DIS: Re: BUS: Rewards

[Aris Merchant]

CuddleBeam, remember when someone said that if you were going to do
implausible things you should provide arguments as to why they work?
You might consider doing that just about now. Apologies if you've done
it somewhere else, the threads get rather confusing.

-Aris

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> If it is possible for me to do all the following in this sentence, I destroy
> my Stamp and cause Agora to transfer to me 23 shinies.
>
> If it is possible for me to do all of the following in this sentence, I pay
> Agora 68 shinies to cause Agora to transfer to me Cagliostro.
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>
>> I register
>>
>> I cause myself to receive a Welcome Package from Agora.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>>
>>> I claim 5 sh. apiece as rewards for publishing the Secretary’s,
>>> Surveyor’s, and Referee’s weekly reports.
>>>
>>> I cause Agora to issue a Welcome Package to K.
>>>
>>> -o
>>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Test of Confidence

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:45 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm sorry. I'm in rather a bad mood today, but that's no excuse. I was
> far too harsh in my message, and I apologise to you and anyone else
> I've been rude to.
> 
> I do disapprove of blanket votes for the reasons I discussed, but
> there was no reason for me to be rude about it. Again, I'm very sorry
> for the way I said that.

This is treating Agora Right Good. Thanks for posting this.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Registration Delay Fix

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 10, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> It's time for Agoran Economy: Venezuela edition : P
> 
> No but in seriousness, we have a single fixed price which is the Welcome 
> Package, which I believe is to blame for most of the shiny drought. It's just 
> too much in comparison to the total amount of shinies Agora has in total, 
> imo. If we had more banknotes, it would be less of a problem. We should 
> adjust the floating value stuff a bit too with it though imo.

I tend to agree that the Welcome Packages are too large. More generally, I 
think the fixed prices need reconciling a bit to bring the immediate gameplay 
utility and the relative payoff into closer alignment, and the ratios between 
the various floating-price rewards and costs adjusted a bit in the same vein.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Registration Delay Fix

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 10, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Woah. I was thinking maybe 25% quarterly inflation. Anything much more
> than that is a tad extreme, no?

Look at the current situation.

We have, nominally, 1k shinies. As of the start of the week, over 90% of them 
were in the hands of players. During the week, even with a situation casting 
some doubt on the validity of sh.-denominated transactions, we moved 130 sh. 
around.

The effective transaction volume is dominated by small transactions, while most 
of the “circulating” shinies are in fact in stockpiles. (Yes, including mine. I 
owned around 10% of all Shinies at the start of the week, and PSS another 10%.) 
I’m not sure that adding more shinies would meaningfully cause much inflation 
in the actual prices, in the medium term, unless we did something to address 
stockpiling, but it _would_ cause the Floating Value to spike for a while, 
locking some (all, if we kicked the FV up to 3,000 at a stroke) players out of 
FV-limited actions for a while until enough shinies enter circulation.

This is the core of G.’s protest: there’s nothing to drive transaction volume, 
so prices sink inexorably towards the lowest value they _can_ reach. We’re 
demonstrably holding onto shinies until we’re sure we’re maximizing the utility 
of spending them. Therefore, kicking the FV up will make stockpiling worse 
without really doing anything to address liquidity.

I strongly suspect we need a basic revenue for all players for Shinies to 
remain effective and fun. This is a purely pragmatic stance, as I like seeing 
the game more active, and hoarding is the opposite of that. I suspect we also 
need a use-it-or-lose-it mechanic, so that large stockpiles don’t act as an 
effective trump card. (Who wants to bid against PSS or I on an Estate auction, 
as things stand?)

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

[Aris Merchant]

It doesn't need to set the effective date of the ratified state.

Rule 1551:
"When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at
the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had been
minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate
as possible. Such a modification cannot add inconsistencies between
the gamestate and the rules, and it cannot include rule changes unless
the ratified document explicitly and unambiguously recites either the
changes or the resulting properties of the rule(s). If no such
modification is possible, or multiple substantially distinct possible
modifications would be equally appropriate, the ratification fails."

Thus ratifying the ruleset from a year ago, as my proposal does,
retroactively changes the gamestate a year ago, when the report was
published, not now.

-Aris

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 12, 2017, at 12:40 AM, Aris Merchant 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>>
 7887*  Aris  3.0  SLR Ratification Aris1 sh.
>>>
>>> AGAINST.
>>>
>>> I’m strongly pro-ruleset-ratification, as it has not been done since well 
>>> before I joined the game. However, ratifying that version at this point in 
>>> the sequence of proposals may invalidate proposals within this 
>>> distribution, more or less at the whim of the Assessor. Furthermore, I’m 
>>> not a fan of including the entire ruleset by reference.
>>>
>>> Let’s coordinate to ratify the ruleset more carefully. This also might be a 
>>> good use case for Ratification Without Object, rather than Ratification by 
>>> proposal, as RWO requires unanimity.
>>
>> I don't see how it could invalidate proposals. The ruleset is too long
>> to be included in a proposal. Also, per Rule 2202, ratification
>> without objection can never directly change rules.
>
> Oh, good point.
>
> Anyways, proposals take effect in _some_ order. Your proposal includes, by 
> reference, the entire ruleset, as it was on a specific date, but doesn’t take 
> any steps to cause it to be resolved before proposals in the same assessment, 
> or to set the effective date of the ratified state.
>
> Suppose, for example, the Assessor opted to resolve 7887 last: every other 
> proposal in the same assessment would be rendered ineffective by ratifying an 
> older version of the ruleset overtop of them.
>
> -o
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Test of Confidence

[Aris Merchant]

I'm sorry. I'm in rather a bad mood today, but that's no excuse. I was
far too harsh in my message, and I apologise to you and anyone else
I've been rude to.

I do disapprove of blanket votes for the reasons I discussed, but
there was no reason for me to be rude about it. Again, I'm very sorry
for the way I said that.

-Aris

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:49 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> Dunno where you got that idea. I like scams and funny business, I just was
> particularly annoyed by "funny business" that was clearly impossible.
>
> This is clearly an action I'm allowed to take, regardless of whether you
> want to shame me out of my civic duty or not.
>
> Also "arbitrary" in this case is pretty flimsy. Just because you don't know
> why I'm performing my voting procedure this way doesn't mean it wasn't
> carefully considered.
>
> But if you're really that incensed by me playing the game, I'm happy to take
> my ball and go home. Just say the word.
>
>
>
> -grok
>
> On Sep 11, 2017 11:38 PM, "Aris Merchant"
>  wrote:
>
> Really? Can people cut it out with the arbitrary voting? Agora is
> supposed to a legislative nomic, which as I understand it is why
> everyone is here. The idea of the nomic is that we discuss and think
> about ideas, constantly striving for improvement. I'm used to
> CuddleBeam pulling this kind of thing, but really, grok? I thought you
> were the one who didn't like all the scams and funny business?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:33 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
>> I vote "AGAINST" on all Agoran Decisions for which it is legal for me to
>> do
>> so.
>>
>>
>> -grok
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Rewards

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:23 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I register
> 
> I cause myself to receive a Welcome Package from Agora.

Even under the fixed Welcome Package rules, no, you don’t.

As of the moment I published the report, Agora had 114 sh..

I claimed 15, leaving Agora with 99 sh..

I caused Agora to pay 50 to K, leaving Agora with 49 sh..

There aren’t enough for you to claim a Welcome Package.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

The following is not a claim of error.

> On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:16 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> As Secretary, I flip the Floating Value to 114.
> 
> This week:
> 
> * Pending a proposal costs 1 AP or 6 sh.
> * Calling for judgement, if a player, costs 1 AP or 6 sh.
> * The reward for authoring or pending a successful proposal pended with 
> shinies is 3 sh.
> * The reward for judging a CFJ called with shinies is 6 sh.
> * The Stamp Value is 23 sh.
> 
> 
> Secretary's Weekly Report

Everything about this report, as well as the above-quoted action, is a tissue 
of lies. I have opted to continue publishing the incorrect report.

However, I’m concerned that continuing this charade may be doing more harm than 
good. If

* We don’t reach a proposal this week that should correct the discrepancy 
between the platonic game state and what we agree should have happened, or
* Someone formally CoEs my report, and
* Nobody convinces me this is a sane way to proceed,

then I’ll probably switch to purely factual reports starting next week. This 
will mean stripping out nearly every transaction since July 30th, and damn the 
consequences.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 12, 2017, at 12:40 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> 
>>> 7887*  Aris  3.0  SLR Ratification Aris1 sh.
>> 
>> AGAINST.
>> 
>> I’m strongly pro-ruleset-ratification, as it has not been done since well 
>> before I joined the game. However, ratifying that version at this point in 
>> the sequence of proposals may invalidate proposals within this distribution, 
>> more or less at the whim of the Assessor. Furthermore, I’m not a fan of 
>> including the entire ruleset by reference.
>> 
>> Let’s coordinate to ratify the ruleset more carefully. This also might be a 
>> good use case for Ratification Without Object, rather than Ratification by 
>> proposal, as RWO requires unanimity.
> 
> I don't see how it could invalidate proposals. The ruleset is too long
> to be included in a proposal. Also, per Rule 2202, ratification
> without objection can never directly change rules.

Oh, good point.

Anyways, proposals take effect in _some_ order. Your proposal includes, by 
reference, the entire ruleset, as it was on a specific date, but doesn’t take 
any steps to cause it to be resolved before proposals in the same assessment, 
or to set the effective date of the ratified state.

Suppose, for example, the Assessor opted to resolve 7887 last: every other 
proposal in the same assessment would be rendered ineffective by ratifying an 
older version of the ruleset overtop of them.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Test of Confidence

[grok (caleb vines)]

Dunno where you got that idea. I like scams and funny business, I just was
particularly annoyed by "funny business" that was clearly impossible.

This is clearly an action I'm allowed to take, regardless of whether you
want to shame me out of my civic duty or not.

Also "arbitrary" in this case is pretty flimsy. Just because you don't know
why I'm performing my voting procedure this way doesn't mean it wasn't
carefully considered.

But if you're really that incensed by me playing the game, I'm happy to
take my ball and go home. Just say the word.



-grok

On Sep 11, 2017 11:38 PM, "Aris Merchant" <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Really? Can people cut it out with the arbitrary voting? Agora is
supposed to a legislative nomic, which as I understand it is why
everyone is here. The idea of the nomic is that we discuss and think
about ideas, constantly striving for improvement. I'm used to
CuddleBeam pulling this kind of thing, but really, grok? I thought you
were the one who didn't like all the scams and funny business?

