY establish an Agency With 24 hours Notice,
> and thereby become its Director, by specifying the properties of the
> new Agency, provided e has not established any other Agency that day"
> OH SHIT
> "The Agents of an Agency may perform the Actions described in the
> Powers of the Agency on behalf of the Agency's Director."
> FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK
> 
> "Once the tournament is concluded, these regulations cease to have any
> effect, and may be repealed by any player by announcement."
> who cares tbh
> 
> "During an auction, any player or organization may bid any number of
> Shinies by announcement"
> RIP auctions
> 
> "A Reward is a specified amount of shinies associated with a Reward
> Condition. For each time a player meets a Reward Condition, e MAY
> claim the specified award exactly once within 24 hours of meeting the
> Reward Condition."
> No rewards either. ALL REWARDS WERE ILLEGAL

I don’t think we need a CAN here because claiming is a common sense ability.

> 
> "If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most recently
> registered, any player MAY cause em to receive one by announcement."
> NO WELCOME PACKAGES AA
> 
> "If Agora's Festivity has had the same nonzero value for 14 days or
> more, any player may flip it to 0 by announcement.
> 
> A player who owns at least N types of Ribbon may Start a Rank N
> Festival, where N is an integer greater than Agora's Festivity, with 4
> Support from players who own at least N types of Ribbon. Upon doing
> so, Agora's Festivity is flipped to N. Exception: A player may not do
> so if Agora's Festivity has had a value greater than or equal to N
> within the past 21 days."
> Festivals totally don't work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Proto: Rule Precedence Changes

[Kerim Aydin]

If a rule with higher power defers to a rule of lower power, and the
deference is allowed to work, then the lower powered rule could be
modified (using an instrument of a lower power) to do something else,
thus modifying the operation of the higher-powered rule with a lower-
powered change.

This breaks the idea of Rule 2140, which says that:

   No entity with power below the power of this rule can [...]
  set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument
  with power greater than its own.  A "substantive" aspect of
  an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's
  operation.

So it's perfectly in keeping with this intent to forbid rules from
deferring to lower powers, with that prohibition at the highest
possible level.

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> G., can you explain why it's that way?
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > Why would anyone intend that? It doesn't make any sense.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:38 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> "Reading it's text, if a rule of higher power defers
> >> to a rule of lower power, the rule of higher power is followed anyway."
> >> Pretty sure that's intentional.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Aris Merchant
> >>  wrote:
> >>> I know that this is one of the scariest, if not the scariest, game
> >>> mechanics to fiddle with. That being said, Rule 1030 is pretty
> >>> obviously broken. Reading it's text, if a rule of higher power defers
> >>> to a rule of lower power, the rule of higher power is followed anyway.
> >>> This fixes that and a few other problems by changing the order. I also
> >>> numbered the items and added a loop resolution clause.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Title: Rule Precedence Changes
> >>> Adoption index: 3.0
> >>> Author: Aris
> >>> Co-author(s):
> >>>
> >>> Amend Rule 1030 by changing it to read in full:
> >>>
> >>>   In a conflict between Rules, the conflict shall be resolved by
> >>>   performing the following comparisons in the sequence written in
> >>>   this rule, until the conflict is resolved. If applying the comparison
> >>>   leads to an infinite loop, then the next comparison is used.
> >>>
> >>>   1. If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their
> >>>  precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for
> >>>  determining precedence relations, then the determinations of
> >>>  the precedence-determining Rule shall be used to resolve the
> >>>  conflicts; otherwise,
> >>>
> >>>   2. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
> >>>  itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) than those
> >>>  provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict unless they lead to
> >>>  contradictions between each other; otherwise,
> >>>
> >>>   3. In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule
> >>>  with the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the
> >>>  lower Power; otherwise,
> >>>
> >>>   4. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
> >>>  itself that it takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), 
> >>> then
> >>>  such provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict, unless
> >>>  they lead to contradictions between each other; otherwise,
> >>>
> >>>   5. If any of the rules in conflict have ID numbers, then the Rule
> >>>  with the lowest ID number takes precedence; otherwise,
> >>>
> >>>   6. The Rule enacted earliest takes precedence.
> >>>
> >>>   Clauses in any other rule that broadly claim precedence (e.g.
> >>>   over "all rules" of a certain class) shall be, prima facie,
> >>>   considered to be limited claims of precedence or deference that
> >>>   are applicable only when such claims are evaluated as described
> >>>   within the above sequence.
> >>>
> >>>   No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
> >>>   directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of
> >>>   determining precedence.  This applies to changes by the
> >>>   enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.  This
> >>>   Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit such a
> >>>   change to the Ruleset.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Card Reform and Expansion v2

[VJ Rada]

note a) this isn't a formal investigation because I'm over my finger
limit and b) if it were, ais would be in charge.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 12:46 AM Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 9, 2017, at 3:46 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >
>> > "When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the
>> > allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation
>> > by:
>> >
>> > issuing a Card to the pointed-at player by announcement whose reason
>> > is rooted in the allegation;
>> >
>> > if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it would be
>> > ILLEGAL to issue a Card for it, announcing the Finger Pointing to be
>> > Shenanigans."
>> >
>> > You have to do both. Every time you dismissed a finger, you broke this
>> > rule.
>>
>> Oh, hell.
>>
>> -o
>>
> I'd do a green card, given that they were all accidental and no one knew
> about the typo.
>
> -Aris



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Card Reform and Expansion v2

[Aris Merchant]

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 12:46 AM Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 9, 2017, at 3:46 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >
> > "When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the
> > allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation
> > by:
> >
> > issuing a Card to the pointed-at player by announcement whose reason
> > is rooted in the allegation;
> >
> > if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it would be
> > ILLEGAL to issue a Card for it, announcing the Finger Pointing to be
> > Shenanigans."
> >
> > You have to do both. Every time you dismissed a finger, you broke this
> rule.
>
> Oh, hell.
>
> -o
>
> I'd do a green card, given that they were all accidental and no one knew
about the typo.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Card Reform and Expansion v2

[VJ Rada]

"When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the
allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation
by:

issuing a Card to the pointed-at player by announcement whose reason
is rooted in the allegation;

if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it would be
ILLEGAL to issue a Card for it, announcing the Finger Pointing to be
Shenanigans."