-Aris

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:33 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:
> I vote "AGAINST" on all Agoran Decisions for which it is legal for me to
do
> so.
>
>
> -grok

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is #fashionable #trendy #fabulous

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 12, 2017, at 12:27 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> "Unless modified by an asset's backing document, ownership of an asset is 
> restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations."
> 
> I am RETARDED lol.
> 
> Please disregard the message below lol.

You may want to explicitly withdraw the proposal.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yellow Card to Superintendent

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Josh T  wrote:
>
>> I issue a Yellow Card to the Superintendent due to eir tardiness in 
>> publishing the September Monthly Agency report.
>
> I believe that there is presently no such player.
>
> That leaves me in an awkward situation, as I must both card someone and call 
> the finger-pointing Shenanigans.

Rule 2478 says that fingers can only be pointed at players. There is
no player, so there was no finger pointing.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> I vote as follows.
>
>> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend fee
>> ---
>> 7876*  o 2.0  Float On o   1 AP
>
> FOR.
>
>> 7877*  CB [1]1.0  Monsters CB [1]  1 AP
>
> AGAINST. Come around again with a complete mechanic, though - I think there’s 
> some promise here.
>
>> 7878*  Gaelan1.0  Not So Cuddly NowAris1 sh.
>
> PRESENT. I’m nervous about this change; Consent feels like it may allow 
> accelerating throwing someone out of the game if they haven’t posted in a 
> given month.
>
>> 7879*  o, Aris   1.0  You can take it with you o   1 sh.
>
> FOR.
>
>> 7880*  o 1.0  Agency Typo Fix  o   1 sh.
>
> FOR.
>
>> 7881*  o, [2]1.0  Stamp CAN Patch  o   1 sh.
>
> FOR.
>
>> 7882*  o, K, ais523  1.0  Welcome Package CAN Patcho   1 sh.
>
> FOR.
>
>> 7883*  G.1.0  Fear v2.1G.  1 sh.
>
> PRESENT. I like the Official Duties system and the randomness framework, but 
> I worry about make-work votes on obviously implausible proposal reenactments. 
> Plus, re-enacting a single rule isn’t likely to be useful, since a number of 
> interesting and complex ideas are embodied across several rules.
>
>> 7884*  V.J Rada  3.0  Mother, May I?   V.J Rada1 sh.
>
> AGAINST, for reasons adequately covered elsewhere by a number of players.
>
>> 7885*  o, [3]3.0  Restraining Bolt o   1 sh.
>
> FOR.
>
>> 7886*  Aris, [4] 2.0  Card Reform and Expansion v4 Aris1 sh.
>
> FOR, with some trepidation. This introduces a one-note version of a civil 
> court and drops it on the referee’s desk, which feels weird given the 
> Referee’s ability to spontaneously card people.
>
> Thanks for fixing the ‘or’ bug. I’m not fond of the “’Tis” language, though.
>
>> 7887*  Aris  3.0  SLR Ratification Aris1 sh.
>
> AGAINST.
>
> I’m strongly pro-ruleset-ratification, as it has not been done since well 
> before I joined the game. However, ratifying that version at this point in 
> the sequence of proposals may invalidate proposals within this distribution, 
> more or less at the whim of the Assessor. Furthermore, I’m not a fan of 
> including the entire ruleset by reference.
>
> Let’s coordinate to ratify the ruleset more carefully. This also might be a 
> good use case for Ratification Without Object, rather than Ratification by 
> proposal, as RWO requires unanimity.

I don't see how it could invalidate proposals. The ruleset is too long
to be included in a proposal. Also, per Rule 2202, ratification
without objection can never directly change rules.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Test of Confidence

[Aris Merchant]

Really? Can people cut it out with the arbitrary voting? Agora is
supposed to a legislative nomic, which as I understand it is why
everyone is here. The idea of the nomic is that we discuss and think
about ideas, constantly striving for improvement. I'm used to
CuddleBeam pulling this kind of thing, but really, grok? I thought you
were the one who didn't like all the scams and funny business?

-Aris

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:33 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> I vote "AGAINST" on all Agoran Decisions for which it is legal for me to do
> so.
>
>
> -grok

DIS: Re: BUS: Yellow Card to Superintendent

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Josh T  wrote:

> I issue a Yellow Card to the Superintendent due to eir tardiness in 
> publishing the September Monthly Agency report.

I believe that there is presently no such player.

That leaves me in an awkward situation, as I must both card someone and call 
the finger-pointing Shenanigans.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> > On 09/11/17 22:04, VJ Rada wrote:
> > > the office is vacant, you can deputize at any time.
> > 
> > Am I not assessor?
> >
> 
> Are you?  Apologies if I missed that...

Ok, you don't want to know how long I stared at this
before I realized I'd been saying assessor when I meant
Arbitor.  Long enough to embarrass myself my replying up
there.  So... Yeah, Arbitor.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 09/11/17 22:04, VJ Rada wrote:
> > the office is vacant, you can deputize at any time.
> 
> Am I not assessor?
>

Are you?  Apologies if I missed that...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

[Kerim Aydin]

I still need to wait for a time limit to expire.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

> the office is vacant, you can deputize at any time.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sure thing all around.  Nothing's happening until Wed anyway because
> > that's the earliest (I think) that any assessor duty becomes late.
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> >I am still interested, but I would like to note to ais, that I did not 
> >> >receive his original message to which you are replying.
> >>
> >> Same.
> >>
> >> I'm fine to judge if needed, although I strongly disclaim being reassigned 
> >> 3555.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >> > I'm not getting Ais's messages either
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm willing to judge, though my current situation makes timeliness a
> >> >> consideration, so probably try to give me less time-sensitive CFJs?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 09/11/17 19:13, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Are Publius, o, Aris, grok, and myself the only ones currently
> >> >> > interested
> >> >> > in judging - any other volunteers at all?? (and I think grok has 
> >> >> > stepped
> >> >> > down).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> >> >> G. wrote:
> >> >> >>> ais523, can you provide the list of "interested judges" you were
> >> >> >>> working from for judicial assignments?
> >> >> >> Yes, although apparently I have to start a new thread with each 
> >> >> >> message
> >> >> >> (because I can't send messages the normal way, I'm sending this from 
> >> >> >> a relay
> >> >> >> that doesn't store the messages in the usual way once they've been 
> >> >> >> received,
> >> >> >> so there's nothing to reply to; there's a backup of recently relayed
> >> >> >> messages but I'm not 100% sure what would happen if I tried replying 
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> those). Here are my notes:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Publius 3558
> >> >> >> o 3537*?
> >> >> >> Aris 3557
> >> >> >> grok 3555
> >> >> >> G. 3548* 3556
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> First unused number: 3559
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> * means that the CFJ's deadline has been refreshed (e.g. due to a
> >> >> >> reassignment or reconsideration). ? means that there's some 
> >> >> >> uncertainty or
> >> >> >> confusion about the status.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> grok has had 1 fewer CFJ assigned than the other judges listed here
> >> >> >> (thus needs 1 more CFJ assigned than the others in order to keep 
> >> >> >> approximate
> >> >> >> balance over time.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> ais523
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J Rada
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Improved Buoyancy

[Owen Jacobson]

I realize this is a bit late, since the proposal in question has been 
distributed, but:

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:10 PM Aris Merchant 
 wrote:

> 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.

Seems reasonable, as that’s what I had been doing anyways. I note your 
construction, here: if I publish a mistaken value, it works, but it’s cardable, 
even after it’s corrected. I think that’s fine; most minor errors should draw a 
Green Card, but this leaves the door open for anything up to a Pink Slip if 
it’s clearly in bad faith.

I have some concerns about codifying what an Officer “discovers” as a 
rules-relevant event, though. It might be worth revising this to fit within the 
CoE framework, or something like it. Do we have prior art, here?

> } 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();
> }

LINT: I believe the final case to be unreachable.

With a grin,

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

[VJ Rada]

i thought he meant arbitor bc we were discussing cfjs. yup, you are
the assessor.

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>
>
> On 09/11/17 22:04, VJ Rada wrote:
>> the office is vacant, you can deputize at any time.
>
> Am I not assessor?
>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure thing all around.  Nothing's happening until Wed anyway because
>>> that's the earliest (I think) that any assessor duty becomes late.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I am still interested, but I would like to note to ais, that I did not 
> receive his original message to which you are replying.
 Same.

 I'm fine to judge if needed, although I strongly disclaim being reassigned 
 3555.

 On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I'm not getting Ais's messages either
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>> I'm willing to judge, though my current situation makes timeliness a
>> consideration, so probably try to give me less time-sensitive CFJs?
>>
>>
>> On 09/11/17 19:13, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Are Publius, o, Aris, grok, and myself the only ones currently
>>> interested
>>> in judging - any other volunteers at all?? (and I think grok has stepped
>>> down).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
 G. wrote:
> ais523, can you provide the list of "interested judges" you were
> working from for judicial assignments?
 Yes, although apparently I have to start a new thread with each message
 (because I can't send messages the normal way, I'm sending this from a 
 relay
 that doesn't store the messages in the usual way once they've been 
 received,
 so there's nothing to reply to; there's a backup of recently relayed
 messages but I'm not 100% sure what would happen if I tried replying to
 those). Here are my notes:

 Publius 3558
 o 3537*?
 Aris 3557
 grok 3555
 G. 3548* 3556

 First unused number: 3559

 * means that the CFJ's deadline has been refreshed (e.g. due to a
 reassignment or reconsideration). ? means that there's some 
 uncertainty or
 confusion about the status.

 grok has had 1 fewer CFJ assigned than the other judges listed here
 (thus needs 1 more CFJ assigned than the others in order to keep 
 approximate
 balance over time.

 --
 ais523

>>


 --
 From V.J Rada

>>
>>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

[Nic Evans]

On 09/11/17 22:04, VJ Rada wrote:
> the office is vacant, you can deputize at any time.

Am I not assessor?