You have to do both. Every time you dismissed a finger, you broke this rule.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 9, 2017, at 2:37 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> I point the finger at o for flagrantly and repeatedly not carding people.
>
> This doesn’t seem to be specific enough. Can you specify which rules you 
> believe I’m breaking?
>
> I’ll likely uphold this anyways, mind.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Card Reform and Expansion v2

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 9, 2017, at 3:46 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> "When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the
> allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation
> by:
> 
> issuing a Card to the pointed-at player by announcement whose reason
> is rooted in the allegation;
> 
> if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it would be
> ILLEGAL to issue a Card for it, announcing the Finger Pointing to be
> Shenanigans."
> 
> You have to do both. Every time you dismissed a finger, you broke this rule.

Oh, hell.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Proletarian Revolution

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 9, 2017, at 3:15 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Doesn't this incentivise not having any money and spending all you get
> quickly on other things?
> 
> Huh, working as intended then I guess.

Yup, exactly. It’s a nuclear lottery: accumulating a critical mass of shinies 
will eventually cause you to blow up.

I like it. However, it should account for Organizations (and, eventually, 
Contracts, if and when that passes). Otherwise, players can trivially dodge the 
mechanic through Organizations. (This problem is shared with every other 
wealth-tax proposal.)

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Proletarian Revolution

[VJ Rada]

Doesn't this incentivise not having any money and spending all you get
quickly on other things?

Huh, working as intended then I guess.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> On an alternate email address due to technical issues.
>
> I create the following proposal “Proletarian Revolution” with AI 1 and pend
> it with AP: {{{
>
> Create a Power 1 rule titled “The Hot Potato” with the following text: {{
>
> The player with the most shinies is said to have the Hot Potato.
>
> Combustibility is defined as (x/500)*(y/30) where x is the difference
> between the lowest and highest player shiny balances, and y is the number of
> days in the past 30 days in which the current holder of the Hot Potato has
> held the Hot Potato at any point in the day. If Combustibility would be
> greater than 1 according to the above formula, it is instead defined as 1.
>
>
> The Pyromaniac is an office.
>
>
> Once per day, the Pyromaniac SHALL randomly select whether or not Combustion
> occurs, such that the probability of Combustion occurring is equal to the
> current Combustibility. If Combustion occurs, the Pyromaniac SHALL announce
> this publicly. The Pyromaniac NEED NOT announce that Combustion has not
> occurred. When Combustion occurs, half of the current Hot Potato holder’s
> shinies are evenly distributed among the remaining players, with players
> registered for a longer period of time receiving more shinies if even
> division is not possible.
>
> }}
> Make Gaelan the Pyromaniac.
>
> }}}
>
> Gaelan



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Billy Mays Here

[Aris Merchant]

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 12:05 AM Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 9, 2017, at 2:59 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> > I submit the following proposal.
> >
> > Title: BILLY MAYS HERE
>
> I retract the proposal BILLY MAYS HERE, and submit the following proposal
> in its place.
>
> Title: BILLY MAYS HERE
> Author: o
> Co-authors: every Agoran who has posted to a public forum within the last
> 90 days


Please, please no. Also, this is unreasonably difficult to resolve, and
anyway the list would be huge. Also, I'm going to say that this is too
vague, as it's unclear what an Agoran is (do they have to be a player?)
Basically, no.

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Billy Mays Here

[VJ Rada]

yup sorry.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 9, 2017, at 3:03 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> "   An Agency is a document empowering persons to act on behalf of
>>another player. A player CAN establish an Agency With 24 hours
>>Notice, and thereby become its Director, by specifying the
>>properties of the new Agency, provided e has not established
>>any other Agency that day:"
>>
>> By announcement
>
> “With 24 hours Notice” is sufficient. See rule 1728.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Card Reform and Expansion v2

[Aris Merchant]

I'll fix these tomorrow; it's getting rather late over here.

-Aris

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:56 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > Amend Rule 2474, "Green Cards", to read in full:
> >
> >  A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor,
> accidental,
> >  and/or inconsequential infraction. A Green Card is also appropriate for
> any
> >  infraction for which no other type of Card is appropriate. It
> appropriate to
>
> "It is appropriate"
>
> >  issue a Green Card to a non-player person who plays the game, for the
> >  infractions previously described. When a person is issued a Green Card,
> e
> >  is ENCOURAGED to travel to the United States.
> >  When a Black Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 days, any
> player
> >  CAN once, with Agoran Consent, Slam the Door at the bad sport. After
> the Door
> >  is Slammed at a person, e CANNOT not register or take any game actions
> for
>
> "CANNOT register"
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Billy Mays Here

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 9, 2017, at 3:03 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> "   An Agency is a document empowering persons to act on behalf of
>another player. A player CAN establish an Agency With 24 hours
>Notice, and thereby become its Director, by specifying the
>properties of the new Agency, provided e has not established
>any other Agency that day:"
> 
> By announcement

“With 24 hours Notice” is sufficient. See rule 1728.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Billy Mays Here

[VJ Rada]

You'll want to make festivals, agencies and rewards by announcement.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 5:03 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> "   An Agency is a document empowering persons to act on behalf of
> another player. A player CAN establish an Agency With 24 hours
> Notice, and thereby become its Director, by specifying the
> properties of the new Agency, provided e has not established
> any other Agency that day:"
>
> By announcement
>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal.
>>
>> Title: BILLY MAYS HERE
>> Author: o
>> Co-authors: every Agoran who has posted to a public forum within the last 90 
>> days
>> AI: 3.1
>>
>> {{{
>> This proposal is dedicated to William Darrel Mays.
>>
>> [For help finding paragraph boundaries, see CFJ 3452. This proposal
>> body MUST be interpreted, generally, to assume that lists are part
>> of the surrounding paragraph, or one of the adjacent paragraphs.]
>>
>> Amend rule 105 ("Rule Changes") by replacing item 3 of the first
>> list with:
>>
>> {{{
>> 3. reenact a rule. A repealed rule identified by its most
>> recent rule number MUST be reenacted with the same ID number and
>> the next change identifier. If no text is specified, the rule
>> is reenacted with the same text it had when it was most
>> recently repealed. If the reenacting proposal provides new text
>> for the rule, the rule must have materially the same purpose as
>> did the repealed version; otherwise, the attempt to reenact the
>> rule is null and void.
>> }}}
>>
>> [Changes a "may" to a "MUST", since reenactment is otherwise
>> governed by the rules governing instruments.]
>>
>> Amend rule 2493 ("Regulations") by replacing the fourth paragraph
>> with:
>>
>> {{{
>> A regulation (or set of regulations), authorized by another
>> rule, CAN generally be enacted or modified by its promulgator
>> without 2 objections, or with Agoran consent. A notice pursuant
>> to the previous sentence is known as a "recommendation", and
>> the regulation(s) are said to be "recommended" to Agora.
>> }}}
>>
>> Amend rule 991 ("Calls for Judgement") by replacing the second
>> paragraph, which begins "When a person initiates", with:
>>
>> {{{
>> When a person initiates a Call for Judgment, e CAN optionally
>> bar one person from the case by announcement.
>> }}}
>>
>> Amend rule 2492 ("Recusal") by replacing the first paragraph with:
>>
>> {{{
>> A judge CAN recuse emself from a CFJ they are assigned to by
>> announcement.
>> }}}
>>
>> Amend rule 2231 ("Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic") to read, in
>> full:
>>
>> {{{
>> Heroic titles are Agora's premier patent titles of distinction,
>> and CAN be awarded to persons for meritorious service only by a
>> proposal of power 3 or greater, which SHOULD explain why those
>> persons are qualified. Bearers of heroic titles (Heroes)
>> constitute the Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic.
>>
>> The Heroic titles in decreasing precedence are:
>>
>> Grand Hero of Agora Nomic (GHAN) -- This title CAN be awarded
>> to any person obviously and directly responsible for the
>> existence of Agora and/or Nomic in general. As this title is
>> the highest honour that Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this
>> title OUGHT to be treated right good forever.
>>
>> Hero of Agora Nomic (HAN) -- This title CAN be awarded to any
>> person for outstanding meritorious service to Agora above and
>> beyond the call of duty.
>> }}}
>>
>> Amend rule 2467 ("Agencies") by replacing the first paragraph with:
>>
>> {{{
>> An Agency is a document empowering persons to act on behalf of
>> another player. A player CAN establish an Agency With 24 hours
>> Notice, and thereby become its Director, by specifying the
>> properties of the new Agency, provided e has not established
>> any other Agency that day:
>>
>> 1. A title, which must be exactly three words, not counting
>> conjunctions, articles or prepositions.
>>
>> 2. A non-empty list of persons other than the Director (the
>> Agents).
>>
>> 3. A description of a set of actions (the Powers).
>> }}}
>>
>> Amend rule 2467 ("Agencies") by replacing the fifth paragraph with:
>>
>> {{{
>> The Agents of an Agency CAN perform the Actions described in
>> the Powers of the Agency on behalf of the Agency's Director, in
>> the same manner by which the Agency's Director can perform
>> those Actions.
>> }}}
>>
>> Amend rule 2464 ("Tournaments") by replacing its text, in full,
>> with:
>>
>> {{{
>> 

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Billy Mays Here

[VJ Rada]

"   An Agency is a document empowering persons to act on behalf of
another player. A player CAN establish an Agency With 24 hours
Notice, and thereby become its Director, by specifying the
properties of the new Agency, provided e has not established
any other Agency that day:"