>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>> Sure thing all around.  Nothing's happening until Wed anyway because
>> that's the earliest (I think) that any assessor duty becomes late.
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
 I am still interested, but I would like to note to ais, that I did not 
 receive his original message to which you are replying.
>>> Same.
>>>
>>> I'm fine to judge if needed, although I strongly disclaim being reassigned 
>>> 3555.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
 I'm not getting Ais's messages either

 On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> I'm willing to judge, though my current situation makes timeliness a
> consideration, so probably try to give me less time-sensitive CFJs?
>
>
> On 09/11/17 19:13, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Are Publius, o, Aris, grok, and myself the only ones currently
>> interested
>> in judging - any other volunteers at all?? (and I think grok has stepped
>> down).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> G. wrote:
 ais523, can you provide the list of "interested judges" you were
 working from for judicial assignments?
>>> Yes, although apparently I have to start a new thread with each message
>>> (because I can't send messages the normal way, I'm sending this from a 
>>> relay
>>> that doesn't store the messages in the usual way once they've been 
>>> received,
>>> so there's nothing to reply to; there's a backup of recently relayed
>>> messages but I'm not 100% sure what would happen if I tried replying to
>>> those). Here are my notes:
>>>
>>> Publius 3558
>>> o 3537*?
>>> Aris 3557
>>> grok 3555
>>> G. 3548* 3556
>>>
>>> First unused number: 3559
>>>
>>> * means that the CFJ's deadline has been refreshed (e.g. due to a
>>> reassignment or reconsideration). ? means that there's some uncertainty 
>>> or
>>> confusion about the status.
>>>
>>> grok has had 1 fewer CFJ assigned than the other judges listed here
>>> (thus needs 1 more CFJ assigned than the others in order to keep 
>>> approximate
>>> balance over time.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523
>>>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J Rada
>>>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

[VJ Rada]

the office is vacant, you can deputize at any time.

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Sure thing all around.  Nothing's happening until Wed anyway because
> that's the earliest (I think) that any assessor duty becomes late.
>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >I am still interested, but I would like to note to ais, that I did not 
>> >receive his original message to which you are replying.
>>
>> Same.
>>
>> I'm fine to judge if needed, although I strongly disclaim being reassigned 
>> 3555.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> > I'm not getting Ais's messages either
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm willing to judge, though my current situation makes timeliness a
>> >> consideration, so probably try to give me less time-sensitive CFJs?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 09/11/17 19:13, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Are Publius, o, Aris, grok, and myself the only ones currently
>> >> > interested
>> >> > in judging - any other volunteers at all?? (and I think grok has stepped
>> >> > down).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> >> >> G. wrote:
>> >> >>> ais523, can you provide the list of "interested judges" you were
>> >> >>> working from for judicial assignments?
>> >> >> Yes, although apparently I have to start a new thread with each message
>> >> >> (because I can't send messages the normal way, I'm sending this from a 
>> >> >> relay
>> >> >> that doesn't store the messages in the usual way once they've been 
>> >> >> received,
>> >> >> so there's nothing to reply to; there's a backup of recently relayed
>> >> >> messages but I'm not 100% sure what would happen if I tried replying to
>> >> >> those). Here are my notes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Publius 3558
>> >> >> o 3537*?
>> >> >> Aris 3557
>> >> >> grok 3555
>> >> >> G. 3548* 3556
>> >> >>
>> >> >> First unused number: 3559
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * means that the CFJ's deadline has been refreshed (e.g. due to a
>> >> >> reassignment or reconsideration). ? means that there's some 
>> >> >> uncertainty or
>> >> >> confusion about the status.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> grok has had 1 fewer CFJ assigned than the other judges listed here
>> >> >> (thus needs 1 more CFJ assigned than the others in order to keep 
>> >> >> approximate
>> >> >> balance over time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> ais523
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

[Kerim Aydin]

Sure thing all around.  Nothing's happening until Wed anyway because
that's the earliest (I think) that any assessor duty becomes late.

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >I am still interested, but I would like to note to ais, that I did not 
> >receive his original message to which you are replying.
> 
> Same.
> 
> I'm fine to judge if needed, although I strongly disclaim being reassigned 
> 3555.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > I'm not getting Ais's messages either
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm willing to judge, though my current situation makes timeliness a
> >> consideration, so probably try to give me less time-sensitive CFJs?
> >>
> >>
> >> On 09/11/17 19:13, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Are Publius, o, Aris, grok, and myself the only ones currently
> >> > interested
> >> > in judging - any other volunteers at all?? (and I think grok has stepped
> >> > down).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> >> G. wrote:
> >> >>> ais523, can you provide the list of "interested judges" you were
> >> >>> working from for judicial assignments?
> >> >> Yes, although apparently I have to start a new thread with each message
> >> >> (because I can't send messages the normal way, I'm sending this from a 
> >> >> relay
> >> >> that doesn't store the messages in the usual way once they've been 
> >> >> received,
> >> >> so there's nothing to reply to; there's a backup of recently relayed
> >> >> messages but I'm not 100% sure what would happen if I tried replying to
> >> >> those). Here are my notes:
> >> >>
> >> >> Publius 3558
> >> >> o 3537*?
> >> >> Aris 3557
> >> >> grok 3555
> >> >> G. 3548* 3556
> >> >>
> >> >> First unused number: 3559
> >> >>
> >> >> * means that the CFJ's deadline has been refreshed (e.g. due to a
> >> >> reassignment or reconsideration). ? means that there's some uncertainty 
> >> >> or
> >> >> confusion about the status.
> >> >>
> >> >> grok has had 1 fewer CFJ assigned than the other judges listed here
> >> >> (thus needs 1 more CFJ assigned than the others in order to keep 
> >> >> approximate
> >> >> balance over time.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> ais523
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J Rada
>

Re: DIS: [Proto] The Lint Screen

[Cuddle Beam]

While I don't like it, if done, I suggest adding a shiny payment for doing
Linting. Makes it easier to find supporter for doing the task and I feel
like a chore like that should be rewarded anyways.

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Support doesn't require a waiting period at all, only objections and
> Agoran Consent do.
>
> And is an "intent to pend with 2 support" any different than "please
> review this and say you did and someone will track it?"  It seems
> like re-inventing the same mechanism.
>
> In any case, if you pursue this, the loophole that we found last time
> was:  people who believe Pending shouldn't be held up create Agencies
> to allow the proposer to do it on their behalf.  Reading the on-behalf-
> of rules, there's nothing to prohibit delegating the review process
> to the writer of the proposal.
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > Using Support requires an explicit Intent and a 4 day delay, neither of
> > which is necessary for this case. I should have made this more clear, but
> > there is intentionally no requirement that the the pender is not one of
> > the linters. I’ll add a (correct!) MAY in the next iteration, or just
> > change it to the pender and one other. I originally avoided that to
> > prevent awkwardness when pending on behalf.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Sep 11, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > >>> {{{
> > >>> The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the
> [Rulekeepor/Promotor]
> > >>> with possible values including all lists of text. The items in theIt
> SHOULD
> > >>> contain a list of common errors in proposals.
> > >>
> > >> "theIt"? Maybe add something about silly editing errors ;)
> > >>
> > >>> Any player may flip The Lint Screen by adding, modifying, or
> removing an
> > >>> item with Consent.
> > >>>
> > >>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless two players have publicly
> stated
> > >>> that they have reviewed (“linted”) the proposal for the issues
> listed in the
> > >>> Lint Screen. [Note that this has no teeth; if necessary, any
> proposal can
> > >>> still be passed]
> > >>> }}}
> > >>
> > >> For easier maintenance, the pending should require naming and/or
> quoting the
> > >> reviewers.  Otherwise someone would need to track this too.
> > >
> > > "CAN be pended with 2 Support, with the Supporters stating in their
> support
> > > message that they have..."
> > >
> > > (In R1728, listing supporters is a SHOULD, albeit a regularly-ignored
> one).
> > >
> > > However, past experience points to a big loophole in this, so I'm not
> sure it's
> > > worth it...
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

[VJ Rada]

>I am still interested, but I would like to note to ais, that I did not receive 
>his original message to which you are replying.

Same.

I'm fine to judge if needed, although I strongly disclaim being reassigned 3555.

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I'm not getting Ais's messages either
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>>
>> I'm willing to judge, though my current situation makes timeliness a
>> consideration, so probably try to give me less time-sensitive CFJs?
>>
>>
>> On 09/11/17 19:13, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >
>> > Are Publius, o, Aris, grok, and myself the only ones currently
>> > interested
>> > in judging - any other volunteers at all?? (and I think grok has stepped
>> > down).
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> >> G. wrote:
>> >>> ais523, can you provide the list of "interested judges" you were
>> >>> working from for judicial assignments?
>> >> Yes, although apparently I have to start a new thread with each message
>> >> (because I can't send messages the normal way, I'm sending this from a 
>> >> relay
>> >> that doesn't store the messages in the usual way once they've been 
>> >> received,
>> >> so there's nothing to reply to; there's a backup of recently relayed
>> >> messages but I'm not 100% sure what would happen if I tried replying to
>> >> those). Here are my notes:
>> >>
>> >> Publius 3558
>> >> o 3537*?
>> >> Aris 3557
>> >> grok 3555
>> >> G. 3548* 3556
>> >>
>> >> First unused number: 3559
>> >>
>> >> * means that the CFJ's deadline has been refreshed (e.g. due to a
>> >> reassignment or reconsideration). ? means that there's some uncertainty or
>> >> confusion about the status.
>> >>
>> >> grok has had 1 fewer CFJ assigned than the other judges listed here
>> >> (thus needs 1 more CFJ assigned than the others in order to keep 
>> >> approximate
>> >> balance over time.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ais523
>> >>
>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

[Cuddle Beam]

I'm not getting Ais's messages either

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> I'm willing to judge, though my current situation makes timeliness a
> consideration, so probably try to give me less time-sensitive CFJs?
>
>
> On 09/11/17 19:13, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > Are Publius, o, Aris, grok, and myself the only ones currently interested
> > in judging - any other volunteers at all?? (and I think grok has stepped
> down).
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> >> G. wrote:
> >>> ais523, can you provide the list of "interested judges" you were
> working from for judicial assignments?
> >> Yes, although apparently I have to start a new thread with each message
> (because I can't send messages the normal way, I'm sending this from a
> relay that doesn't store the messages in the usual way once they've been
> received, so there's nothing to reply to; there's a backup of recently
> relayed messages but I'm not 100% sure what would happen if I tried
> replying to those). Here are my notes:
> >>
> >> Publius 3558
> >> o 3537*?
> >> Aris 3557
> >> grok 3555
> >> G. 3548* 3556
> >>
> >> First unused number: 3559
> >>
> >> * means that the CFJ's deadline has been refreshed (e.g. due to a
> reassignment or reconsideration). ? means that there's some uncertainty or
> confusion about the status.
> >>
> >> grok has had 1 fewer CFJ assigned than the other judges listed here
> (thus needs 1 more CFJ assigned than the others in order to keep
> approximate balance over time.
> >>
> >> --
> >> ais523
> >>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: [Proto] The Lint Screen

[Kerim Aydin]

Support doesn't require a waiting period at all, only objections and
Agoran Consent do.