By announcement

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> I submit the following proposal.
>
> Title: BILLY MAYS HERE
> Author: o
> Co-authors: every Agoran who has posted to a public forum within the last 90 
> days
> AI: 3.1
>
> {{{
> This proposal is dedicated to William Darrel Mays.
>
> [For help finding paragraph boundaries, see CFJ 3452. This proposal
> body MUST be interpreted, generally, to assume that lists are part
> of the surrounding paragraph, or one of the adjacent paragraphs.]
>
> Amend rule 105 ("Rule Changes") by replacing item 3 of the first
> list with:
>
> {{{
> 3. reenact a rule. A repealed rule identified by its most
> recent rule number MUST be reenacted with the same ID number and
> the next change identifier. If no text is specified, the rule
> is reenacted with the same text it had when it was most
> recently repealed. If the reenacting proposal provides new text
> for the rule, the rule must have materially the same purpose as
> did the repealed version; otherwise, the attempt to reenact the
> rule is null and void.
> }}}
>
> [Changes a "may" to a "MUST", since reenactment is otherwise
> governed by the rules governing instruments.]
>
> Amend rule 2493 ("Regulations") by replacing the fourth paragraph
> with:
>
> {{{
> A regulation (or set of regulations), authorized by another
> rule, CAN generally be enacted or modified by its promulgator
> without 2 objections, or with Agoran consent. A notice pursuant
> to the previous sentence is known as a "recommendation", and
> the regulation(s) are said to be "recommended" to Agora.
> }}}
>
> Amend rule 991 ("Calls for Judgement") by replacing the second
> paragraph, which begins "When a person initiates", with:
>
> {{{
> When a person initiates a Call for Judgment, e CAN optionally
> bar one person from the case by announcement.
> }}}
>
> Amend rule 2492 ("Recusal") by replacing the first paragraph with:
>
> {{{
> A judge CAN recuse emself from a CFJ they are assigned to by
> announcement.
> }}}
>
> Amend rule 2231 ("Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic") to read, in
> full:
>
> {{{
> Heroic titles are Agora's premier patent titles of distinction,
> and CAN be awarded to persons for meritorious service only by a
> proposal of power 3 or greater, which SHOULD explain why those
> persons are qualified. Bearers of heroic titles (Heroes)
> constitute the Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic.
>
> The Heroic titles in decreasing precedence are:
>
> Grand Hero of Agora Nomic (GHAN) -- This title CAN be awarded
> to any person obviously and directly responsible for the
> existence of Agora and/or Nomic in general. As this title is
> the highest honour that Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this
> title OUGHT to be treated right good forever.
>
> Hero of Agora Nomic (HAN) -- This title CAN be awarded to any
> person for outstanding meritorious service to Agora above and
> beyond the call of duty.
> }}}
>
> Amend rule 2467 ("Agencies") by replacing the first paragraph with:
>
> {{{
> An Agency is a document empowering persons to act on behalf of
> another player. A player CAN establish an Agency With 24 hours
> Notice, and thereby become its Director, by specifying the
> properties of the new Agency, provided e has not established
> any other Agency that day:
>
> 1. A title, which must be exactly three words, not counting
> conjunctions, articles or prepositions.
>
> 2. A non-empty list of persons other than the Director (the
> Agents).
>
> 3. A description of a set of actions (the Powers).
> }}}
>
> Amend rule 2467 ("Agencies") by replacing the fifth paragraph with:
>
> {{{
> The Agents of an Agency CAN perform the Actions described in
> the Powers of the Agency on behalf of the Agency's Director, in
> the same manner by which the Agency's Director can perform
> those Actions.
> }}}
>
> Amend rule 2464 ("Tournaments") by replacing its text, in full,
> with:
>
> {{{
> A Tournament is a sub-game of Agora specifically sanctioned to
> be initiated as a tournament by the Rules. If a winner of a
> tournament is determined within 4 weeks of its initiation, that
> person or persons win the game, otherwise the 

DIS: Re: BUS: Card Reform and Expansion v2

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


Amend Rule 2474, "Green Cards", to read in full:

 A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor, accidental,
 and/or inconsequential infraction. A Green Card is also appropriate for any
 infraction for which no other type of Card is appropriate. It appropriate to


"It is appropriate"


 issue a Green Card to a non-player person who plays the game, for the
 infractions previously described. When a person is issued a Green Card, e
 is ENCOURAGED to travel to the United States.
 When a Black Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 days, any player
 CAN once, with Agoran Consent, Slam the Door at the bad sport. After the Door
 is Slammed at a person, e CANNOT not register or take any game actions for


"CANNOT register"

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Proto: Rule Precedence Changes

[Aris Merchant]

G., can you explain why it's that way?

-Aris

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Why would anyone intend that? It doesn't make any sense.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:38 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> "Reading it's text, if a rule of higher power defers
>> to a rule of lower power, the rule of higher power is followed anyway."
>> Pretty sure that's intentional.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>>> I know that this is one of the scariest, if not the scariest, game
>>> mechanics to fiddle with. That being said, Rule 1030 is pretty
>>> obviously broken. Reading it's text, if a rule of higher power defers
>>> to a rule of lower power, the rule of higher power is followed anyway.
>>> This fixes that and a few other problems by changing the order. I also
>>> numbered the items and added a loop resolution clause.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Title: Rule Precedence Changes
>>> Adoption index: 3.0
>>> Author: Aris
>>> Co-author(s):
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 1030 by changing it to read in full:
>>>
>>>   In a conflict between Rules, the conflict shall be resolved by
>>>   performing the following comparisons in the sequence written in
>>>   this rule, until the conflict is resolved. If applying the comparison
>>>   leads to an infinite loop, then the next comparison is used.
>>>
>>>   1. If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their
>>>  precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for
>>>  determining precedence relations, then the determinations of
>>>  the precedence-determining Rule shall be used to resolve the
>>>  conflicts; otherwise,
>>>
>>>   2. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
>>>  itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) than those
>>>  provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict unless they lead to
>>>  contradictions between each other; otherwise,
>>>
>>>   3. In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule
>>>  with the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the
>>>  lower Power; otherwise,
>>>
>>>   4. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
>>>  itself that it takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), 
>>> then
>>>  such provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict, unless
>>>  they lead to contradictions between each other; otherwise,
>>>
>>>   5. If any of the rules in conflict have ID numbers, then the Rule
>>>  with the lowest ID number takes precedence; otherwise,
>>>
>>>   6. The Rule enacted earliest takes precedence.
>>>
>>>   Clauses in any other rule that broadly claim precedence (e.g.
>>>   over "all rules" of a certain class) shall be, prima facie,
>>>   considered to be limited claims of precedence or deference that
>>>   are applicable only when such claims are evaluated as described
>>>   within the above sequence.
>>>
>>>   No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
>>>   directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of
>>>   determining precedence.  This applies to changes by the
>>>   enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.  This
>>>   Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit such a
>>>   change to the Ruleset.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Proto: Rule Precedence Changes

[Aris Merchant]

Why would anyone intend that? It doesn't make any sense.