And is an "intent to pend with 2 support" any different than "please
review this and say you did and someone will track it?"  It seems
like re-inventing the same mechanism.

In any case, if you pursue this, the loophole that we found last time
was:  people who believe Pending shouldn't be held up create Agencies
to allow the proposer to do it on their behalf.  Reading the on-behalf-
of rules, there's nothing to prohibit delegating the review process
to the writer of the proposal.

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Using Support requires an explicit Intent and a 4 day delay, neither of 
> which is necessary for this case. I should have made this more clear, but
> there is intentionally no requirement that the the pender is not one of
> the linters. I’ll add a (correct!) MAY in the next iteration, or just
> change it to the pender and one other. I originally avoided that to
> prevent awkwardness when pending on behalf. 
> 
> Gaelan 
> 
> > On Sep 11, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >>> {{{
> >>> The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the 
> >>> [Rulekeepor/Promotor]
> >>> with possible values including all lists of text. The items in theIt 
> >>> SHOULD
> >>> contain a list of common errors in proposals.
> >> 
> >> "theIt"? Maybe add something about silly editing errors ;)
> >> 
> >>> Any player may flip The Lint Screen by adding, modifying, or removing an
> >>> item with Consent.
> >>> 
> >>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless two players have publicly 
> >>> stated
> >>> that they have reviewed (“linted”) the proposal for the issues listed in 
> >>> the
> >>> Lint Screen. [Note that this has no teeth; if necessary, any proposal can
> >>> still be passed]
> >>> }}}
> >> 
> >> For easier maintenance, the pending should require naming and/or quoting 
> >> the
> >> reviewers.  Otherwise someone would need to track this too.
> > 
> > "CAN be pended with 2 Support, with the Supporters stating in their support 
> > message that they have..."
> > 
> > (In R1728, listing supporters is a SHOULD, albeit a regularly-ignored one).
> > 
> > However, past experience points to a big loophole in this, so I'm not sure 
> > it's
> > worth it...
> > 
> > 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I am still interested, but I would like to note to ais, that I did not receive 
his original message to which you are replying.

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



> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Are Publius, o, Aris, grok, and myself the only ones currently interested
> in judging - any other volunteers at all?? (and I think grok has stepped 
> down).
> 
> 
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> G. wrote:
>>> ais523, can you provide the list of "interested judges" you were working 
>>> from for judicial assignments?
>> 
>> Yes, although apparently I have to start a new thread with each message 
>> (because I can't send messages the normal way, I'm sending this from a relay 
>> that doesn't store the messages in the usual way once they've been received, 
>> so there's nothing to reply to; there's a backup of recently relayed 
>> messages but I'm not 100% sure what would happen if I tried replying to 
>> those). Here are my notes:
>> 
>> Publius 3558
>> o 3537*?
>> Aris 3557
>> grok 3555
>> G. 3548* 3556
>> 
>> First unused number: 3559
>> 
>> * means that the CFJ's deadline has been refreshed (e.g. due to a 
>> reassignment or reconsideration). ? means that there's some uncertainty or 
>> confusion about the status.
>> 
>> grok has had 1 fewer CFJ assigned than the other judges listed here (thus 
>> needs 1 more CFJ assigned than the others in order to keep approximate 
>> balance over time.
>> 
>> --
>> ais523
>> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: [Proto] The Lint Screen

[Gaelan Steele]

Using Support requires an explicit Intent and a 4 day delay, neither of which 
is necessary for this case. I should have made this more clear, but there is 
intentionally no requirement that the the pender is not one of the linters. 
I’ll add a (correct!) MAY in the next iteration, or just change it to the 
pender and one other. I originally avoided that to prevent awkwardness when 
pending on behalf. 

Gaelan 

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>> {{{
>>> The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the [Rulekeepor/Promotor]
>>> with possible values including all lists of text. The items in theIt SHOULD
>>> contain a list of common errors in proposals.
>> 
>> "theIt"? Maybe add something about silly editing errors ;)
>> 
>>> Any player may flip The Lint Screen by adding, modifying, or removing an
>>> item with Consent.
>>> 
>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless two players have publicly stated
>>> that they have reviewed (“linted”) the proposal for the issues listed in the
>>> Lint Screen. [Note that this has no teeth; if necessary, any proposal can
>>> still be passed]
>>> }}}
>> 
>> For easier maintenance, the pending should require naming and/or quoting the
>> reviewers.  Otherwise someone would need to track this too.
> 
> "CAN be pended with 2 Support, with the Supporters stating in their support 
> message that they have..."
> 
> (In R1728, listing supporters is a SHOULD, albeit a regularly-ignored one).
> 
> However, past experience points to a big loophole in this, so I'm not sure 
> it's
> worth it...
> 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

[Kerim Aydin]

Are Publius, o, Aris, grok, and myself the only ones currently interested
in judging - any other volunteers at all?? (and I think grok has stepped down).


On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> G. wrote:
> > ais523, can you provide the list of "interested judges" you were working 
> > from for judicial assignments?
> 
> Yes, although apparently I have to start a new thread with each message 
> (because I can't send messages the normal way, I'm sending this from a relay 
> that doesn't store the messages in the usual way once they've been received, 
> so there's nothing to reply to; there's a backup of recently relayed messages 
> but I'm not 100% sure what would happen if I tried replying to those). Here 
> are my notes:
> 
> Publius 3558
> o 3537*?
> Aris 3557
> grok 3555
> G. 3548* 3556
> 
> First unused number: 3559
> 
> * means that the CFJ's deadline has been refreshed (e.g. due to a 
> reassignment or reconsideration). ? means that there's some uncertainty or 
> confusion about the status.
> 
> grok has had 1 fewer CFJ assigned than the other judges listed here (thus 
> needs 1 more CFJ assigned than the others in order to keep approximate 
> balance over time.
> 
> -- 
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: [Proto] The Lint Screen

[Cuddle Beam]

I personally prefer to not have a lint screen. It makes passing proposals
more tedious and we have protosals anyway.

I dont think it would solve the issue where people are just silent about
ruletext problems, because people could just be silent in that new context
again imo.

However, I DO like that checklist idea. I'd support a cheat-sheet based on
that to be distributed informally. I'm definitely keeping stashing that
list for myself regardless lol.

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > > {{{
> > > The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the
> [Rulekeepor/Promotor]
> > > with possible values including all lists of text. The items in theIt
> SHOULD
> > > contain a list of common errors in proposals.
> >
> > "theIt"? Maybe add something about silly editing errors ;)
> >
> > > Any player may flip The Lint Screen by adding, modifying, or removing
> an
> > > item with Consent.
> > >
> > > It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless two players have publicly
> stated
> > > that they have reviewed (“linted”) the proposal for the issues listed
> in the
> > > Lint Screen. [Note that this has no teeth; if necessary, any proposal
> can
> > > still be passed]
> > > }}}
> >
> > For easier maintenance, the pending should require naming and/or quoting
> the
> > reviewers.  Otherwise someone would need to track this too.
>
> "CAN be pended with 2 Support, with the Supporters stating in their support
> message that they have..."
>
> (In R1728, listing supporters is a SHOULD, albeit a regularly-ignored one).
>
> However, past experience points to a big loophole in this, so I'm not sure
> it's
> worth it...
>
>
>

Re: DIS: [Proto] The Lint Screen

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > {{{
> > The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the [Rulekeepor/Promotor]
> > with possible values including all lists of text. The items in theIt SHOULD
> > contain a list of common errors in proposals.
> 
> "theIt"? Maybe add something about silly editing errors ;)
> 
> > Any player may flip The Lint Screen by adding, modifying, or removing an
> > item with Consent.
> > 
> > It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless two players have publicly stated
> > that they have reviewed (“linted”) the proposal for the issues listed in the
> > Lint Screen. [Note that this has no teeth; if necessary, any proposal can
> > still be passed]
> > }}}
> 
> For easier maintenance, the pending should require naming and/or quoting the
> reviewers.  Otherwise someone would need to track this too.

"CAN be pended with 2 Support, with the Supporters stating in their support 
message that they have..."

(In R1728, listing supporters is a SHOULD, albeit a regularly-ignored one).

However, past experience points to a big loophole in this, so I'm not sure it's
worth it...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:


Why the switcheroo on university funding?


E's circumventing eir own pledge.  Not very good at holding a grudge I 
guess. :P


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Proto] The Lint Screen

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:


{{{
The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the 
[Rulekeepor/Promotor] with possible values including all lists of text. 
The items in theIt SHOULD contain a list of common errors in proposals.


"theIt"? Maybe add something about silly editing errors ;)

Any player may flip The Lint Screen by adding, modifying, or removing an 
item with Consent.


It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless two players have publicly 
stated that they have reviewed (“linted”) the proposal for the issues 
listed in the Lint Screen. [Note that this has no teeth; if necessary, 
any proposal can still be passed]

}}}


For easier maintenance, the pending should require naming and/or quoting 
the reviewers.  Otherwise someone would need to track this too.


* actions which would be problematic if performed too frequently have a 
time limit. [Agency spam scam]
* the changes described in the proposal can be discerned from the 
proposal itself, without needing to reference the current ruleset, i.e. 
by specifying titles of changed rules and providing previous text 
instead of replacing rule text entirely [pet peeve of mine. Don’t know 
if anybody else minds]


I mind it too, unless it replaces the _entire_ rule - not just because I 
want to see what it changes but also because I imagine race conditions 
like one proposal splitting a paragraph and another editing a later one 
by number...



* all rules are created with sufficient power, and the AI is high enough
* created rules are formatted correctly.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

[Gaelan Steele]

Why the switcheroo on university funding?