-Aris

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:38 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> "Reading it's text, if a rule of higher power defers
> to a rule of lower power, the rule of higher power is followed anyway."
> Pretty sure that's intentional.
>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> I know that this is one of the scariest, if not the scariest, game
>> mechanics to fiddle with. That being said, Rule 1030 is pretty
>> obviously broken. Reading it's text, if a rule of higher power defers
>> to a rule of lower power, the rule of higher power is followed anyway.
>> This fixes that and a few other problems by changing the order. I also
>> numbered the items and added a loop resolution clause.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> ---
>> Title: Rule Precedence Changes
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-author(s):
>>
>> Amend Rule 1030 by changing it to read in full:
>>
>>   In a conflict between Rules, the conflict shall be resolved by
>>   performing the following comparisons in the sequence written in
>>   this rule, until the conflict is resolved. If applying the comparison
>>   leads to an infinite loop, then the next comparison is used.
>>
>>   1. If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their
>>  precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for
>>  determining precedence relations, then the determinations of
>>  the precedence-determining Rule shall be used to resolve the
>>  conflicts; otherwise,
>>
>>   2. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
>>  itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) than those
>>  provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict unless they lead to
>>  contradictions between each other; otherwise,
>>
>>   3. In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule
>>  with the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the
>>  lower Power; otherwise,
>>
>>   4. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
>>  itself that it takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), 
>> then
>>  such provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict, unless
>>  they lead to contradictions between each other; otherwise,
>>
>>   5. If any of the rules in conflict have ID numbers, then the Rule
>>  with the lowest ID number takes precedence; otherwise,
>>
>>   6. The Rule enacted earliest takes precedence.
>>
>>   Clauses in any other rule that broadly claim precedence (e.g.
>>   over "all rules" of a certain class) shall be, prima facie,
>>   considered to be limited claims of precedence or deference that
>>   are applicable only when such claims are evaluated as described
>>   within the above sequence.
>>
>>   No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
>>   directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of
>>   determining precedence.  This applies to changes by the
>>   enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.  This
>>   Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit such a
>>   change to the Ruleset.
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Proto: Rule Precedence Changes

[VJ Rada]

"Reading it's text, if a rule of higher power defers
to a rule of lower power, the rule of higher power is followed anyway."
Pretty sure that's intentional.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I know that this is one of the scariest, if not the scariest, game
> mechanics to fiddle with. That being said, Rule 1030 is pretty
> obviously broken. Reading it's text, if a rule of higher power defers
> to a rule of lower power, the rule of higher power is followed anyway.
> This fixes that and a few other problems by changing the order. I also
> numbered the items and added a loop resolution clause.
>
> -Aris
>
> ---
> Title: Rule Precedence Changes
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
> Amend Rule 1030 by changing it to read in full:
>
>   In a conflict between Rules, the conflict shall be resolved by
>   performing the following comparisons in the sequence written in
>   this rule, until the conflict is resolved. If applying the comparison
>   leads to an infinite loop, then the next comparison is used.
>
>   1. If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their
>  precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for
>  determining precedence relations, then the determinations of
>  the precedence-determining Rule shall be used to resolve the
>  conflicts; otherwise,
>
>   2. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
>  itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) than those
>  provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict unless they lead to
>  contradictions between each other; otherwise,
>
>   3. In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule
>  with the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the
>  lower Power; otherwise,
>
>   4. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
>  itself that it takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then
>  such provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict, unless
>  they lead to contradictions between each other; otherwise,
>
>   5. If any of the rules in conflict have ID numbers, then the Rule
>  with the lowest ID number takes precedence; otherwise,
>
>   6. The Rule enacted earliest takes precedence.
>
>   Clauses in any other rule that broadly claim precedence (e.g.
>   over "all rules" of a certain class) shall be, prima facie,
>   considered to be limited claims of precedence or deference that
>   are applicable only when such claims are evaluated as described
>   within the above sequence.
>
>   No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
>   directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of
>   determining precedence.  This applies to changes by the
>   enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.  This
>   Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit such a
>   change to the Ruleset.



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Proto: Rule Precedence Changes

[Aris Merchant]

I know that this is one of the scariest, if not the scariest, game
mechanics to fiddle with. That being said, Rule 1030 is pretty
obviously broken. Reading it's text, if a rule of higher power defers
to a rule of lower power, the rule of higher power is followed anyway.
This fixes that and a few other problems by changing the order. I also
numbered the items and added a loop resolution clause.

-Aris

---
Title: Rule Precedence Changes
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s):

Amend Rule 1030 by changing it to read in full:

  In a conflict between Rules, the conflict shall be resolved by
  performing the following comparisons in the sequence written in
  this rule, until the conflict is resolved. If applying the comparison
  leads to an infinite loop, then the next comparison is used.

  1. If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their
 precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for
 determining precedence relations, then the determinations of
 the precedence-determining Rule shall be used to resolve the
 conflicts; otherwise,

  2. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
 itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) than those
 provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict unless they lead to
 contradictions between each other; otherwise,

  3. In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule
 with the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the
 lower Power; otherwise,

  4. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
 itself that it takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then
 such provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict, unless
 they lead to contradictions between each other; otherwise,

  5. If any of the rules in conflict have ID numbers, then the Rule
 with the lowest ID number takes precedence; otherwise,

  6. The Rule enacted earliest takes precedence.

  Clauses in any other rule that broadly claim precedence (e.g.
  over "all rules" of a certain class) shall be, prima facie,
  considered to be limited claims of precedence or deference that
  are applicable only when such claims are evaluated as described
  within the above sequence.

  No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
  directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of
  determining precedence.  This applies to changes by the
  enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.  This
  Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit such a
  change to the Ruleset.