>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>> 
>> On 09/10/17 20:19, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> [A few comments:
>> 1. I probably got something wrong. If I did, I'm sorry. It would be nice if
>> people could point my errors out, and help fix them (not object to RWOs,
>> etc.).
>> 2. I had a lot to do this week, and a few things people did made it more
>> complicated than it had to be. Creating a bunch of new proposals in a rush on
>> Sunday afternoon right before the end of the week really isn't helpful. I
>> would also appreciate it if people could mark their proposals with
>> "[Proposal]", or "Proposal:" or something along those lines. Thanks to the
>> people who did that.
>> ]
>> 
>> 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).
>> 
>> 
>> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend fee
>> ---
>> 7876*  o 2.0  Float On o   1 AP
> FOR; Seems sensible.
>> 7877*  CB [1]1.0  Monsters CB [1]  1 AP
> AGAINST; Fulfilling pledge, and also it's a useless stub with bad text.
>> 7878*  Gaelan1.0  Not So Cuddly NowAris1 sh.
> PRESENT; Ambivalent about this change, though I understand the
> frustration that led to the proposal.
>> 7879*  o, Aris   1.0  You can take it with you o   1 sh.
> FOR;
>> 7880*  o 1.0  Agency Typo Fix  o   1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7881*  o, [2]1.0  Stamp CAN Patch  o   1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7882*  o, K, ais523  1.0  Welcome Package CAN Patcho   1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7883*  G.1.0  Fear v2.1G.  1 sh.
> PRESENT; Concerned about interactions with scams and shenanigans.
>> 7884*  V.J Rada  3.0  Mother, May I?   V.J Rada1 sh.
> PRESENT; I get CAN/MAY wrong all the time but I'll defer to the more
> modally-inclined players on whether this is good.
>> 7885*  o, [3]3.0  Restraining Bolt o   1 sh.
> PRESENT
>> 7886*  Aris, [4] 2.0  Card Reform and Expansion v4 Aris1 sh.
> PRESENT; Not convinced punishment expansion is the right direction, but
> I'll let it play out.
>> 7887*  Aris  3.0  SLR Ratification Aris1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7888*  o, V.J Rada   3.1  BILLY MAYS HERE  o   1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7889*  Aris  3.0  Agora Protection Act Aris1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7890*  Aris, G.  2.0  Improved Buoyancy v2 Aris1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7891*  Gaelan1.0  Proletarian Revolution   Gaelan  1 sh.
> AGAINST; Neat but not the direction I'd like to see the current econ go in.
>> 7892*  Aris  1.0  Truthfulness v2  Aris1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7893*  V.J Rada, [1] 2.0  Zimbabwe-style economics V.J Rada1 sh.
> AGAINST; I will oppose every change to Supply Level until the inactive
> players with shinies are dealt with.
>> 7894*  G.2.0  Shiny WeatherG.  1 AP
> AGAINST; ibid
>> 7895*  Gaelan3.0  No Telepathy Gaelan  1 sh.
> AGAINST; This appears to completely break anything calendar based.
>> 7896*  P.S.S. [5]3.0  Registration Delay Fix   P.S.S.  1 AP
> PRESENT
>> 7897*  CB [1]1.0  University Funding   Aris1 sh.
> I vote AGAINST on this proposal, then withdraw that vote and vote FOR
>> 7898*  G.2.0  Community Chest  G.  1 AP
> PRESENT; Sure, why not.
>> 
>> 
>> The proposal pool is currently empty.
>> 
>> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
>> 
>> 
>> [1] CuddleBeam
>> [2] V.J Rada, Aris, ais523
>> [3] V.J Rada, Ørjan
>> [4] ais523, Ørjan
>> [5] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> 
>> The Pending List Price (PLP) is 1 shiny. Proposals may also be pended for
>> 1 AP.
>> 
>> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
>> 
>> //
>> ID: 7876
>> Title: Float On
>> Adoption index: 2.0
>> Author: o
>> Co-authors:
>> 
>> 
>> Amend rule 2497 ("Floating Value") by replacing its text, in full, with:
>> 
>> {{{
>>   Floating Value is a natural singleton switch, tracked by the
>>   Secretary. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Floating
>>   Value switch CANNOT be flipped to a value other than the number
>>   of Shinies owned by Agora.
>> 
>>   The following Floating Derived Values are defined:
>> 
>>   * Pend Cost: 1/20th of the Floating Value, rounded up.
>>   * CFJ Cost: 1/20th of the Floating Value, rounded up.
>>   * Authorship Reward: 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> > 7884*  V.J Rada  3.0  Mother, May I?   V.J Rada1 sh.
> PRESENT; I get CAN/MAY wrong all the time but I'll defer to the more
> modally-inclined players on whether this is good.

I'm not sure it's problematic, but I'd rather wait and see how the urgent MAY
repairs work, and I think there's an alternative solution that lets us improve
the ruleset further:

Proto:  Where there's a WILL

Amend Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?) by inserting the following list item between
items 6. and 7., and renumbering the list appropriately:

   7. WILL:  The described action CAN be performed as described by the
 specified method (defaulting to 'by announcement' if no
 other method is specified), and SHALL be performed within the
 specified time limit (defaulting to 'in a timely fashion' if
 no other time limit is specified).

[e.g.:
   When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge,  that judge CAN
   assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so
   in a timely fashion after this becomes possible.
becomes:
   When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge,  that judge WILL
   assign a valid judgement to it after this becomes possible.

Quick survey shows 17 replacements, more once the latest SHALL/CAN fixes
are in place.  Once all the MAYs are fixed, we could think about a term
for those, depending on how many replacements.

]

DIS: [Proto] The Lint Screen

[Gaelan Steele]

{{{
The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the [Rulekeepor/Promotor] 
with possible values including all lists of text. The items in theIt SHOULD 
contain a list of common errors in proposals. Any player may flip The Lint 
Screen by adding, modifying, or removing an item with Consent.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless two players have publicly stated 
that they have reviewed (“linted”) the proposal for the issues listed in the 
Lint Screen. [Note that this has no teeth; if necessary, any proposal can still 
be passed]
}}}
Example starting Lint Screen; we could set this in the proposal or separately 
add each With Consent:
* all gamestate-affecting player actions use the word “CAN” and specify a 
mechanism (announcement, Without Objection, etc) [protects against our current 
MAYday]
* all actions affecting objects “belonging” to a player ensure that the actor 
is that player when appropriate [stamp scam, ais’s retraction scam]
* actions which would be problematic if performed too frequently have a time 
limit. [Agency spam scam]
* the changes described in the proposal can be discerned from the proposal 
itself, without needing to reference the current ruleset, i.e. by specifying 
titles of changed rules and providing previous text instead of replacing rule 
text entirely [pet peeve of mine. Don’t know if anybody else minds]
* all rules are created with sufficient power, and the AI is high enough
* created rules are formatted correctly.

We can, of course, add other things as they come up. 

Gaelan 

Re: DIS: [very early proto/idea] Inter-Nomic Currency

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:


Also, I've found this as a public paste on Pastebin a while ago which
suggests that there is another Nomic out there, although I haven't been
able to find it (or the coup never happened): https://pastebin.com/dEwyiMRq


I've never heard of it but I recognize comex and Ienpw_III who're old 
Agorans and sometimes on the IRC channel.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Shiny Weather

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


 Determining the weather to be Improving sets the Supply Level
 25% higher (rounded down).  Determining the Supply Level to
 be Deteriorating sets the Supply Level 25% lower (rounded up).


I think you mispled one "weather" as "Supply Level".

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Severe email problems

[Nicholas Evans]

On Sep 11, 2017 1:46 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:


Well, the real issue is that, as written, the rules were totally broken.
Whether fixing it is called "massive bug fix" or "scam repair" is a side
point really...


A handful of 'bugs' were intentional (I didn't plan to use them but rather
see if anyone else did). Others weren't. The interactions of the intended
and unintended were worse than expected.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Severe email problems

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Incidentally, the huge amounts of disruption in the economy are making
> > the game rather unsatisfying to play in their own rights.
> 
> ...I personally enjoy the disruption lol, kind of how american football can 
> be considered more entertaining than golf. But I can understand how, from
> someone who just arrived and hasn't seen this from the start, thinks this
> is a total mess.

Well, the real issue is that, as written, the rules were totally broken.
Whether fixing it is called "massive bug fix" or "scam repair" is a side
point really...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Severe email problems

[Cuddle Beam]

> Incidentally, the huge amounts of disruption in the economy are making
> the game rather unsatisfying to play in their own rights.

...I personally enjoy the disruption lol, kind of how american football can
be considered more entertaining than golf. But I can understand how, from
someone who just arrived and hasn't seen this from the start, thinks this
is a total mess. I hope it passes soon because it might be too much for too
little time but I hope to see more powerful plays in the future.

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> ais523, can you provide the list of "interested judges" you were working
> from for judicial assignments?
>
>
> > Incidentally, the huge amounts of disruption in the economy are making
> > the game rather unsatisfying to play in their own rights.
>
> proto:  honorable and dishonorable scams.
>  [also file under:  responsible bug disclosure].
>
>   - A player CAN, with X support/objections, designate a set of actions
> performed by a set of players as a "scam".  A set of actions SHOULD
> only be considered a scam if it uses rules against the general
> intent
> but not the letter of the rules, especially if the actions create
> a unevenly beneficial result in favor of the scammers.
>
>   - A scam is "honorable" if the actors do not break any rules to
> conduct it, if they take a minimally reasonable profit from the
> scam, it does not overly break the game beyond what was broken
> already,
> and if they take a minimal time to submit proposals or initiate
> other
> methods to fix the loopholes so that the letter of the rules
> matches the
> broken intent.
>
>   - bring back Scamster title.
>
>   - Fix proposals SHOULD allow scammers to keep rewards from honorable
> scams,
> but SHOULD NOT allow scammers to keep profits from dishonorable
> scams.
>
> [since of course the scam rules can be scammed if they are overly
> technical,
> and you can't logically determine the "intent" of rules, the discretion for
> intent, reasonable or minimal would be on judges.  This amounts to a
> mini-equity
> system specific to scam repair/restitution].
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> > I'm having huge problems with my email system at the moment; I can't
> send or receive at all from the @alumni account, and can't easily send from
> the @yahoo account either (you can probably tell that I'm not using my
> normal client because this message isn't wrapped properly). I decided to
> wait a few days to see if the problems fixed themselves, but they haven't.
> >
> > In the meantime, Agora's activity blew up, and the combination is making
> it impossible for me to cope; I'm hugely behind as it is, and have lost
> track of what I need to respond to / what I need to do. Additionally, I'm
> receiving messages from the lists out of order, which is making things even
> harder to follow (and PSS's messages nearly always get stuck in the spam
> filter no matter how often I mark them as not being spam, which makes
> things even worse).
> >
> > If the ability to go inactive were still in the ruleset, I'd use it. As
> it isn't, though, I deregister. Hopefully Agora will be in a better place
> by the time I get back.
> >
> > Incidentally, the huge amounts of disruption in the economy are making
> the game rather unsatisfying to play in their own rights. It's best if
> people don't scam rules until after they've already started working; trying
> to plan out a strategy doesn't really work if the ruleset is radically
> changed or reinterpreted every couple of weeks. Perhaps there could be some
> sort of way to get the economy working as part of a contract, rather than
> in the rules (proto-proto: contracts can be given the ability to pend
> proposals and award wins by proposal, players who aren't participating in
> any of these "economy contracts" can still make AP pends, economy contracts
> SHOULD consider making AP pending illegal for their members); that way, we
> could have multiple competing economies and people could choose the one
> that worked best.
> >
> > (P.S. I'm strongly opposed to the idea of the Fearmongor. I didn't much
> like it previous times it was here, and that was in rulesets which were
> already fairly established. Removing fledgling mechanics while we're still
> trying to rebuild just sounds like a way to ensure that we never build
> anything.)
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Agora x Blognomic

[Cuddle Beam]

The dynasty is currently doing on a word-collection route (it's themed
after Katamari Damacy, great game btw, check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC3dEhbAPh8). I made a proposal which would
allow the Katamari (and the players) to collect words from Agora's ruleset,
which would be special "Extraterrestrial" items (words). Just a stub for
now though, but figured it was worth mentioning.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I wouldn’t mind recreating the office of ambassador.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Sep 8, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >> 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).
> >
> > We actually tried to invade BN once.  Invasion failed and caused a lot
> of bad
> > feeling all around.  We had invasions here before - it always leads to
> bad
> > tempers IMO and feelings of unsportsmanlike conduct.  There's often
> protections
> > in Agora for that, right now it's through Festivals.
> >
> > That said, cross-nomic in itself isn't bad.  Here's a flash from the
> past (there
> > was a whole rules section about this):
> >
> > Rule 2185/0 (Power=1)
> > Foreign Relations
> >
> >  Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the
> >  Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,
> >  Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.
> >
> >  When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition
> >  becomes Protected.  When a foreign nomic ceases to be a
> >  Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown.  A foreign
> >  nomic's Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any
> >  other way.
> >
> >  The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic's
> >  Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction).  E
> >  SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Severe email problems

[Kerim Aydin]

ais523, can you provide the list of "interested judges" you were working
from for judicial assignments?


> Incidentally, the huge amounts of disruption in the economy are making 
> the game rather unsatisfying to play in their own rights.

proto:  honorable and dishonorable scams.
 [also file under:  responsible bug disclosure].

  - A player CAN, with X support/objections, designate a set of actions
performed by a set of players as a "scam".  A set of actions SHOULD
only be considered a scam if it uses rules against the general intent
but not the letter of the rules, especially if the actions create
a unevenly beneficial result in favor of the scammers.

  - A scam is "honorable" if the actors do not break any rules to
conduct it, if they take a minimally reasonable profit from the
scam, it does not overly break the game beyond what was broken already,
and if they take a minimal time to submit proposals or initiate other
methods to fix the loopholes so that the letter of the rules matches the
broken intent.

  - bring back Scamster title.

  - Fix proposals SHOULD allow scammers to keep rewards from honorable 
scams,
but SHOULD NOT allow scammers to keep profits from dishonorable scams.

[since of course the scam rules can be scammed if they are overly technical,
and you can't logically determine the "intent" of rules, the discretion for
intent, reasonable or minimal would be on judges.  This amounts to a mini-equity
system specific to scam repair/restitution].


On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:

> I'm having huge problems with my email system at the moment; I can't send or 
> receive at all from the @alumni account, and can't easily send from the 
> @yahoo account either (you can probably tell that I'm not using my normal 
> client because this message isn't wrapped properly). I decided to wait a few 
> days to see if the problems fixed themselves, but they haven't.
> 
> In the meantime, Agora's activity blew up, and the combination is making it 
> impossible for me to cope; I'm hugely behind as it is, and have lost track of 
> what I need to respond to / what I need to do. Additionally, I'm receiving 
> messages from the lists out of order, which is making things even harder to 
> follow (and PSS's messages nearly always get stuck in the spam filter no 
> matter how often I mark them as not being spam, which makes things even 
> worse).
> 
> If the ability to go inactive were still in the ruleset, I'd use it. As it 
> isn't, though, I deregister. Hopefully Agora will be in a better place by the 
> time I get back.
> 
> Incidentally, the huge amounts of disruption in the economy are making the 
> game rather unsatisfying to play in their own rights. It's best if people 
> don't scam rules until after they've already started working; trying to plan 
> out a strategy doesn't really work if the ruleset is radically changed or 
> reinterpreted every couple of weeks. Perhaps there could be some sort of way 
> to get the economy working as part of a contract, rather than in the rules 
> (proto-proto: contracts can be given the ability to pend proposals and award 
> wins by proposal, players who aren't participating in any of these "economy 
> contracts" can still make AP pends, economy contracts SHOULD consider making 
> AP pending illegal for their members); that way, we could have multiple 
> competing economies and people could choose the one that worked best.
> 
> (P.S. I'm strongly opposed to the idea of the Fearmongor. I didn't much like 
> it previous times it was here, and that was in rulesets which were already 
> fairly established. Removing fledgling mechanics while we're still trying to 
> rebuild just sounds like a way to ensure that we never build anything.)
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Corrected SLR

[Gaelan Steele]

I’ve been fixing things as I touch them; I’ll try and fix everything when I get 
a chance, probably tonight. 

Gaelan 

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:01 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> I don’t think you can formally CoE a ruleset anyway
>> No, they're only for self-ratifying things.
> 
> An explicit public challenge to *any* document triggers the
> SHALL or SHOULD requirement for a response.
> 
> And Gaelan, can you fix the margins of the LRs?  I really think
> sticking to the format is a good idea, and proposals are getting
> harder to quote text and read as well.
> 
> 

Re: DIS: [very early proto/idea] Inter-Nomic Currency

[Cuddle Beam]

My question was a bit more broad but I get the redundancy.

As for Blognomic, there is a way to keep it for more than one dynasty - to
win Blognomic and keep the rule that mantains Subers in your Ascension
Address. Not a permanent solution though, but doable if you're really into
that.

Is there a third style of nomic aside from Dynastic and, well, [insert
Agora's style here]?

Also, I've found this as a public paste on Pastebin a while ago which
suggests that there is another Nomic out there, although I haven't been
able to find it (or the coup never happened): https://pastebin.com/dEwyiMRq

>i feel like weve passed the golden age of internet nomics

I have to agree. Back in the day there wasn't that much on the internet
really, so Agora stood out more I believe. But now we got instant
matchmaking, AMAZING graphics, Twitch, etc, so I feel like people would be
more drawn to those "game" communities than this obscure one. Play-by-post
Forum Roleplay is also slowly dying, and I believe that most of the blame
is that, people just prefer newer, more refined industrial games.


On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I asked that same question in the last paragraph of my message.
>
> Gaelan
>
> On Sep 11, 2017, at 6:35 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>
> What other active nomics are there aside from Blognomic?
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Gaelan Steele 
> wrote:
>
>> Idea: a “universal” currency that can be used across Nomics. I’d propose
>> the name as “Subers,” but I’m not super attached to that. I’d implement it
>> such that each Suber always belongs to one nomic. A nomic may internally
>> allocate their Subers however they wish, but that isn’t visible to other
>> nomics. This allows us a lot of freedom with regards to things like
>> Contracts owning Subers. In terms of record keeping, I’d have each nomic
>> track the Subers in its possession. Wording would vary across nomics of
>> course, but I figure around here Subers would be assets, and we would have
>> something along the lines of “A player CAN create any number of Subers in
>> their possession by announcement if an equal number of Subers were
>> destroyed in another nomic with the intent of transferring them to that
>> player in Agora. The Subers in the other nomic must be able to be traced
>> back to a Suber Creation Event that was authorized by Agora. Any player CAN
>> destroy any number of Subers in their possession. If they do so, they SHALL
>> create the equivalent number of Subers in  another nomic, citing this
>> destruction as the source, within the next two hours. If they do not do so,
>> the Subers are recreated and are not considered destroyed for the purposes
>> of foreign rules.”
>>
>> I guess the most important question is whether there is another nomic
>> that would be interested in such a mechanic; it seems like something
>> BlogNomic wouldn’t be willing to keep around for more than a dynasty; I
>> don’t know FRC well enough to know how they would react to such a thing.
>> Are there any other nomics around that have overlap with our player base?
>>
>> Gaelan
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Corrected SLR

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > I don’t think you can formally CoE a ruleset anyway
> No, they're only for self-ratifying things.

An explicit public challenge to *any* document triggers the
SHALL or SHOULD requirement for a response.

And Gaelan, can you fix the margins of the LRs?  I really think
sticking to the format is a good idea, and proposals are getting
harder to quote text and read as well.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yellow Card to Superintendent

[Josh T]

I do suppose that makes my attempt to issue the Superintendent a card is
quite moot. Carry on.

天火狐

On 11 September 2017 at 08:02, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> The office of Superintendent is empty.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Josh T  wrote:
> >
> > I issue a Yellow Card to the Superintendent due to eir tardiness in
> publishing the September Monthly Agency report. Eir apology must contain
> the following words:
> >
> > * Shadow
> > * Shahadah
> > * Shakespeare
> > * Shaman
> > * Shameless
> > * Shanghaied
> > * Shark
> > * Shiitake
> > * Shmaltz
> > * Shrubbery
> >
> > 天火狐
>
>

Re: DIS: [very early proto/idea] Inter-Nomic Currency

[Gaelan Steele]

I asked that same question in the last paragraph of my message. 

Gaelan

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 6:35 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> What other active nomics are there aside from Blognomic?
> 
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> Idea: a “universal” currency that can be used across Nomics. I’d propose the 
>> name as “Subers,” but I’m not super attached to that. I’d implement it such 
>> that each Suber always belongs to one nomic. A nomic may internally allocate 
>> their Subers however they wish, but that isn’t visible to other nomics. This 
>> allows us a lot of freedom with regards to things like Contracts owning 
>> Subers. In terms of record keeping, I’d have each nomic track the Subers in 
>> its possession. Wording would vary across nomics of course, but I figure 
>> around here Subers would be assets, and we would have something along the 
>> lines of “A player CAN create any number of Subers in their possession by 
>> announcement if an equal number of Subers were destroyed in another nomic 
>> with the intent of transferring them to that player in Agora. The Subers in 
>> the other nomic must be able to be traced back to a Suber Creation Event 
>> that was authorized by Agora. Any player CAN destroy any number of Subers in 
>> their possession. If they do so, they SHALL create the equivalent number of 
>> Subers in  another nomic, citing this destruction as the source, within the 
>> next two hours. If they do not do so, the Subers are recreated and are not 
>> considered destroyed for the purposes of foreign rules.”
>> 
>> I guess the most important question is whether there is another nomic that 
>> would be interested in such a mechanic; it seems like something BlogNomic 
>> wouldn’t be willing to keep around for more than a dynasty; I don’t know FRC 
>> well enough to know how they would react to such a thing. Are there any 
>> other nomics around that have overlap with our player base?
>> 
>> Gaelan
> 

Re: DIS: [very early proto/idea] Inter-Nomic Currency

[Cuddle Beam]

What other active nomics are there aside from Blognomic?