DIS: Re: BUS: Card Reform and Expansion v2

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


 When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL
 investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL
 conclude the investigation by:

  - issuing a Card to the pointed-at person by announcement whose
reason is rooted in the allegation;

  - if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it
would be ILLEGAL to issue a Card for it, announcing the
Finger Pointing to be Shenanigans.


I was going to complain that it now reads like the investigator _always_ 
has to do the first item.


Then I checked, and it already does.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Restraining Bolt

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


I don't think this one is needed, because the definition of distribution
resolves to an Agoran decision initiation, described as a publishing action
elsewhere. In fact adding "by announcement" might do more harm than good.


It shouldn't do any harm as far as I'm concerned. I distribute
proposals like this:

"I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 3.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
also a valid vote)."

That phrasing works fine either way.


My worry was that it could allow "by announcement" to be used _instead_ of 
publishing all the required information. But I see rule 103 will take 
precedence anyway.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Restraining Bolt

[Owen Jacobson]

I retract the proposal “Restraining Bolt” and submit the following proposal in 
its place.

Title: Restraining Bolt
Author: o
Co-authors: V.J Rada, Ørjan
AI: 2.0

{{{
Amend rule 103 ("The Speaker") by replacing the second paragraph
with:

{{{
The player or players who have most recently won the game are
called Laureled. If at any time the office of Speaker is
vacant, or when one or more players win Agora, then the Prime
Minister CAN and SHALL, once and in a timely fashion, appoint a
Laureled player to the office of Speaker by announcement.
}}}

Amend rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by replacing the first
paragraph with:

{{{
Once per week and except as otherwise forbidden by this rule,
the current Prime Minister CAN issue a Cabinet Order by
announcement to perform the action(s) authorized by that Order.
}}}

Amend rule 2495 ("The Birthday Tournament") by replacing the first
paragraph with:

{{{
In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year, the
Herald CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion, propose a set of
Regulations governing a Birthday Tournament for that year, by
announcement. The Herald CAN also delegate the responsibility
for creating or running the tournament to another player, with
that player's consent, by announcement.
}}}

Amend rule 2431 ("Proposal Competitions") by replacing the second
paragraph with:

{{{
During the Agoran Week following the initiation of a Proposal
Competition, any player CAN, by announcement, specify that a
Proposal e submitted during that week is a Competition Proposal
for that Competition. Players are ENCOURAGED to describe how
their Competition Proposals fulfill the Objective.
}}}
}}}

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Card Reform and Expansion v2

[Aris Merchant]

I don't feel confident enough about the idea philosophically to add it
to a proposal. The Referee's report doesn't self ratify, and this is
the kind of thing you don't want to be ambiguous about, so what do you
do? Make messages purporting to award a card self ratify?

-Aris

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:23 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Can you make it IMPOSSIBLE to issue people cards for doing legal
> things, not just SHALL NOT. My "cards are appealable" failed because
> of a different reason but that seems uncontro.
>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> ---
>> Title: Card Reform and Expansion v2
>> Adoption index: 2.0
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-author(s): ais523
>>
>> Amend Rule 2426, "Cards", by appending the sentence
>>
>>   "It is inappropriate to award a card to a non-player person unless the rule
>>   defining the card says otherwise."
>>
>>   to the paragraph beginning "The types of Card are defined by the rules..."
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2478, "Vigilante Justice", to read in full:
>>
>>   A player CAN by announcement, but subject to the provisions of
>>   this rule, Point eir Finger at a person who plays the game, citing an 
>> alleged
>>   violation of the rules by that person.
>>
>>   When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL
>>   investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL
>>   conclude the investigation by:
>>
>>- issuing a Card to the pointed-at person by announcement whose
>>  reason is rooted in the allegation;
>>
>>- if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it
>>  would be ILLEGAL to issue a Card for it, announcing the
>>  Finger Pointing to be Shenanigans.
>>
>>   The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger
>>   Pointing.  When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed
>>   over an allegation related to the official duties or powers of
>>   the Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over
>>   the investigation and thereby become the investigator.
>>
>>   A player CANNOT point a finger more than twice per Agoran week,
>>   or more than once per Agoran week at the same person.
>>
>> Amend Rule 2479, "Official Justice", to read in full:
>>
>>   The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>>   Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by issuing a card to em by
>>   announcement.
>>
>>   The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger or impose Summary Judgment
>>   more than five total times per week, or more than twice per week
>>   at or on the same person.
>>
>>   As part of the Referee's weekly duties, e SHALL either impose
>>   Summary Judgment on a person or truthfully announce that e
>>   believes that there are no rules violations in the preceding
>>   Agoran week for which a Card has not already been issued.
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2474, "Green Cards", to read in full:
>>
>>   A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor, accidental,
>>   and/or inconsequential infraction. A Green Card is also appropriate for any
>>   infraction for which no other type of Card is appropriate. It appropriate 
>> to
>>   issue a Green Card to a non-player person who plays the game, for the
>>   infractions previously described. When a person is issued a Green Card, e
>>   is ENCOURAGED to travel to the United States.
>>
>>
>> Create a power 2.0 rule entitled "Blue Cards", with the following text:
>>
>>   A Blue Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for deliberate or 
>> negligent
>>   infractions either where the the player responsible profited from violating
>>   the rules or where e significantly harmed another person or the game
>>   as a whole. The person issuing a Blue Card must, in the same message,
>>   announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater of 25 shinies and the
>>   amount the bad sport profited from the infraction, in order for the card to
>>   be effective. E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the
>>   distribution of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed, save
>>   that e CANNOT distribute money to emself or such that it would be under
>>   eir effective control. By default, all the money goes to Agora.
>>
>>   When a Blue Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 days, any 
>> player
>>   CAN once, with 2 Support, Levy a Fine upon the bad sport. After the Fine is
>>   Levied upon the bad sport, e SHALL endeavor in good faith to pay the fine
>>   to Agora or the correct player(s), in accordance with the distribution laid
>>   out by the carder. Any player CAN also act on the bad sport's behalf to do 
>> so,
>>   fulfilling eir obligation.
>>
>> Create a power 2.0 rule entitled "Black Cards", with the following text:
>>
>>   A Black Card is a card appropriate for a person who plays the game, not
>>   currently a player, who either broke the rules while not a player or
>>   broke them while a player and then 