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Idea: a “universal” currency that can be used across Nomics. I’d propose
> the name as “Subers,” but I’m not super attached to that. I’d implement it
> such that each Suber always belongs to one nomic. A nomic may internally
> allocate their Subers however they wish, but that isn’t visible to other
> nomics. This allows us a lot of freedom with regards to things like
> Contracts owning Subers. In terms of record keeping, I’d have each nomic
> track the Subers in its possession. Wording would vary across nomics of
> course, but I figure around here Subers would be assets, and we would have
> something along the lines of “A player CAN create any number of Subers in
> their possession by announcement if an equal number of Subers were
> destroyed in another nomic with the intent of transferring them to that
> player in Agora. The Subers in the other nomic must be able to be traced
> back to a Suber Creation Event that was authorized by Agora. Any player CAN
> destroy any number of Subers in their possession. If they do so, they SHALL
> create the equivalent number of Subers in  another nomic, citing this
> destruction as the source, within the next two hours. If they do not do so,
> the Subers are recreated and are not considered destroyed for the purposes
> of foreign rules.”
>
> I guess the most important question is whether there is another nomic that
> would be interested in such a mechanic; it seems like something BlogNomic
> wouldn’t be willing to keep around for more than a dynasty; I don’t know
> FRC well enough to know how they would react to such a thing. Are there any
> other nomics around that have overlap with our player base?
>
> Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Yellow Card to Superintendent

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

The office of Superintendent is empty.

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



> On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> I issue a Yellow Card to the Superintendent due to eir tardiness in 
> publishing the September Monthly Agency report. Eir apology must contain the 
> following words:
> 
> * Shadow
> * Shahadah
> * Shakespeare
> * Shaman
> * Shameless
> * Shanghaied
> * Shark
> * Shiitake
> * Shmaltz
> * Shrubbery
> 
> 天火狐



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: [very early proto/idea] Inter-Nomic Currency

[Nicholas Evans]

Using tge same cyrrency for distinct markets with distinct financial
controls is usually a bad idea in the real world where people are
incentivized to maintain it. It'll be worse in a virtual world.

I'd still support if Subers didn't supplant shinies but rather was
exchangeable.

On Sep 11, 2017 4:05 AM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

Idea: a “universal” currency that can be used across Nomics. I’d propose
the name as “Subers,” but I’m not super attached to that. I’d implement it
such that each Suber always belongs to one nomic. A nomic may internally
allocate their Subers however they wish, but that isn’t visible to other
nomics. This allows us a lot of freedom with regards to things like
Contracts owning Subers. In terms of record keeping, I’d have each nomic
track the Subers in its possession. Wording would vary across nomics of
course, but I figure around here Subers would be assets, and we would have
something along the lines of “A player CAN create any number of Subers in
their possession by announcement if an equal number of Subers were
destroyed in another nomic with the intent of transferring them to that
player in Agora. The Subers in the other nomic must be able to be traced
back to a Suber Creation Event that was authorized by Agora. Any player CAN
destroy any number of Subers in their possession. If they do so, they SHALL
create the equivalent number of Subers in  another nomic, citing this
destruction as the source, within the next two hours. If they do not do so,
the Subers are recreated and are not considered destroyed for the purposes
of foreign rules.”

I guess the most important question is whether there is another nomic that
would be interested in such a mechanic; it seems like something BlogNomic
wouldn’t be willing to keep around for more than a dynasty; I don’t know
FRC well enough to know how they would react to such a thing. Are there any
other nomics around that have overlap with our player base?

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

[VJ Rada]

ntttpf

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend fee
>> ---
>> 7876*  o 2.0  Float On o   1 AP
> FOR
>> 7877*  CB [1]1.0  Monsters CB [1]  1 AP
> AGAINST
>> 7878*  Gaelan1.0  Not So Cuddly NowAris1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7879*  o, Aris   1.0  You can take it with you o   1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7880*  o 1.0  Agency Typo Fix  o   1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7881*  o, [2]1.0  Stamp CAN Patch  o   1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7882*  o, K, ais523  1.0  Welcome Package CAN Patcho   1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7883*  G.1.0  Fear v2.1G.  1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7884*  V.J Rada  3.0  Mother, May I?   V.J Rada1 sh.
> AGAINST
>> 7885*  o, [3]3.0  Restraining Bolt o   1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7886*  Aris, [4] 2.0  Card Reform and Expansion v4 Aris1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7887*  Aris  3.0  SLR Ratification Aris1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7888*  o, V.J Rada   3.1  BILLY MAYS HERE  o   1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7889*  Aris  3.0  Agora Protection Act Aris1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7890*  Aris, G.  2.0  Improved Buoyancy v2 Aris1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7891*  Gaelan1.0  Proletarian Revolution   Gaelan  1 sh.
> AGAINST
>> 7892*  Aris  1.0  Truthfulness v2  Aris1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7893*  V.J Rada, [1] 2.0  Zimbabwe-style economics V.J Rada1 sh.
> AGAINST
>> 7894*  G.2.0  Shiny WeatherG.  1 AP
> AGAINST, I would prefer less randomness
>> 7895*  Gaelan3.0  No Telepathy Gaelan  1 sh.
> AGAINST
>> 7896*  P.S.S. [5]3.0  Registration Delay Fix   P.S.S.  1 AP
> FOR
>> 7897*  CB [1]1.0  University Funding   Aris1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7898*  G.2.0  Community Chest  G.  1 AP
> FOR



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I vote as follows:
> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend fee
> ---
> 7876*  o 2.0  Float On o   1 AP
FOR
> 7877*  CB [1]1.0  Monsters CB [1]  1 AP
AGAINST
> 7878*  Gaelan1.0  Not So Cuddly NowAris1 sh.
FOR
> 7879*  o, Aris   1.0  You can take it with you o   1 sh.
FOR
> 7880*  o 1.0  Agency Typo Fix  o   1 sh.
FOR
> 7881*  o, [2]1.0  Stamp CAN Patch  o   1 sh.
FOR
> 7882*  o, K, ais523  1.0  Welcome Package CAN Patcho   1 sh.
FOR
> 7883*  G.1.0  Fear v2.1G.  1 sh.
FOR
> 7884*  V.J Rada  3.0  Mother, May I?   V.J Rada1 sh.
AGAINST
> 7885*  o, [3]3.0  Restraining Bolt o   1 sh.
FOR
> 7886*  Aris, [4] 2.0  Card Reform and Expansion v4 Aris1 sh.
FOR
> 7887*  Aris  3.0  SLR Ratification Aris1 sh.
FOR
> 7888*  o, V.J Rada   3.1  BILLY MAYS HERE  o   1 sh.
FOR
> 7889*  Aris  3.0  Agora Protection Act Aris1 sh.
FOR
> 7890*  Aris, G.  2.0  Improved Buoyancy v2 Aris1 sh.
FOR
> 7891*  Gaelan1.0  Proletarian Revolution   Gaelan  1 sh.
AGAINST
> 7892*  Aris  1.0  Truthfulness v2  Aris1 sh.
FOR
> 7893*  V.J Rada, [1] 2.0  Zimbabwe-style economics V.J Rada1 sh.
AGAINST
> 7894*  G.2.0  Shiny WeatherG.  1 AP
AGAINST, I would prefer less randomness
> 7895*  Gaelan3.0  No Telepathy Gaelan  1 sh.
AGAINST
> 7896*  P.S.S. [5]3.0  Registration Delay Fix   P.S.S.  1 AP
FOR
> 7897*  CB [1]1.0  University Funding   Aris1 sh.
FOR
> 7898*  G.2.0  Community Chest  G.  1 AP
FOR


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Registration Delay Fix

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

If they were my friend, they would say Publius. In writing, they would write P. 
Scribonius.

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



> On Sep 10, 2017, at 9:07 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> (also, for what it's worth, I also go hunting for PSS's full name and copy/
>> paste whenever I need it :P )
> 
> Actually I've been meaning to ask:  how would a fellow Roman back in the
> day refer to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus (i.e. informally)?
> Would it be "Publius"?  Dunno much about how Roman family names work, but
> being classically correct is probably perferrable to using "PSS"...
> 
> -G.  (actually pronounced "Goethe", alt. "Gravity")
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: [very early proto/idea] Inter-Nomic Currency

[VJ Rada]

i feel like weve passed the golden age of internet nomics

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> Idea: a “universal” currency that can be used across Nomics. I’d propose the 
> name as “Subers,” but I’m not super attached to that. I’d implement it such 
> that each Suber always belongs to one nomic. A nomic may internally allocate 
> their Subers however they wish, but that isn’t visible to other nomics. This 
> allows us a lot of freedom with regards to things like Contracts owning 
> Subers. In terms of record keeping, I’d have each nomic track the Subers in 
> its possession. Wording would vary across nomics of course, but I figure 
> around here Subers would be assets, and we would have something along the 
> lines of “A player CAN create any number of Subers in their possession by 
> announcement if an equal number of Subers were destroyed in another nomic 
> with the intent of transferring them to that player in Agora. The Subers in 
> the other nomic must be able to be traced back to a Suber Creation Event that 
> was authorized by Agora. Any player CAN destroy any number of Subers in their 
> possession. If they do so, they SHALL create the equivalent number of Subers 
> in  another nomic, citing this destruction as the source, within the next two 
> hours. If they do not do so, the Subers are recreated and are not considered 
> destroyed for the purposes of foreign rules.”
>
> I guess the most important question is whether there is another nomic that 
> would be interested in such a mechanic; it seems like something BlogNomic 
> wouldn’t be willing to keep around for more than a dynasty; I don’t know FRC 
> well enough to know how they would react to such a thing. Are there any other 
> nomics around that have overlap with our player base?
>
> Gaelan



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: [very early proto/idea] Inter-Nomic Currency

[Gaelan Steele]

Idea: a “universal” currency that can be used across Nomics. I’d propose the 
name as “Subers,” but I’m not super attached to that. I’d implement it such 
that each Suber always belongs to one nomic. A nomic may internally allocate 
their Subers however they wish, but that isn’t visible to other nomics. This 
allows us a lot of freedom with regards to things like Contracts owning Subers. 
In terms of record keeping, I’d have each nomic track the Subers in its 
possession. Wording would vary across nomics of course, but I figure around 
here Subers would be assets, and we would have something along the lines of “A 
player CAN create any number of Subers in their possession by announcement if 
an equal number of Subers were destroyed in another nomic with the intent of 
transferring them to that player in Agora. The Subers in the other nomic must 
be able to be traced back to a Suber Creation Event that was authorized by 
Agora. Any player CAN destroy any number of Subers in their possession. If they 
do so, they SHALL create the equivalent number of Subers in  another nomic, 
citing this destruction as the source, within the next two hours. If they do 
not do so, the Subers are recreated and are not considered destroyed for the 
purposes of foreign rules.” 

I guess the most important question is whether there is another nomic that 
would be interested in such a mechanic; it seems like something BlogNomic 
wouldn’t be willing to keep around for more than a dynasty; I don’t know FRC 
well enough to know how they would react to such a thing. Are there any other 
nomics around that have overlap with our player base?

Gaelan

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Corrected SLR

[VJ Rada]

> I don’t think you can formally CoE a ruleset anyway
No, they're only for self-ratifying things.

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I CoE this report if possible (VJ’s went to DIS, but I don’t think you can 
> formally CoE a ruleset anyway), accept the CoE if it exists, and publish this 
> revised report.
>
> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>
> Most Recent Ruleset Change Recorded:
> Adoption of Proposal 7875, 7 Sep 2017
>
> Online documents:
>  https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/slr.txt (SLR)
>  https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/flr.txt (FLR)
>  https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/ (HLR, not legally part of my
>report but always in sync with the other two)
>
> ==
> Agora
> --
>
> Rule 101/17 (Power=3)
> The Game of Agora
>
>   Agora 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.  The game may
>   be won, but the game never ends.
>
>   Please treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>
> --
>
> Rule 1698/4 (Power=3)
> Agora Is A Nomic
>
>   Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of
>   actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or
>   arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period.
>
>   If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause Agora to
>   become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it cannot take
>   effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.If any other single change
>   to the gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause
>   Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to 
> the
>   contrary notwithstanding.
>
> --
>
> Rule 478/34 (Power=3)
> Fora
>
>   Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
>   any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player
>   shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall
>   any person create physical or technological obstacles that
>   unduly favor some players' fora access over others.
>
>   Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and
>   Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.  Changes to
>   publicity are secured.
>
>   The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without
>   objection as long as:
>
>   1. e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
>
>   2. if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which
>  the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all
>  existing public fora.
>
>   Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public
>   forum.
>
>   A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
>   to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
>   be public.  A rule can also designate that a part of one public
>   message is considered a public message in its own right. A
>   person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public
>   message.
>
>   Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
>   announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
>   and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
>   it.  Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>   the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages
>   (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear
>   in the message, unless otherwise specified.
>
> --
>
> ==
> Players
> --
>
> Rule 869/39 (Power=3)
> How to Join and Leave Agora
>
>   Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and
>   communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person.  Rules
>   to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons.
>
>   Citizenship is a person switch with values Unregistered
>   (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar.  Changes to
>   citizenship are secured.  A registered person is a Player.
>
>   A person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the
>   rules) register by publishing a message that indicates
>   reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e intends
>   to become a player at that time.  A person, by registering,
>   agrees to abide by the Rules.  The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a
>   person to abide 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] SLR

[VJ Rada]

"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."

ais ratified that the With became a Without quite a while ago

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:20 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> "When a person is issued a Green Card, they
>  are ENCOURAGED to travel to the United States."
>
> This too.
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:20 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> "* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies."
>>
>> COE minor fixes amended this.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>>>
>>> Most Recent Ruleset Change Recorded:
>>> Adoption of Proposal 7875, 7 Sep 2017
>>>
>>> Online documents:
>>> https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/slr.txt (SLR)
>>> https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/flr.txt (FLR)
>>> https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/ (HLR, not legally part of my
>>>   report but always in sync with the other two)
>>>
>>> ==
>>> Agora
>>> --
>>>
>>> Rule 101/17 (Power=3)
>>> The Game of Agora
>>>
>>>  Agora 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.  The game may
>>>  be won, but the game never ends.
>>>
>>>  Please treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Rule 1698/4 (Power=3)
>>> Agora Is A Nomic
>>>
>>>  Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of
>>>  actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or
>>>  arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period.
>>>
>>>  If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause Agora 
>>> to
>>>  become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it cannot take
>>>  effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.If any other single 
>>> change
>>>  to the gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause
>>>  Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to 
>>> the
>>>  contrary notwithstanding.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Rule 478/34 (Power=3)
>>> Fora
>>>
>>>  Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
>>>  any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player
>>>  shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall
>>>  any person create physical or technological obstacles that
>>>  unduly favor some players' fora access over others.
>>>
>>>  Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and
>>>  Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.  Changes to
>>>  publicity are secured.
>>>
>>>  The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without
>>>  objection as long as:
>>>
>>>  1. e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
>>>
>>>  2. if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which
>>> the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all
>>> existing public fora.
>>>
>>>  Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public
>>>  forum.
>>>
>>>  A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
>>>  to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
>>>  be public.  A rule can also designate that a part of one public
>>>  message is considered a public message in its own right. A
>>>  person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public
>>>  message.
>>>
>>>  Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
>>>  announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
>>>  and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
>>>  it.  Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>>>  the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages
>>>  (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear
>>>  in the message, unless otherwise specified.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ==
>>> Players
>>> --
>>>
>>> Rule 869/39 (Power=3)
>>> How to Join and Leave Agora
>>>
>>>  Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and
>>>  communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person.  Rules
>>>  to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons.
>>>
>>>  Citizenship is a person switch with values Unregistered
>>>  (default) and Registered, tracked by the 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] SLR

[VJ Rada]

"When a person is issued a Green Card, they
 are ENCOURAGED to travel to the United States."

This too.

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:20 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> "* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies."
>
> COE minor fixes amended this.
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>>
>> Most Recent Ruleset Change Recorded:
>> Adoption of Proposal 7875, 7 Sep 2017
>>
>> Online documents:
>> https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/slr.txt (SLR)
>> https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/flr.txt (FLR)
>> https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/ (HLR, not legally part of my
>>   report but always in sync with the other two)
>>
>> ==
>> Agora
>> --
>>
>> Rule 101/17 (Power=3)
>> The Game of Agora
>>
>>  Agora 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.  The game may
>>  be won, but the game never ends.
>>
>>  Please treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rule 1698/4 (Power=3)
>> Agora Is A Nomic
>>
>>  Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of
>>  actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or
>>  arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period.
>>
>>  If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause Agora to
>>  become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it cannot take
>>  effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.If any other single change
>>  to the gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause
>>  Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to 
>> the
>>  contrary notwithstanding.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rule 478/34 (Power=3)
>> Fora
>>
>>  Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
>>  any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player
>>  shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall
>>  any person create physical or technological obstacles that
>>  unduly favor some players' fora access over others.
>>
>>  Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and
>>  Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.  Changes to
>>  publicity are secured.
>>
>>  The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without
>>  objection as long as:
>>
>>  1. e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
>>
>>  2. if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which
>> the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all
>> existing public fora.
>>
>>  Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public
>>  forum.
>>
>>  A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
>>  to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
>>  be public.  A rule can also designate that a part of one public
>>  message is considered a public message in its own right. A
>>  person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public
>>  message.
>>
>>  Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
>>  announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
>>  and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
>>  it.  Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>>  the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages
>>  (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear
>>  in the message, unless otherwise specified.
>>
>> --
>>
>> ==
>> Players
>> --
>>
>> Rule 869/39 (Power=3)
>> How to Join and Leave Agora
>>
>>  Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and
>>  communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person.  Rules
>>  to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons.
>>
>>  Citizenship is a person switch with values Unregistered
>>  (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar.  Changes to
>>  citizenship are secured.  A registered person is a Player.
>>
>>  A person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the
>>  rules) register by publishing a message that indicates
>>  reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e intends
>>  to become a player at that time.  A person, by registering,
>>  agrees to abide by the Rules.  The Rules CANNOT 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] SLR

[VJ Rada]

"* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies."

COE minor fixes amended this.

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET
>
> Most Recent Ruleset Change Recorded:
> Adoption of Proposal 7875, 7 Sep 2017
>
> Online documents:
> https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/slr.txt (SLR)
> https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/flr.txt (FLR)
> https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/ (HLR, not legally part of my
>   report but always in sync with the other two)
>
> ==
> Agora
> --
>
> Rule 101/17 (Power=3)
> The Game of Agora
>
>  Agora 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.  The game may
>  be won, but the game never ends.
>
>  Please treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>
> --
>
> Rule 1698/4 (Power=3)
> Agora Is A Nomic
>
>  Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of
>  actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or
>  arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period.
>
>  If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause Agora to
>  become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it cannot take
>  effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.If any other single change
>  to the gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause
>  Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the
>  contrary notwithstanding.
>
> --
>
> Rule 478/34 (Power=3)
> Fora
>
>  Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
>  any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player
>  shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall
>  any person create physical or technological obstacles that
>  unduly favor some players' fora access over others.
>
>  Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and
>  Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.  Changes to
>  publicity are secured.
>
>  The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without
>  objection as long as:
>
>  1. e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
>
>  2. if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which
> the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all
> existing public fora.
>
>  Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public
>  forum.
>
>  A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
>  to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
>  be public.  A rule can also designate that a part of one public
>  message is considered a public message in its own right. A
>  person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public
>  message.
>
>  Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
>  announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
>  and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
>  it.  Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
>  the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages
>  (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear
>  in the message, unless otherwise specified.
>
> --
>
> ==
> Players
> --
>
> Rule 869/39 (Power=3)
> How to Join and Leave Agora
>
>  Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and
>  communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person.  Rules
>  to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons.
>
>  Citizenship is a person switch with values Unregistered
>  (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar.  Changes to
>  citizenship are secured.  A registered person is a Player.
>
>  A person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the
>  rules) register by publishing a message that indicates
>  reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e intends
>  to become a player at that time.  A person, by registering,
>  agrees to abide by the Rules.  The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a
>  person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful
>  consent.
>
>  A player CAN deregister (cease being a player) by announcement.
>  If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
>
>  If a player has not sent a message to a