DIS: Re: BUS: Card Reform and Expansion v2

[VJ Rada]

Can you make it IMPOSSIBLE to issue people cards for doing legal
things, not just SHALL NOT. My "cards are appealable" failed because
of a different reason but that seems uncontro.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I submit the following proposal.
>
> -Aris
>
> ---
> Title: Card Reform and Expansion v2
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s): ais523
>
> Amend Rule 2426, "Cards", by appending the sentence
>
>   "It is inappropriate to award a card to a non-player person unless the rule
>   defining the card says otherwise."
>
>   to the paragraph beginning "The types of Card are defined by the rules..."
>
>
> Amend Rule 2478, "Vigilante Justice", to read in full:
>
>   A player CAN by announcement, but subject to the provisions of
>   this rule, Point eir Finger at a person who plays the game, citing an 
> alleged
>   violation of the rules by that person.
>
>   When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL
>   investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL
>   conclude the investigation by:
>
>- issuing a Card to the pointed-at person by announcement whose
>  reason is rooted in the allegation;
>
>- if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it
>  would be ILLEGAL to issue a Card for it, announcing the
>  Finger Pointing to be Shenanigans.
>
>   The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger
>   Pointing.  When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed
>   over an allegation related to the official duties or powers of
>   the Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over
>   the investigation and thereby become the investigator.
>
>   A player CANNOT point a finger more than twice per Agoran week,
>   or more than once per Agoran week at the same person.
>
> Amend Rule 2479, "Official Justice", to read in full:
>
>   The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>   Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by issuing a card to em by
>   announcement.
>
>   The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger or impose Summary Judgment
>   more than five total times per week, or more than twice per week
>   at or on the same person.
>
>   As part of the Referee's weekly duties, e SHALL either impose
>   Summary Judgment on a person or truthfully announce that e
>   believes that there are no rules violations in the preceding
>   Agoran week for which a Card has not already been issued.
>
>
> Amend Rule 2474, "Green Cards", to read in full:
>
>   A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor, accidental,
>   and/or inconsequential infraction. A Green Card is also appropriate for any
>   infraction for which no other type of Card is appropriate. It appropriate to
>   issue a Green Card to a non-player person who plays the game, for the
>   infractions previously described. When a person is issued a Green Card, e
>   is ENCOURAGED to travel to the United States.
>
>
> Create a power 2.0 rule entitled "Blue Cards", with the following text:
>
>   A Blue Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for deliberate or 
> negligent
>   infractions either where the the player responsible profited from violating
>   the rules or where e significantly harmed another person or the game
>   as a whole. The person issuing a Blue Card must, in the same message,
>   announce a penalty between 1 shiny and the greater of 25 shinies and the
>   amount the bad sport profited from the infraction, in order for the card to
>   be effective. E CAN additionally, in the same message, determine the
>   distribution of the money between Agora and the players(s) harmed, save
>   that e CANNOT distribute money to emself or such that it would be under
>   eir effective control. By default, all the money goes to Agora.
>
>   When a Blue Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 days, any player
>   CAN once, with 2 Support, Levy a Fine upon the bad sport. After the Fine is
>   Levied upon the bad sport, e SHALL endeavor in good faith to pay the fine
>   to Agora or the correct player(s), in accordance with the distribution laid
>   out by the carder. Any player CAN also act on the bad sport's behalf to do 
> so,
>   fulfilling eir obligation.
>
> Create a power 2.0 rule entitled "Black Cards", with the following text:
>
>   A Black Card is a card appropriate for a person who plays the game, not
>   currently a player, who either broke the rules while not a player or
>   broke them while a player and then deregistered in bad faith. A Black
>   Card CANNOT be issued to current players, and no more than 3 Black Cards
>   CAN be issued per week. Any attempt to issue a Black Card in violation
>   of these limitations is INEFFECTIVE.
>
>   When a Black Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 days, any 
> player
>   CAN once, with Agoran Consent, Slam the Door at the bad sport. After the 
> Door
>   is Slammed at a person, e CANNOT not register or take any game 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Restraining Bolt

[VJ Rada]

Previous agency reports self-ratified right? So we're all good?

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 9, 2017, at 2:08 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you change the MAYs in agencies and Rewards to by announcement so
>>> that by adopting yours in conjunction w/ mine and ors, they're fixed?
>>
>> I plan to vote against your proposal, if it reaches that point. The Mother, 
>> May I? framework is so deeply-embedded in the rules that I would be very 
>> uncomfortable making changes to it in the middle of a crisis driven by 
>> exactly misapplication of that framework. While I believe your intentions 
>> are good, and while I have a deep appreciation for the fact that you did 
>> significant diligence to see what your change could reasonably be expected 
>> to affect, now’s not the time to modify that rule.
>>
>> I would strongly prefer to fix the applications of that framework, and am 
>> attempting to do so. With that in mind, yes, I can fix the affected MAYs in 
>> agencies and in rewards. They’re definitely broken as they stand - I only 
>> disagree on how to fix them, not on whether they need to be fixed.
>
> I, for one, would definitely appreciate it if you could add this. I
> also tend to agree, although I might favor a weaker version of the
> addition that had more room for common sense interpretation.
>
> -Aris



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Restraining Bolt

[Aris Merchant]

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>>{{{
>>In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year, the
>>Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a Birthday
>>Tournament for that year; the Herald CAN also delegate the
>>responsibility for creating or running the tournament to
>>another player, with that player's consent, by announcement.
>>}}}
>
>
> Misses the initial SHALL (it is clear from the rest of the rule that it's
> not speaking about making a Proposal).
>
>>Amend rule 1607 ("Distribution") by replacing the third paragraph
>>with:
>>
>>{{{
>>The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
>>Pool at any time, by announcement. The Promotor SHALL NOT
>>distribute proposals which are not pending.
>>}}}
>
>
> I don't think this one is needed, because the definition of distribution
> resolves to an Agoran decision initiation, described as a publishing action
> elsewhere. In fact adding "by announcement" might do more harm than good.

It shouldn't do any harm as far as I'm concerned. I distribute
proposals like this:

"I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 3.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
also a valid vote)."

That phrasing works fine either way.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Restraining Bolt

[Aris Merchant]

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 9, 2017, at 2:08 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> Can you change the MAYs in agencies and Rewards to by announcement so
>> that by adopting yours in conjunction w/ mine and ors, they're fixed?
>
> I plan to vote against your proposal, if it reaches that point. The Mother, 
> May I? framework is so deeply-embedded in the rules that I would be very 
> uncomfortable making changes to it in the middle of a crisis driven by 
> exactly misapplication of that framework. While I believe your intentions are 
> good, and while I have a deep appreciation for the fact that you did 
> significant diligence to see what your change could reasonably be expected to 
> affect, now’s not the time to modify that rule.
>
> I would strongly prefer to fix the applications of that framework, and am 
> attempting to do so. With that in mind, yes, I can fix the affected MAYs in 
> agencies and in rewards. They’re definitely broken as they stand - I only 
> disagree on how to fix them, not on whether they need to be fixed.

I, for one, would definitely appreciate it if you could add this. I
also tend to agree, although I might favor a weaker version of the
addition that had more room for common sense interpretation.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Restraining Bolt

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


   {{{
   In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year, the
   Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a Birthday
   Tournament for that year; the Herald CAN also delegate the
   responsibility for creating or running the tournament to
   another player, with that player's consent, by announcement.
   }}}


Misses the initial SHALL (it is clear from the rest of the rule that it's 
not speaking about making a Proposal).



   Amend rule 1607 ("Distribution") by replacing the third paragraph
   with:

   {{{
   The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
   Pool at any time, by announcement. The Promotor SHALL NOT
   distribute proposals which are not pending.
   }}}


I don't think this one is needed, because the definition of distribution 
resolves to an Agoran decision initiation, described as a publishing 
action elsewhere. In fact adding "by announcement" might do more harm than 
good.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Restraining Bolt

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 9, 2017, at 2:08 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Can you change the MAYs in agencies and Rewards to by announcement so
> that by adopting yours in conjunction w/ mine and ors, they're fixed?

I plan to vote against your proposal, if it reaches that point. The Mother, May 
I? framework is so deeply-embedded in the rules that I would be very 
uncomfortable making changes to it in the middle of a crisis driven by exactly 
misapplication of that framework. While I believe your intentions are good, and 
while I have a deep appreciation for the fact that you did significant 
diligence to see what your change could reasonably be expected to affect, now’s 
not the time to modify that rule.

I would strongly prefer to fix the applications of that framework, and am 
attempting to do so. With that in mind, yes, I can fix the affected MAYs in 
agencies and in rewards. They’re definitely broken as they stand - I only 
disagree on how to fix them, not on whether they need to be fixed.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


Rule 2431 doesn't seem to restrict where specifications can be made.


"With Agoran Consent" is sufficient to restrict this to being done via 
the public fora, because rule 1728 specifies that an action with that 
constraint can be done by announcement (“thereby allows em to perform 
the action by announcement if…”).


I mean the specification by a competing Player in the second paragraph, 
there's no Consent on that.



Rule 2495 is unclear on what needs to be public.


Less so than you’d think, by the same coin, but there are some unbound 
CANs here.


I guess it's just the first paragraph (applies to a SHALL too).

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Restraining Bolt

[VJ Rada]

Can you change the MAYs in agencies and Rewards to by announcement so
that by adopting yours in conjunction w/ mine and ors, they're fixed?

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> I submit the following proposal.
>
> Title: Restraining Bolt
> Author: o
> Co-authors: V.J Rada, Ørjan
> AI: 3.0
>
> {{{
> Amend rule 103 ("The Speaker") by replacing the second paragraph
> with:
>
> {{{
> The player or players who have most recently won the game are
> called Laureled. If at any time the office of Speaker is
> vacant, or when one or more players win Agora, then the Prime
> Minister CAN and SHALL, once and in a timely fashion, appoint a
> Laureled player to the office of Speaker by announcement.
> }}}
>
> Amend rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by replacing the first
> paragraph with:
>
> {{{
> Once per week and except as otherwise forbidden by this rule,
> the current Prime Minister CAN issue a Cabinet Order by
> announcement to perform the action(s) authorized by that Order.
> }}}
>
> Amend rule 2495 ("The Birthday Tournament") by replacing the first
> paragraph with:
>
> {{{
> In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year, the
> Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a Birthday
> Tournament for that year; the Herald CAN also delegate the
> responsibility for creating or running the tournament to
> another player, with that player's consent, by announcement.
> }}}
>
> Amend rule 1607 ("Distribution") by replacing the third paragraph
> with:
>
> {{{
> The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
> Pool at any time, by announcement. The Promotor SHALL NOT
> distribute proposals which are not pending.
> }}}
> }}}
>
> I _believe_ this only caps CANs which are not otherwise constrained in some 
> way. There are a few that either Ørjan or V.J Rada identified which appear to 
> be unconstrained, but which are constrained when taken in context.
>
> I’ll pend this in 24 hours or so.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada