DIS: Unofficial Quasi Finger Point

[VJ Rada]

As I noticed yesterday, the PM is still not allowed to arbitrarily
issue cards because "Executive orders" is lower power than "Cards". I
draw the attention of the referee to my illegal card issuance to
myself. I wish finger-pointing allowances were higher.

-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[VJ Rada]

A vote like: vote any player whose name begins w/ J, else PRESENT is
just fine and presents no problems.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:21 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> I meant ban any vote like
> 1. Jeff
> 2. PRESENT.
>
> I would count that vote as just a vote for Jeff.
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Josh T  wrote:
>> I typed up a long response and then realized that I think we might have
>> differing ideas of what it means to talk about "whole votes", thus I am
>> going to ask; what did you mean by "count PRESENT as a whole vote"?
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>> On 14 September 2017 at 23:48, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> That's a conditional, which is totally different. G's here talking
>>> about an instant runoff ballot of
>>> 1. Jeff
>>> 2. PRESENT
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Josh T 
>>> wrote:
>>> > It sounds like having endorse or PRESENT as the tail of a list of votes
>>> > is
>>> > acceptable. This allows things like "I endorse A, unless eir vote
>>> > indicates
>>> > preference for B, in which case my vote is PRESENT."
>>> >
>>> > 天火狐
>>> >
>>> > On 14 September 2017 at 19:09, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
>>> >> be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
>>> >> endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
>>> >> all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> >> >> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a
>>> >> >> replacement
>>> >> >> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the
>>> >> >> first
>>> >> >> option
>>> >> >> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my
>>> >> >> vote doesn't
>>> >> >> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the
>>> >> >> majority?
>>> >> >> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard
>>> >> >> definition
>>> >> >> of instant
>>> >> >> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less
>>> >> >> essential offices.
>>> >> >> Fun!!
>>> >> >
>>> >> > This question is also a concern for endorsements.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates
>>> >> > A..G,
>>> >> > then my
>>> >> > vote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > P:  {A, B, C}
>>> >> > Q:  {A, B, C}
>>> >> > R:  {A, B, C}
>>> >> >
>>> >> > S:  {D, E, F}
>>> >> > T:  {D, E, F}
>>> >> > U:  {D, E, F}
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Z:  {G, A}
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Me:  {endorse Z, D}
>>> >> >
>>> >> > From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1
>>> >> > endorsement).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > G is eliminated.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the
>>> >> > second
>>> >> > vote on my list is for D, D wins.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm
>>> >> > endorsing Z's
>>> >> > second choice, and A wins.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Which is right, if either?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and
>>> >> > Endorse
>>> >> > are
>>> >> > whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).
>>> >> > But
>>> >> > I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> From V.J. Rada
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[VJ Rada]

I meant ban any vote like
1. Jeff
2. PRESENT.

I would count that vote as just a vote for Jeff.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> I typed up a long response and then realized that I think we might have
> differing ideas of what it means to talk about "whole votes", thus I am
> going to ask; what did you mean by "count PRESENT as a whole vote"?
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 14 September 2017 at 23:48, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> That's a conditional, which is totally different. G's here talking
>> about an instant runoff ballot of
>> 1. Jeff
>> 2. PRESENT
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Josh T 
>> wrote:
>> > It sounds like having endorse or PRESENT as the tail of a list of votes
>> > is
>> > acceptable. This allows things like "I endorse A, unless eir vote
>> > indicates
>> > preference for B, in which case my vote is PRESENT."
>> >
>> > 天火狐
>> >
>> > On 14 September 2017 at 19:09, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
>> >> be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
>> >> endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
>> >> all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >> >> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a
>> >> >> replacement
>> >> >> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the
>> >> >> first
>> >> >> option
>> >> >> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my
>> >> >> vote doesn't
>> >> >> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the
>> >> >> majority?
>> >> >> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard
>> >> >> definition
>> >> >> of instant
>> >> >> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less
>> >> >> essential offices.
>> >> >> Fun!!
>> >> >
>> >> > This question is also a concern for endorsements.
>> >> >
>> >> > Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates
>> >> > A..G,
>> >> > then my
>> >> > vote:
>> >> >
>> >> > P:  {A, B, C}
>> >> > Q:  {A, B, C}
>> >> > R:  {A, B, C}
>> >> >
>> >> > S:  {D, E, F}
>> >> > T:  {D, E, F}
>> >> > U:  {D, E, F}
>> >> >
>> >> > Z:  {G, A}
>> >> >
>> >> > Me:  {endorse Z, D}
>> >> >
>> >> > From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1
>> >> > endorsement).
>> >> >
>> >> > G is eliminated.
>> >> >
>> >> > So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the
>> >> > second
>> >> > vote on my list is for D, D wins.
>> >> >
>> >> > But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm
>> >> > endorsing Z's
>> >> > second choice, and A wins.
>> >> >
>> >> > Which is right, if either?
>> >> >
>> >> > The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and
>> >> > Endorse
>> >> > are
>> >> > whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).
>> >> > But
>> >> > I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J. Rada
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 15, 2017, at 12:10 AM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> Here's two more: 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034600.html
> (the one quoted directly in the link, and the one quoted by that message)
> 
> 天火狐

Thanks.

A brief aside about motivation. I put this proposal forwards to solve four core 
problems with the current iteration of the Pledge system:

1. It’s very easy for pledges to fall through the cracks. Since the Referee is 
charged with identifying rule-breaking and can be penalized for failure to do 
so, this becomes impractical quite quickly. Making them a reported-on thing 
means that there’s a regularly-published document that lists all pledges, and 
which can drive people to report forgotten pledges while they’re still relevant.

2. Pledges exist indefinitely. Making them Assets borrows the lifecycle from 
that framework, and gives a clear point where a pledge no longer needs to be 
tracked for gameplay purposes. Nothing stops players from informally tracking 
pledges after they’ve been called in once, or re-pledging to a thing after 
having a pledge called in on them, but the game would no longer require anyone 
to keep track of a pledge forever.

3. Looking at the history of rules governing pledges, it seems likely that no 
wording in the rules will be sufficient to cover every way a pledge can be 
broken. Rather than try to patch on patches, I’m attempting to make pledge 
adherence and penalization a bit more democratic and deliberative. The Terms of 
a pledge have no formal ludic meaning at all, under this proposal, but make a 
fairly natural guide for when it’s appropriate to call in a pledge, or to 
object to an attempt to do so.

4. Some promises are made in error. Holding players to mistaken pledges forever 
is unfair. The proposal creates a way for players to formally back out of 
pledges, and a way to stop players from doing so if they abuse that privilege.

I seriously considered repealing pledges entirely, or reverting to the “A 
player SHALL NOT break a publicly-made pledge” wording, but the “you can 
destroy someone else’s stamps” scam amused me enough to want to build something 
useful on the same principle.

-o


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Josh T]

I typed up a long response and then realized that I think we might have
differing ideas of what it means to talk about "whole votes", thus I am
going to ask; what did you mean by "count PRESENT as a whole vote"?

天火狐

On 14 September 2017 at 23:48, VJ Rada  wrote:

> That's a conditional, which is totally different. G's here talking
> about an instant runoff ballot of
> 1. Jeff
> 2. PRESENT
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Josh T 
> wrote:
> > It sounds like having endorse or PRESENT as the tail of a list of votes
> is
> > acceptable. This allows things like "I endorse A, unless eir vote
> indicates
> > preference for B, in which case my vote is PRESENT."
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 14 September 2017 at 19:09, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>
> >> My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
> >> be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
> >> endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
> >> all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> >> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a
> >> >> replacement
> >> >> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the
> first
> >> >> option
> >> >> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my
> >> >> vote doesn't
> >> >> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the
> >> >> majority?
> >> >> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard
> definition
> >> >> of instant
> >> >> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less
> >> >> essential offices.
> >> >> Fun!!
> >> >
> >> > This question is also a concern for endorsements.
> >> >
> >> > Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates A..G,
> >> > then my
> >> > vote:
> >> >
> >> > P:  {A, B, C}
> >> > Q:  {A, B, C}
> >> > R:  {A, B, C}
> >> >
> >> > S:  {D, E, F}
> >> > T:  {D, E, F}
> >> > U:  {D, E, F}
> >> >
> >> > Z:  {G, A}
> >> >
> >> > Me:  {endorse Z, D}
> >> >
> >> > From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1
> endorsement).
> >> >
> >> > G is eliminated.
> >> >
> >> > So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the
> >> > second
> >> > vote on my list is for D, D wins.
> >> >
> >> > But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm
> >> > endorsing Z's
> >> > second choice, and A wins.
> >> >
> >> > Which is right, if either?
> >> >
> >> > The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and Endorse
> >> > are
> >> > whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).
> >> > But
> >> > I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Josh T]

Here's two more:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034600.html
(the one quoted directly in the link, and the one quoted by that message)

天火狐

On 14 September 2017 at 22:14, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:55 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Read line 1 of the pledge.  If part of the pledge is saying I CAN revoke
> it (including a method),
> > I can do so as part of keeping the pledge, I assume.
>
> It’s not at all clear how that works, or even if it works, but the intent
> is clear and I think it would be unfair not to allow you to stop upholding
> a promise in _precisely the way you initially promised to do so_. I’m
> content to leave this pledge out of the next version of the proposal, and
> to wait until you resolve this notice before revising the proposal.
>
> V.J Rada, thanks for catching two pledges I missed!
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Josh T]

We could use the Unicode collation algorithm, I guess. Your point is noted
however.

天火狐

On 14 September 2017 at 23:46, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 14, 2017, at 11:43 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> >
> > I believe that the term "alphabetical order" can be used to mean
> "lexicographical order", of which increasing unicode codepoint values is a
> naturalistic choice.
>
> Objection: ‘alphonse’ generally comes before ‘Bob’ in an alphabetical
> list. Hence my question about your name: I suspected someone would apply
> “lexical order” but my name comes significantly after VJ Rada’s name by
> that standard, and I’m not convinced it should.
>
> Generally, If we mean lexical order, we should say so. Collation is a hard
> problem and using terms fuzzily only makes it harder.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[VJ Rada]

That's a conditional, which is totally different. G's here talking
about an instant runoff ballot of
1. Jeff
2. PRESENT

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> It sounds like having endorse or PRESENT as the tail of a list of votes is
> acceptable. This allows things like "I endorse A, unless eir vote indicates
> preference for B, in which case my vote is PRESENT."
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 14 September 2017 at 19:09, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
>> be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
>> endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
>> all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a
>> >> replacement
>> >> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the first
>> >> option
>> >> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my
>> >> vote doesn't
>> >> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the
>> >> majority?
>> >> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard definition
>> >> of instant
>> >> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less
>> >> essential offices.
>> >> Fun!!
>> >
>> > This question is also a concern for endorsements.
>> >
>> > Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates A..G,
>> > then my
>> > vote:
>> >
>> > P:  {A, B, C}
>> > Q:  {A, B, C}
>> > R:  {A, B, C}
>> >
>> > S:  {D, E, F}
>> > T:  {D, E, F}
>> > U:  {D, E, F}
>> >
>> > Z:  {G, A}
>> >
>> > Me:  {endorse Z, D}
>> >
>> > From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1 endorsement).
>> >
>> > G is eliminated.
>> >
>> > So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the
>> > second
>> > vote on my list is for D, D wins.
>> >
>> > But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm
>> > endorsing Z's
>> > second choice, and A wins.
>> >
>> > Which is right, if either?
>> >
>> > The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and Endorse
>> > are
>> > whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).
>> > But
>> > I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Josh T]

I believe that the term "alphabetical order" can be used to mean
"lexicographical order", of which increasing unicode codepoint values is a
naturalistic choice.

天火狐

On 14 September 2017 at 20:19, grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

> For reference: if you resolve that vote as present and that vote causes
> PSS to be elected, I will probably CFJ the assessment.
>
>
> -grok
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2017 7:15 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
>
> I would say use eir preferred English character titles but there are
> two different ones which start with different letters. I guess if
> there is a tie here, I would resolve as PRESENT due to ambiguity.
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > There isn't one. For anyone who wants to try this, I'd suggest
> > ascending order of unicode code points. In fact, I may propose making
> > a rule that defines alphabetical order that way.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sep 14, 2017, at 4:11 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sep 13, 2017 6:22 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
> >>
> >> Please note the already ongoing election for agronomist.
> >>
> >> I initiate the elections for and the agoran decisions for the
> >> determination of the Arbitor, the Superintendent, the Tailor, the
> >> Promotor, the Referee, the Registrar, the Surveyor, and the
> >> Rulekeepor. These elections are either legal under the 90 day rule or
> >> are vacant offices. The vote collector is the ADoP and the quorum is
> >> 2.0.
> >>
> >> --
> >> >From V.J Rada
> >>
> >>
> >> In the election for registrar , I vote for the player with the most
> votes
> >> that is not the incumbent, using alphabetical order as a tiebreaker.
> >>
> >>
> >> What is the alphabetical ordering of 天火狐 with respect to myself, and
> why?
> >>
> >> -o
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Josh T]

It sounds like having endorse or PRESENT as the tail of a list of votes is
acceptable. This allows things like "I endorse A, unless eir vote indicates
preference for B, in which case my vote is PRESENT."

天火狐

On 14 September 2017 at 19:09, VJ Rada  wrote:

> My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
> be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
> endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
> all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a
> replacement
> >> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the first
> option
> >> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my
> vote doesn't
> >> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the
> majority?
> >> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard definition
> of instant
> >> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less
> essential offices.
> >> Fun!!
> >
> > This question is also a concern for endorsements.
> >
> > Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates A..G,
> then my
> > vote:
> >
> > P:  {A, B, C}
> > Q:  {A, B, C}
> > R:  {A, B, C}
> >
> > S:  {D, E, F}
> > T:  {D, E, F}
> > U:  {D, E, F}
> >
> > Z:  {G, A}
> >
> > Me:  {endorse Z, D}
> >
> > From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1 endorsement).
> >
> > G is eliminated.
> >
> > So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the
> second
> > vote on my list is for D, D wins.
> >
> > But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm
> endorsing Z's
> > second choice, and A wins.
> >
> > Which is right, if either?
> >
> > The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and Endorse
> are
> > whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).
> But
> > I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Attempt to resolve ambiguity

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 14, 2017 9:45 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:


> On Sep 14, 2017, at 10:40 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:
>
> (Not everyone is receiving my messages sent via this emergency backup
method. Could someone quote this email in a message of their own so that
everyone can see it?)
>
> I become an option in the current Victory Election.

The above was sent through the agora-business list.

-o


Just for reference: I did not receive that message in a-b. I am also a
Gmail user, since that seems to be a common characteristic.


-grok

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3559 assigned to o

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:31 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> This was previously assigned to o, but copy/paste messup gave it the wrong
> subject line.  This is to make sure there's a clear subject line with the
> assignment.
> 
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
>> The below CFJ is #3559.  I assign it to o.
>> 
>> Aris, if you could provide a message link to the proposal in question, it
>> would be appreciated.
>> 
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> 
>>> I AP-CFJ on the following:
>>> 
>>> The statement "Lines beginning with hashmarks ('#') and comments in
>>> square brackets ('[]') have no effect on the behavior of this
>>> proposal. They are not part of any rules
>>> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
>>> have been removed before its resolution.", as it appears near the
>>> beginning of the contracts proposal I sent to agora-discussion, has
>>> the clearly intended effect.
>>> 
>>> Arguments:
>>> 
>>> The last paragraph of Rule 106 implies that this works. Also,
>>> proposals are interpreted as human readable text, so it makes sense
>>> that portions could be commented out.

I’m not convinced r. 106 is the right angle for this. Instead, I’m tempted to 
look at game tradition. We’ve got a long history of commentary and 
non-normative guidance in proposals, and I see no obvious reason in the rules 
that that commentary cannot be set off with punctuation for clarity’s sake. I’m 
initially inclined to judge it TRUE.

However, I’ll leave this up for a few days and do some more research before 
rendering judgement.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Attempt to resolve ambiguity

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 10:40 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> (Not everyone is receiving my messages sent via this emergency backup method. 
> Could someone quote this email in a message of their own so that everyone can 
> see it?)
> 
> I become an option in the current Victory Election.

The above was sent through the agora-business list.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:55 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Read line 1 of the pledge.  If part of the pledge is saying I CAN revoke it 
> (including a method),
> I can do so as part of keeping the pledge, I assume.

It’s not at all clear how that works, or even if it works, but the intent is 
clear and I think it would be unfair not to allow you to stop upholding a 
promise in _precisely the way you initially promised to do so_. I’m content to 
leave this pledge out of the next version of the proposal, and to wait until 
you resolve this notice before revising the proposal.

V.J Rada, thanks for catching two pledges I missed!

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Quazie]

You can't revoke pledges
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 18:44 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I intend to revoke the below pledge with 4 days notice.  It was made while
> I was a non-player and CFJs were free for me.
>
> (if I do this, the proposal will now make me party to an agreement without
> consent,
> but now that it's pointed out that I can be forced to pay for others'
> cfjs, I don't
> want to leave it around long enough to revoke it after the proposal passes)
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > Create a pledge owned by G., whose terms are
> >
> > {
> >  This pledge is known as The Prosecutor's Office
> >
> >  1.  I CAN revoke or alter this pledge by giving 4 Days Notice.
> >
> >  2.  If a CFJ is submitted to The Prosecutor's Office (private or
> >  public to me, but not in Discussion), I shall follow the
> >  following formal process to resolve the matter of
> >  controversy:
> >
> >  a.  I shall enter it into the bottom of the Judicial Queue.
> >
> >  b.  At most once per day, and and most 5 times per week,
> I'll
> >  initiate an Agoran Call for Judgement on the CFJ on the
> >  top of the Judicial Queue (also barring judges as
> >  requested by the submitter).
> >
> >  c.  By request, the submitter may remain anonymous.
> >
> >  d.  Absolutely free of charge, as able, I'll research and
> >  add gratuitous arguments in favor of the submitter's
> >  position, and I'll not argue against the submitter's
> >  position except in private with the submitter.
> >
> > -G.
> > }
>
>
>

Re: DIS: [Proto] IRV formalization

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> An endorsement is a type of conditional.  Does formalizing the "endorse" mean
> other types of conditionals are forbidden?  are they allowed outside the list
> but not inside?
> 
> For example, would "I vote for {Incumbent if e does X, Someone else if e does 
> Y,
> Third person}"  (assuming X and Y are pretty easy to determine) be allowed?
> 
> If not, could you get the same effect by conditionals outside the list, e.g.
> "If incumbent does X, I vote {Incumbent, Y}, otherwise I vote {Y, incumbent}.”

I think IRV is easier to resolve, by a considerable margin, if conditionals 
only apply to the whole ballot. Reasonable conditions can generally be hoisted 
out of the list the way you describe, so I don’t think barring conditionals 
within the list does any damage to expressiveness, but it might be that 
combinatorial explosions for even medium-sized ballots make hoisting 
impractical.

More generally, I think IRV ballots should be able to use the same conditions 
any other ballot can. If that means dropping ENDORSE from the list, so be it, 
but I did specifically want to resolve the question of whether {a, ENDORSE n, 
b} is a valid ballot.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[VJ Rada]

And my pledge to make relevant titles and not steal anyone's person again.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:39 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> You might want to add nichdel's anti-cuddlebeam pledge.
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> Ugh, I missed a pledge, and I’m not sure that retroactive creation would 
>> work. I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and submit the 
>> following proposal in its place:
>>
>> Title: Make Your Home Shine
>> Author: o
>> Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan
>> AI: 1.7
>>
>> {{{
>> Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:
>>
>> {
>> Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
>> is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
>> pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
>> pledges are secured.
>>
>> To "pledge" something is to create a pledge with those terms. A
>> person CAN pledge by announcement.
>>
>> To "retract" (syn "withdraw") a pledge is to destroy it. A
>> person CAN retract a pledge they own without objection.
>>
>> To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in
>> any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the
>> Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an
>> intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting
>> player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should
>> be considered broken.
>>
>> It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in.
>> }
>>
>> Destroy every pledge.
>>
>> Create a pledge owned by Quazie, whose terms are
>>
>> {
>> I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
>> correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
>> Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
>> the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
>> self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
>> order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
>> source info in the explanation).
>> }
>>
>> Create a pledge owned by G., whose terms are
>>
>> {
>>  This pledge is known as The Prosecutor's Office
>>
>>  1.  I CAN revoke or alter this pledge by giving 4 Days Notice.
>>
>>  2.  If a CFJ is submitted to The Prosecutor's Office (private or
>>  public to me, but not in Discussion), I shall follow the
>>  following formal process to resolve the matter of
>>  controversy:
>>
>>  a.  I shall enter it into the bottom of the Judicial Queue.
>>
>>  b.  At most once per day, and and most 5 times per week, I'll
>>  initiate an Agoran Call for Judgement on the CFJ on the
>>  top of the Judicial Queue (also barring judges as
>>  requested by the submitter).
>>
>>  c.  By request, the submitter may remain anonymous.
>>
>>  d.  Absolutely free of charge, as able, I'll research and
>>  add gratuitous arguments in favor of the submitter's
>>  position, and I'll not argue against the submitter's
>>  position except in private with the submitter.
>>
>> -G.
>> }
>>
>> Create a pledge owned by V.J Rada, whose terms are
>>
>> {
>> However I now pledge to include more recapping of agoran events
>> in future newspapers.
>> }
>>
>> Create a pledge owned by o, whose terms are
>>
>> {
>> I pledge that, for the next month, if I have not yet paid a
>> total of 30 shinies under this pledge, and a player pledges to
>> pay me 6 Shinies within a month, I will pay em 5 Shinies in a
>> timely fashion.
>> }
>>
>> Ratify the following statement:
>>
>> {
>> The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017.
>> }
>>
>> Create a pledge owned by Gaelan, whose terms are
>>
>> {
>> I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
>> proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
>> the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
>> }
>>
>> Ratify the following statement:
>>
>> {
>> The only pledge owned by Gaelan was created on Sep 14, 2017.
>> }
>> }}}
>>
>> There are other pledges in play, but in my view they are either already
>> discharged, or irrelevant, and it would not be in the game's interest
>> to carry them forwards.
>>
>> -o
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[VJ Rada]

You might want to add nichdel's anti-cuddlebeam pledge.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> Ugh, I missed a pledge, and I’m not sure that retroactive creation would 
> work. I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and submit the following 
> proposal in its place:
>
> Title: Make Your Home Shine
> Author: o
> Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan
> AI: 1.7
>
> {{{
> Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:
>
> {
> Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
> is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
> pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
> pledges are secured.
>
> To "pledge" something is to create a pledge with those terms. A
> person CAN pledge by announcement.
>
> To "retract" (syn "withdraw") a pledge is to destroy it. A
> person CAN retract a pledge they own without objection.
>
> To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in
> any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the
> Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an
> intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting
> player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should
> be considered broken.
>
> It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in.
> }
>
> Destroy every pledge.
>
> Create a pledge owned by Quazie, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
> correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
> Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
> the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
> self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
> source info in the explanation).
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by G., whose terms are
>
> {
>  This pledge is known as The Prosecutor's Office
>
>  1.  I CAN revoke or alter this pledge by giving 4 Days Notice.
>
>  2.  If a CFJ is submitted to The Prosecutor's Office (private or
>  public to me, but not in Discussion), I shall follow the
>  following formal process to resolve the matter of
>  controversy:
>
>  a.  I shall enter it into the bottom of the Judicial Queue.
>
>  b.  At most once per day, and and most 5 times per week, I'll
>  initiate an Agoran Call for Judgement on the CFJ on the
>  top of the Judicial Queue (also barring judges as
>  requested by the submitter).
>
>  c.  By request, the submitter may remain anonymous.
>
>  d.  Absolutely free of charge, as able, I'll research and
>  add gratuitous arguments in favor of the submitter's
>  position, and I'll not argue against the submitter's
>  position except in private with the submitter.
>
> -G.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by V.J Rada, whose terms are
>
> {
> However I now pledge to include more recapping of agoran events
> in future newspapers.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by o, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge that, for the next month, if I have not yet paid a
> total of 30 shinies under this pledge, and a player pledges to
> pay me 6 Shinies within a month, I will pay em 5 Shinies in a
> timely fashion.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by Gaelan, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
> proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
> the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by Gaelan was created on Sep 14, 2017.
> }
> }}}
>
> There are other pledges in play, but in my view they are either already
> discharged, or irrelevant, and it would not be in the game's interest
> to carry them forwards.
>
> -o



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Cuddle Beam]

You didn't pend it so I guess its fine.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> Ugh, I missed a pledge, and I’m not sure that retroactive creation would
> work. I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and submit the
> following proposal in its place:
>
> Title: Make Your Home Shine
> Author: o
> Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan
> AI: 1.7
>
> {{{
> Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:
>
> {
> Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
> is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
> pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
> pledges are secured.
>
> To "pledge" something is to create a pledge with those terms. A
> person CAN pledge by announcement.
>
> To "retract" (syn "withdraw") a pledge is to destroy it. A
> person CAN retract a pledge they own without objection.
>
> To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in
> any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the
> Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an
> intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting
> player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should
> be considered broken.
>
> It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in.
> }
>
> Destroy every pledge.
>
> Create a pledge owned by Quazie, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
> correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
> Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
> the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
> self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
> source info in the explanation).
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by G., whose terms are
>
> {
>  This pledge is known as The Prosecutor's Office
>
>  1.  I CAN revoke or alter this pledge by giving 4 Days Notice.
>
>  2.  If a CFJ is submitted to The Prosecutor's Office (private or
>  public to me, but not in Discussion), I shall follow the
>  following formal process to resolve the matter of
>  controversy:
>
>  a.  I shall enter it into the bottom of the Judicial Queue.
>
>  b.  At most once per day, and and most 5 times per week, I'll
>  initiate an Agoran Call for Judgement on the CFJ on the
>  top of the Judicial Queue (also barring judges as
>  requested by the submitter).
>
>  c.  By request, the submitter may remain anonymous.
>
>  d.  Absolutely free of charge, as able, I'll research and
>  add gratuitous arguments in favor of the submitter's
>  position, and I'll not argue against the submitter's
>  position except in private with the submitter.
>
> -G.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by V.J Rada, whose terms are
>
> {
> However I now pledge to include more recapping of agoran events
> in future newspapers.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by o, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge that, for the next month, if I have not yet paid a
> total of 30 shinies under this pledge, and a player pledges to
> pay me 6 Shinies within a month, I will pay em 5 Shinies in a
> timely fashion.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by Gaelan, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
> proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
> the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by Gaelan was created on Sep 14, 2017.
> }
> }}}
>
> There are other pledges in play, but in my view they are either already
> discharged, or irrelevant, and it would not be in the game's interest
> to carry them forwards.
>
> -o
>

Re: DIS: [Proto] IRV formalization

[Kerim Aydin]

An endorsement is a type of conditional.  Does formalizing the "endorse" mean
other types of conditionals are forbidden?  are they allowed outside the list
but not inside?

For example, would "I vote for {Incumbent if e does X, Someone else if e does Y,
Third person}"  (assuming X and Y are pretty easy to determine) be allowed?

If not, could you get the same effect by conditionals outside the list, e.g.
"If incumbent does X, I vote {Incumbent, Y}, otherwise I vote {Y, incumbent}."

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Create a new rule, “Instant Run-Off Voting”, with power ??? and the following 
> text:
> 
> When the voting method for an Agoran Decision is instant run-off, then, for 
> that decision, a valid ballot consists of exactly one of the following:
> 
> * PRESENT.
> * ENDORSE and the name of a person.
> * A list of zero or more of the valid options for the Agoran Decision.
> 
> Ballots CAN include conditions. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a 
> ballot consisting of a list CANNOT include conditions other than those that 
> apply to the whole list.
> 
> [Plus some glue for defining the win condition for an IR vote, determining 
> quorum, etc.]
> 
> -o
> 
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3559 assigned to o

[Cuddle Beam]

I'm sure that there have been other Arbitors before and I'm very happy to
have G as it now, but it just feels weird to me to have not-ais do it lol.
I dunno why. Habit? Oh well.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> This was previously assigned to o, but copy/paste messup gave it the wrong
> subject line.  This is to make sure there's a clear subject line with the
> assignment.
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > The below CFJ is #3559.  I assign it to o.
> >
> > Aris, if you could provide a message link to the proposal in question, it
> > would be appreciated.
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >
> > > I AP-CFJ on the following:
> > >
> > > The statement "Lines beginning with hashmarks ('#') and comments in
> > > square brackets ('[]') have no effect on the behavior of this
> > > proposal. They are not part of any rules
> > > created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes
> to
> > > have been removed before its resolution.", as it appears near the
> > > beginning of the contracts proposal I sent to agora-discussion, has
> > > the clearly intended effect.
> > >
> > > Arguments:
> > >
> > > The last paragraph of Rule 106 implies that this works. Also,
> > > proposals are interpreted as human readable text, so it makes sense
> > > that portions could be commented out.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Speaker & Card

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:19 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Also the slip you gave was judged illegal by cfj!

I had forgotten about that, but you’re right! However, I never received a card 
for it. If I were to deregister now, would I become a fugitive?

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: [Proto] IRV formalization

[Owen Jacobson]

Create a new rule, “Instant Run-Off Voting”, with power ??? and the following 
text:

When the voting method for an Agoran Decision is instant run-off, then, for 
that decision, a valid ballot consists of exactly one of the following:

* PRESENT.
* ENDORSE and the name of a person.
* A list of zero or more of the valid options for the Agoran Decision.

Ballots CAN include conditions. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a ballot 
consisting of a list CANNOT include conditions other than those that apply to 
the whole list.

[Plus some glue for defining the win condition for an IR vote, determining 
quorum, etc.]

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Speaker & Card

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 5:52 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> No, the words used are "abusing the office for personal gain". Quite
> clearly corruption stuff, taking bribes or just being unfair.

I believe the only pink slip ever issued under anything in the current 
generation of Referee rules is the one I gave Gaelan in May this year, which e 
earned by attempting to conceal a victory-by-apathy initiation for emself in a 
voluminous official report. The pink slip was not subsequently enforced, and 
Gaelan expressed contrition and has not subsequently abused eir office.

That the PM’s one-card-per-month could be a Pink Slip is… interesting, to say 
the least.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3557 judged FALSE

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 14, 2017 7:44 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:



> >> CFJ 2120 states (apparently in accordance with previous precedent
which I
> >> couldn't find) that, where there is a SHALL without any reasonable
mechanism to
> >> fulfill it, it implies CAN by announcement.

Unfortunately, CFJ 2120 gets precedent wrong, and this concerns me.

CFJ 2120 says "SHALL implies CAN by announcement, based on the precedent in
CFJ 1765".

But a look at CFJ 1765 shows the arguments are:
 I believe that the obligation to perform an action in conjunction with
 the phrase "by announcement", as used in the last paragraph of
R1871/18,
 implies a mechanism for the action

In other words, the chain of precedents that we're relying on actually
starts
with:  SHALL by announcement implies CAN by announcement.

This isn't so much of a stretch!

So I'm worried that the missing "by announcement" is never addressed with
any reason
and based on faulty precedent...

It would be great to be clear and set a precedent, if "by announcement" (or
other
method like w/o objection) isn't specified, when can we infer "by
announcement"?
I mean, why doesn't it imply w/o objection instead, just as an example.  If
SHALL
works, does it work for MAY?  Lower case directives?  Etc.






I find this pretty compelling but I have no skin in the game (and am a fan
of pragmatism generally).

I would support a motion to reconsider if others find this argument
compelling enough and provided additional arguments/evidence about the
gamestate, but I'm not going to initiate one.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Speaker & Card

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 13, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> he

Oi.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: [Draft] Make Your Home Shine, or, Contracts On The Cheap

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 13, 2017, at 5:20 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> 
>> Title: Make Your Home Shine
>> Author: o
>> Co-authors: CuddleBeam
>> AI: 1.7
>> 
>> For the purposes of clarity, no existing pledge is intended to carry over 
>> into this system, and this proposal does not imply the creation of any 
>> assets corresponding to existing pledges.
> 
> For even more clarity, say it directly:
> 
> All previously existing pledges are hereby destroyed and do not carry over in 
> any way into the system created by this proposal.

I’m not sure pledges exist in a sense meaning that they can be destroyed. 
That’s why I didn’t do that. The current rules cause pledges to be enforceable 
forever, from the moment they are pledged. Removing the necessary provisions 
from the rules should fix that, but it’s not clear how to word a proposal to 
make it clear that prior pledges are no longer binding.

If consensus is that pledges can in fact be destroyed by proposal, then that’s 
obviously simpler.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3557 judged FALSE

[Kerim Aydin]

> >> CFJ 2120 states (apparently in accordance with previous precedent which I
> >> couldn't find) that, where there is a SHALL without any reasonable 
> >> mechanism to
> >> fulfill it, it implies CAN by announcement.

Unfortunately, CFJ 2120 gets precedent wrong, and this concerns me.

CFJ 2120 says "SHALL implies CAN by announcement, based on the precedent in CFJ 
1765".

But a look at CFJ 1765 shows the arguments are:
 I believe that the obligation to perform an action in conjunction with
 the phrase "by announcement", as used in the last paragraph of R1871/18,
 implies a mechanism for the action

In other words, the chain of precedents that we're relying on actually starts
with:  SHALL by announcement implies CAN by announcement.

This isn't so much of a stretch!

So I'm worried that the missing "by announcement" is never addressed with any 
reason
and based on faulty precedent...

It would be great to be clear and set a precedent, if "by announcement" (or 
other 
method like w/o objection) isn't specified, when can we infer "by announcement"?
I mean, why doesn't it imply w/o objection instead, just as an example.  If 
SHALL
works, does it work for MAY?  Lower case directives?  Etc.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] More than one way to skin a win

[Kerim Aydin]

There's no deep history.  That's how it was implemented.  And the first victory
election ever failed for different reasons, although there were also questions
about non-players.

And I wondered about your interpretation too, just now before announcing 
ais523.  
You're very possibly right.

If a non-player who doesn't announce emself gets the most votes, I'll CFJ it.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> "non-player persons can also become valid options during the voting
> period by announcement."
> 
> I admit I don't know the history of this provision. But it seems to me
> this textually applies only when a non-player emself announces emself
> a valid option.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > Would this work?: "For each person not currently registered, I make em
> > a valid option in this election."
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm pretty sure voting for a non-player is sufficient to announce em, but 
> >> just
> >> in case:  I make ais523 a valid option in this election (I'll do this for 
> >> any
> >> non-player votes I notice - don't promise to notice them all esp. as one 
> >> has
> >> to do so during the voting period!)
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>==THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED
> >>> >>
> >>> >>  As Herald, I initiate a VICTORY ELECTION, a type of Agoran 
> >>> >> Decision.
> >>> >>  All players are valid options, as is PRESENT; non-player persons
> >>> >>  can also become valid options during the voting period by
> >>> >>  announcement. The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting
> >>> >>  method is instant runoff.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>   ===
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: No Telepathy v2

[Cuddle Beam]

Also, going by a "formal" approach: "Agora" dies each time the gamestate
takes a path that I disagree with. : D

jk, I believe that Agora is just a social activity and that we're dishonest
with ourselves and others often enough. along having enough disagreements
by having different point of views on the same thing that even if there was
a true common platonic state, we'd never play according to it for any good
amount of time because we're either not competent enough to achieve it at
times or prefer to not to (even if we could at a certain moment) for
self-profit at times.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Agora would stop existing. It would therfore have no state. Arguably
> > >> though, if we made a meta-descision to recreate it, it would start
> > >> existing again. The Paradox of Self-Amendment has some stuff on this.
> > >
> > > Would it, though? The presence of rules may not be the defining
> feature of Agora’s existence. The rules tell us how to play, but - I would
> argue, not what Agora _is_. That definition is not formalizable without
> resorting to a higher meta-level than the rules, I suspect.
> > >
> > > That said, I have absolutely no intention of running any experiments
> on this, and in fact will object as strenuously as is possible to anything
> that would have the effect of removing all rules from Agora.
> >
> > Agora is a game. What is a game if the board is removed? Is it
> > nothing? Or is the players? I would look at the players. If they are
> > playing, the game still exists. If they aren't, and there isn't a
> > board, I would say that the game is gone.
>
> Well there's instances of a game (the players, state of play, results) and
> the game itself (a box on a shelf).
>
> Is the concept of Agora along with the result ("it used to have rules, but
> they're gone now") enough to define it as an existing instance?  Are the
> initial rules a box on a shelf?  Have you ever really looked at your hands?
>
>
>

Re: DIS: No Telepathy v2

[Cuddle Beam]

The core issue is imo what you define Agora to be. The social activity or
the "formal" space we generate together?

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Agora would stop existing. It would therfore have no state. Arguably
> > though, if we made a meta-descision to recreate it, it would start
> > existing again. The Paradox of Self-Amendment has some stuff on this.
>
> Would it, though? The presence of rules may not be the defining feature of
> Agora’s existence. The rules tell us how to play, but - I would argue, not
> what Agora _is_. That definition is not formalizable without resorting to a
> higher meta-level than the rules, I suspect.
>
> That said, I have absolutely no intention of running any experiments on
> this, and in fact will object as strenuously as is possible to anything
> that would have the effect of removing all rules from Agora.
>
> -o
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: 200 word apology

[Owen Jacobson]

Thank you for thoroughly and honestly addressing the situation.

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 8:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> I'm sorry for taking the ADoP position instead of giving it to o,
> given nobody actually voted for me except the one vote I bought and
> I'm sure e would have done a better job. I'm sorry for my inadequate
> reports.

Please, don’t worry about that office. I can always call another election in 90 
days anyways, and I’m more than happy to share the load: I just want to see 
core reports and interesting mechanics kept up.

> I'm sorry for sending way too many messages. Like, I feel like I've
> been a huge spammer recently, whether or not that's true. I've been
> known for spamming internet forums as well.

I don’t believe you’ve been exceptionally noisy.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] More than one way to skin a win

[VJ Rada]

"non-player persons can also become valid options during the voting
period by announcement."

I admit I don't know the history of this provision. But it seems to me
this textually applies only when a non-player emself announces emself
a valid option.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Would this work?: "For each person not currently registered, I make em
> a valid option in this election."
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure voting for a non-player is sufficient to announce em, but 
>> just
>> in case:  I make ais523 a valid option in this election (I'll do this for any
>> non-player votes I notice - don't promise to notice them all esp. as one has
>> to do so during the voting period!)
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>==THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED
>>> >>
>>> >>  As Herald, I initiate a VICTORY ELECTION, a type of Agoran Decision.
>>> >>  All players are valid options, as is PRESENT; non-player persons
>>> >>  can also become valid options during the voting period by
>>> >>  announcement. The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting
>>> >>  method is instant runoff.
>>> >>
>>> >>   ===
>>
>>
>>
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: No Telepathy v2

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Aris Merchant 
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> Agora would stop existing. It would therfore have no state. Arguably
> >> though, if we made a meta-descision to recreate it, it would start
> >> existing again. The Paradox of Self-Amendment has some stuff on this.
> >
> > Would it, though? The presence of rules may not be the defining feature of 
> > Agora’s existence. The rules tell us how to play, but - I would argue, not 
> > what Agora _is_. That definition is not formalizable without resorting to a 
> > higher meta-level than the rules, I suspect.
> >
> > That said, I have absolutely no intention of running any experiments on 
> > this, and in fact will object as strenuously as is possible to anything 
> > that would have the effect of removing all rules from Agora.
> 
> Agora is a game. What is a game if the board is removed? Is it
> nothing? Or is the players? I would look at the players. If they are
> playing, the game still exists. If they aren't, and there isn't a
> board, I would say that the game is gone.

Well there's instances of a game (the players, state of play, results) and
the game itself (a box on a shelf).

Is the concept of Agora along with the result ("it used to have rules, but
they're gone now") enough to define it as an existing instance?  Are the
initial rules a box on a shelf?  Have you ever really looked at your hands?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] More than one way to skin a win

[Aris Merchant]

Would this work?: "For each person not currently registered, I make em
a valid option in this election."

-Aris

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I'm pretty sure voting for a non-player is sufficient to announce em, but just
> in case:  I make ais523 a valid option in this election (I'll do this for any
> non-player votes I notice - don't promise to notice them all esp. as one has
> to do so during the voting period!)
>
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> >
>> >>==THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED
>> >>
>> >>  As Herald, I initiate a VICTORY ELECTION, a type of Agoran Decision.
>> >>  All players are valid options, as is PRESENT; non-player persons
>> >>  can also become valid options during the voting period by
>> >>  announcement. The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting
>> >>  method is instant runoff.
>> >>
>> >>   ===
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: No Telepathy v2

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Aris Merchant 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Agora would stop existing. It would therfore have no state. Arguably
>> though, if we made a meta-descision to recreate it, it would start
>> existing again. The Paradox of Self-Amendment has some stuff on this.
>
> Would it, though? The presence of rules may not be the defining feature of 
> Agora’s existence. The rules tell us how to play, but - I would argue, not 
> what Agora _is_. That definition is not formalizable without resorting to a 
> higher meta-level than the rules, I suspect.
>
> That said, I have absolutely no intention of running any experiments on this, 
> and in fact will object as strenuously as is possible to anything that would 
> have the effect of removing all rules from Agora.

Agora is a game. What is a game if the board is removed? Is it
nothing? Or is the players? I would look at the players. If they are
playing, the game still exists. If they aren't, and there isn't a
board, I would say that the game is gone.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[grok (caleb vines)]

For reference: if you resolve that vote as present and that vote causes PSS
to be elected, I will probably CFJ the assessment.


-grok

On Sep 14, 2017 7:15 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:

I would say use eir preferred English character titles but there are
two different ones which start with different letters. I guess if
there is a tie here, I would resolve as PRESENT due to ambiguity.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> There isn't one. For anyone who wants to try this, I'd suggest
> ascending order of unicode code points. In fact, I may propose making
> a rule that defines alphabetical order that way.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 4:11 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2017 6:22 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
>>
>> Please note the already ongoing election for agronomist.
>>
>> I initiate the elections for and the agoran decisions for the
>> determination of the Arbitor, the Superintendent, the Tailor, the
>> Promotor, the Referee, the Registrar, the Surveyor, and the
>> Rulekeepor. These elections are either legal under the 90 day rule or
>> are vacant offices. The vote collector is the ADoP and the quorum is
>> 2.0.
>>
>> --
>> >From V.J Rada
>>
>>
>> In the election for registrar , I vote for the player with the most votes
>> that is not the incumbent, using alphabetical order as a tiebreaker.
>>
>>
>> What is the alphabetical ordering of 天火狐 with respect to myself, and why?
>>
>> -o
>>



--
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Kerim Aydin]

Uck "SHALL or else INEFFECTIVE" is ugly, a double penalty.

Make it "CANNOT claim a reward without listing the number of shinies..."

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> ugh too late. I guess issue me a card, although I can't point a finger.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 13, 2017, at 7:53 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>
> >> I claim the reward for this.
> >
> > From recently-enacted proposal 7845:
> >
> >> Amend R2496 "Rewards" by, at the end of the first paragraph, adding:
> >>
> >>  When a player claims a reward, e SHALL list the number of shinies e
> >>  receives, or it is INEFFECTIVE.
> >
> > -o
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[VJ Rada]

I would say use eir preferred English character titles but there are
two different ones which start with different letters. I guess if
there is a tie here, I would resolve as PRESENT due to ambiguity.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> There isn't one. For anyone who wants to try this, I'd suggest
> ascending order of unicode code points. In fact, I may propose making
> a rule that defines alphabetical order that way.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 4:11 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2017 6:22 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
>>
>> Please note the already ongoing election for agronomist.
>>
>> I initiate the elections for and the agoran decisions for the
>> determination of the Arbitor, the Superintendent, the Tailor, the
>> Promotor, the Referee, the Registrar, the Surveyor, and the
>> Rulekeepor. These elections are either legal under the 90 day rule or
>> are vacant offices. The vote collector is the ADoP and the quorum is
>> 2.0.
>>
>> --
>> >From V.J Rada
>>
>>
>> In the election for registrar , I vote for the player with the most votes
>> that is not the incumbent, using alphabetical order as a tiebreaker.
>>
>>
>> What is the alphabetical ordering of 天火狐 with respect to myself, and why?
>>
>> -o
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: 200 word apology

[Aris Merchant]

Thank you.

-Aris

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Firstly I'm sorry for continually failing to use 'e' 'em' etc, it's
> inexcusable at this point.
>
> I'm sorry for trying to take control of Quazie without notifying em or
> anyone and certainly without asking. I kind of thought the lesson of
> CB was that scams are OK as long as they work but there are certainly
> dickish scams that do work. And I messed it up anyway, luckily for
> Quazie. I'm sorry for not treating that with any gravity at any point.
> I'm sorry for not titling that properly, that was bad too.
>
> I'm sorry for taking the ADoP position instead of giving it to o,
> given nobody actually voted for me except the one vote I bought and
> I'm sure e would have done a better job. I'm sorry for my inadequate
> reports.
>
> Also, I probably shouldn't have bought the election for PM given that
> lots of people voted against me, nobody voted directly for me without
> it being bought, and I only won because of making Quazie apologise for
> doing nothing wrong. I apologise for doing that too.
>
> I'm sorry for not reading the rules anywhere near as closely as
> others. I don't do actions or make interpretations that I don't
> believe but I don't put the work in that I should put in, and that
> others do.
>
> I'm sorry for insta-pending recent proposals that seem to be
> meritless, making more work for Aris.
>
> I'm sorry for sending way too many messages. Like, I feel like I've
> been a huge spammer recently, whether or not that's true. I've been
> known for spamming internet forums as well.
>
> I'm sorry for the CFJ I failed at judging.
>
> I'm sorry for the fact I can't even be bothered to use capitals some
> or most of the time.
>
> I'm sorry for the fact that I'm so desperate for voting strength I
> wrote this out in like 10 minutes instead of thinking about it.
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: No Telepathy v2

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:19 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Agora would stop existing. It would therfore have no state. Arguably
> though, if we made a meta-descision to recreate it, it would start
> existing again. The Paradox of Self-Amendment has some stuff on this.

Would it, though? The presence of rules may not be the defining feature of 
Agora’s existence. The rules tell us how to play, but - I would argue, not what 
Agora _is_. That definition is not formalizable without resorting to a higher 
meta-level than the rules, I suspect.

That said, I have absolutely no intention of running any experiments on this, 
and in fact will object as strenuously as is possible to anything that would 
have the effect of removing all rules from Agora.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 14, 2017 7:01 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:


On Sep 14, 2017, at 4:11 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:

On Sep 13, 2017 6:22 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:

Please note the already ongoing election for agronomist.

I initiate the elections for and the agoran decisions for the
determination of the Arbitor, the Superintendent, the Tailor, the
Promotor, the Referee, the Registrar, the Surveyor, and the
Rulekeepor. These elections are either legal under the 90 day rule or
are vacant offices. The vote collector is the ADoP and the quorum is
2.0.

--
>From V.J Rada


In the election for registrar , I vote for the player with the most votes
that is not the incumbent, using alphabetical order as a tiebreaker.


What is the alphabetical ordering of 天火狐 with respect to myself, and why?

-o


Hopefully that will not be information required to resolve my vote. If it
is, it'll be a fun exercise for a lucky judge.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Aris Merchant]

There isn't one. For anyone who wants to try this, I'd suggest
ascending order of unicode code points. In fact, I may propose making
a rule that defines alphabetical order that way.

-Aris

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
> On Sep 14, 2017, at 4:11 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
>
> On Sep 13, 2017 6:22 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
>
> Please note the already ongoing election for agronomist.
>
> I initiate the elections for and the agoran decisions for the
> determination of the Arbitor, the Superintendent, the Tailor, the
> Promotor, the Referee, the Registrar, the Surveyor, and the
> Rulekeepor. These elections are either legal under the 90 day rule or
> are vacant offices. The vote collector is the ADoP and the quorum is
> 2.0.
>
> --
> >From V.J Rada
>
>
> In the election for registrar , I vote for the player with the most votes
> that is not the incumbent, using alphabetical order as a tiebreaker.
>
>
> What is the alphabetical ordering of 天火狐 with respect to myself, and why?
>
> -o
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 4:11 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> 
> On Sep 13, 2017 6:22 PM, "VJ Rada"  > wrote:
> Please note the already ongoing election for agronomist.
> 
> I initiate the elections for and the agoran decisions for the
> determination of the Arbitor, the Superintendent, the Tailor, the
> Promotor, the Referee, the Registrar, the Surveyor, and the
> Rulekeepor. These elections are either legal under the 90 day rule or
> are vacant offices. The vote collector is the ADoP and the quorum is
> 2.0.
> 
> --
> >From V.J Rada
> 
> In the election for registrar , I vote for the player with the most votes 
> that is not the incumbent, using alphabetical order as a tiebreaker.

What is the alphabetical ordering of 天火狐 with respect to myself, and why?

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] More than one way to skin a win

[VJ Rada]

I vote {G, o, ais523 if e is a candidate, myself}

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>>==THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED
>>
>>  As Herald, I initiate a VICTORY ELECTION, a type of Agoran Decision.
>>  All players are valid options, as is PRESENT; non-player persons
>>  can also become valid options during the voting period by
>>  announcement. The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting
>>  method is instant runoff.
>>
>>   ===
>
> I vote [G., nichdel, ais523].
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> Superintendent, Surveyor:
> {
>  PRESENT,
>  Incumbent of that office if e votes for emself first on eir list of options,
>  the first person (in time) to vote for emself first (on eir list of options)
> }.
> 
> Comment:
> 
> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a replacement
> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the first option
> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my vote 
> doesn't
> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the majority?
> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard definition of 
> instant
> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less essential 
> offices.
> Fun!!

It seems clear to me that PRESENT in an IR vote should be the entire ballot, 
not a single entry in the ballot. PRESENT has, under Agoran tradition, mean 
“Count me towards quorum, but not towards any specific outcome.”

Agora's IRV system is currently almost entirely “common definition,” though, 
and I don’t believe there’s any obvious common definition that permits PRESENT 
or any similar non-option mid-ballot.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3557 judged FALSE

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 13, 2017, at 7:55 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Judge's Arguments for CFJ 3557:
> 
> This case boils down an interpretation of the application of Rule 2152
> ("Mother, May I?") to Rule 2497 ("Floating Value"). The full text of both
> rules is in the evidence below. To summarize the situation, the main questions
> of the case are:
> 
>  1. Can the Secretary ever set the floating value?
>  2. Can the Secretary set the floating value incorrectly?
> 
> 
> The problem is that the rule never directly allows the Secretary to set the
> floating value. Instead, it provides that "[...] the Secretary SHALL flip the
> Floating Value to Agora's shiny balance." There are several interesting
> precedents about whether SHALL implies CAN, all arising from cases called by 
> G.
> CFJ 2120 states (apparently in accordance with previous precedent which I
> couldn't find) that, where there is a SHALL without any reasonable mechanism 
> to
> fulfill it, it implies CAN by announcement. This resolves question 1 in the
> affirmative. The same case also ruled that where time limits are specified, 
> they
> apply to the SHALL, but not the CAN. This arrangement was specified to
> cause the deputization rules to continue working, and is affirmed.
> 
> A second precedent comes from CFJ 2412. There, it was ruled that were
> one rule says "SHALL" (but not CAN) and a second rule says "SHALL NOT"
> (but not CANNOT) the implied CAN still works.
> 
> Neither of these cases address required circumstances other than time.
> I think that given that this whole business is based on common law
> interpretation of implications, the primary guideline is to figure out
> what exactly the rule is implying. In cases like this one, where
> the rule is essentially "X SHALL do Y correctly", the correctness
> of the action is essential to its success. If the rule was attempting
> to specify so complex a concept as 'X CAN do Y, and SHALL do so correctly'
> it would have said so. Note that this is completely different from cases
> where the rule specifies when the condition is one of encouragement (such
> as making it mandatory to do Y within a certain time), rather than limitation.
> Question 2 is accordingly answered in the negative. I note that while
> this ruling is clearly against the interests of the game in this specific 
> case,
> it is likely to be helpful in many other cases. I judge this CFJ FALSE.

Just make sure I understand this ruling: can I conclude that the Secretary, 
under the rules as we have them today, CAN flip the Floating Value, but only 
correctly?

That’s hugely helpful, as it turns a number of questions about the validity of 
recent attempts to pend proposals into a single question about Agora’s balance 
at the start of the relevant week.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[VJ Rada]

ugh too late. I guess issue me a card, although I can't point a finger.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 7:53 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> I claim the reward for this.
>
> From recently-enacted proposal 7845:
>
>> Amend R2496 "Rewards" by, at the end of the first paragraph, adding:
>>
>>  When a player claims a reward, e SHALL list the number of shinies e
>>  receives, or it is INEFFECTIVE.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 13, 2017, at 7:53 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> I claim the reward for this.

From recently-enacted proposal 7845:

> Amend R2496 "Rewards" by, at the end of the first paragraph, adding:
> 
>  When a player claims a reward, e SHALL list the number of shinies e
>  receives, or it is INEFFECTIVE.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: I found a serious mistake, again. Read the rules, folks.

[VJ Rada]

sorry for not reading properly.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:50 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> ya my bad. obv that's the proposal's power not any rule's power anyways.
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> Not even. Keep reading the rule.
>>
>>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 3:36 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> You're right, it was a rulekeepor typo.
>>>
 On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:03 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>
> "When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if the
> outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, and
> unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to
> the minimum of four"
>
> Yep that's right. Minimum.

 I’m about 99% sure of two things:

 1. That used to say “the minimum of the power of the instrument, and four” 
 or something to that effect, and
 2. No proposals have passed that amend the proposal adoption process in 
 the last year.

 What happened? Am I misremembering?

 -o

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: I found a serious mistake, again. Read the rules, folks.

[VJ Rada]

ya my bad. obv that's the proposal's power not any rule's power anyways.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> Not even. Keep reading the rule.
>
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 3:36 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> You're right, it was a rulekeepor typo.
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>>
 On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:03 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:

 "When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if the
 outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, and
 unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to
 the minimum of four"

 Yep that's right. Minimum.
>>>
>>> I’m about 99% sure of two things:
>>>
>>> 1. That used to say “the minimum of the power of the instrument, and four” 
>>> or something to that effect, and
>>> 2. No proposals have passed that amend the proposal adoption process in the 
>>> last year.
>>>
>>> What happened? Am I misremembering?
>>>
>>> -o
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: I found a serious mistake, again. Read the rules, folks.

[Gaelan Steele]

Not even. Keep reading the rule. 

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 3:36 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> You're right, it was a rulekeepor typo.
> 
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:03 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> 
>>> "When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if the
>>> outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, and
>>> unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to
>>> the minimum of four"
>>> 
>>> Yep that's right. Minimum.
>> 
>> I’m about 99% sure of two things:
>> 
>> 1. That used to say “the minimum of the power of the instrument, and four” 
>> or something to that effect, and
>> 2. No proposals have passed that amend the proposal adoption process in the 
>> last year.
>> 
>> What happened? Am I misremembering?
>> 
>> -o
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[VJ Rada]

My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a replacement
>> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the first option
>> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my vote 
>> doesn't
>> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the majority?
>> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard definition of 
>> instant
>> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less essential 
>> offices.
>> Fun!!
>
> This question is also a concern for endorsements.
>
> Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates A..G, then my
> vote:
>
> P:  {A, B, C}
> Q:  {A, B, C}
> R:  {A, B, C}
>
> S:  {D, E, F}
> T:  {D, E, F}
> U:  {D, E, F}
>
> Z:  {G, A}
>
> Me:  {endorse Z, D}
>
> From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1 endorsement).
>
> G is eliminated.
>
> So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the second
> vote on my list is for D, D wins.
>
> But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm endorsing 
> Z's
> second choice, and A wins.
>
> Which is right, if either?
>
> The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and Endorse are
> whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).  But
> I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[VJ Rada]

not to public forum

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 7:22 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> Please note the already ongoing election for agronomist.
>>
>> I initiate the elections for and the agoran decisions for the
>> determination of the Arbitor, the Superintendent, the Tailor, the
>> Promotor, the Referee, the Registrar, the Surveyor, and the
>> Rulekeepor. These elections are either legal under the 90 day rule or
>> are vacant offices. The vote collector is the ADoP and the quorum is
>> 2.0.
>
> For all of the above offices that are currently occupied, I vote for the 
> incumbent.
>
> For the offices which are not occupied, I vote for [Quazie, nichdel, G., 天火狐].
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 13, 2017, at 7:22 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Please note the already ongoing election for agronomist.
> 
> I initiate the elections for and the agoran decisions for the
> determination of the Arbitor, the Superintendent, the Tailor, the
> Promotor, the Referee, the Registrar, the Surveyor, and the
> Rulekeepor. These elections are either legal under the 90 day rule or
> are vacant offices. The vote collector is the ADoP and the quorum is
> 2.0.

For all of the above offices that are currently occupied, I vote for the 
incumbent.

For the offices which are not occupied, I vote for [Quazie, nichdel, G., 天火狐].

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Solvency

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 6:17 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> As promised.
>> 
>> -o
>> 
>>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:28 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I don't really like changing the supply level.
>> 
>> I don’t really like _ad-hoc_ changes to the supply level, particularly as a 
>> first-line tool. Our primary problem right now is that we haven’t got safety 
>> nets in place to make players comfortable spending Shinies, so players 
>> without a fixed source of income are holding their coins in case they need 
>> them later and relying entirely on AP, instead.
>> 
>> However, structured and principled changes to the supply level are probably 
>> fine. I think we should probably have some wiggle room to deal with
>> 
>> * long-term insolvency, which this proposal addresses,
>> * changes in the player population, both explicit (through registration) and 
>> implicit (through inactivity)
>> * scams
>> 
>>> I submit the following proposal.
>>> 
>>> title: Solvency
>>> ai: 2
>>> author: nichdel
>>> co-authors:
>>> 
>>> Amend R2487 "Shiny Supply Level" to read in full:
>>> 
>>>   The Supply Level is a singleton switch with possible values integers
>>>   and a default value of 1000.
>>> 
>>>   When a Shiny Releveling event occurs, Agora's Balance is increased or
>>>   decreased such that all Balances add up to the Supply Level.
>> 
>> As mentioned, balances aren’t adjustable like this any more. Here’s my 
>> proposed alternative. The wording could probably use work; the idea is that 
>> either we mint shinies, or we destroy Agora’s shinies, and if Agora doesn’t 
>> own enough shinies, we get as close as we can to the Supply Level. (We can 
>> always call another SRE once Agora owns more shinies.)
>> 
> 
> Pardon? Rule 2166: {
> 
> The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x that
>  entity possesses. If a rule, proposal, or other competent
> authority attempts
>  to increase or decrease the balance of an entity without
> specifying a source
>  or destination, then the currency is created or destroyed.
> }

Oops! Nice catch, I had completely missed that. That applies to G.’s proposal 
in flight, as well. I’ll take a closer look.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: I found a serious mistake, again. Read the rules, folks.

[VJ Rada]

You're right, it was a rulekeepor typo.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:03 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> "When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if the
>> outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, and
>> unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to
>> the minimum of four"
>>
>> Yep that's right. Minimum.
>
> I’m about 99% sure of two things:
>
> 1. That used to say “the minimum of the power of the instrument, and four” or 
> something to that effect, and
> 2. No proposals have passed that amend the proposal adoption process in the 
> last year.
>
> What happened? Am I misremembering?
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Guaranteed Stamp Income

[Owen Jacobson]

> Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Basic Stamp Income" with the following
> text:
> 
>When the Secretary publishes the first Weekly Report of an Agoran
>Month, e CAN and SHALL, by announcement, create Stamps with Agora as
>the Creater and transfer them to any player who has no stamps and
>less than the Stamp Value in shinies at the time of publication.

This needs to be a lot more specific about how many stamps, and about what to 
do if no player meets those criteria. Sticking me with an unsatisfiable SHALL 
isn’t any fun.

I like the bones of this, though.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: I found a serious mistake, again. Read the rules, folks.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:03 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> "When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if the
> outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, and
> unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to
> the minimum of four"
> 
> Yep that's right. Minimum.

I’m about 99% sure of two things:

1. That used to say “the minimum of the power of the instrument, and four” or 
something to that effect, and
2. No proposals have passed that amend the proposal adoption process in the 
last year.

What happened? Am I misremembering?

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3529 assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin]

I forgot to cut ais523's line "This is CFJ 3529. I assign it to Sprocklem"
from this case info.  Hopefully it's clear that I assigned it to myself first,
so assigning it to Sprocklem was ineffective!

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I recuse Sprocklem from CFJ 3529.
> 
> I assign G. to be the judge of CFJ 3529, statement, arguments and evidence
> below.
> 
> [For clarity:  After the above ID number was assigned to Sprocklem's Case, 
> the ID number was "re-used" for a case judged by Quazie.  Quazie's case
> is closed (e quoted the full statement when e judged it, so there's no
> confusion on which Statement e judged).  When I've gone through the records
> more, I'll assign a new ID number to Quazie's case by announcement].
> 
> 
> STATEMENT of CFJ 3529
> 
> omd "most recently became a player" on the 3rd of February, 2011. 
> 
> This is CFJ 3529. I assign it to Sprocklem.

Re: DIS: a relief valve

[Nic Evans]

Combining this idea with a separate discussion: Make the Speaker
electable, but the only valid options are people with a certain karma
threshold. If the current holder drops below that, e can be impeached.


On 09/13/17 14:25, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> [Talked about several times recently, but inspired by Quazie's apology - we 
> need a 
> formal way to express approval/disapproval short of deregistration and 
> crimes, IMO].
>
> Proposal draft
>
> Create the following Rule, Karma:
>
>   Karma is a person switch tracked by the Herald, with a default of 0 and 
>   with any integer being a possible value.
>
>   A Player CAN publish a Notice of Honour.  For a Notice of Honour to be
>   valid, it must:
>1.  Be the first Notice of Honour that player has published in the
>current week;
>2.  Specify any other player to gain karma, and provide a reason 
> for
>specifying that player; and
>3.  Specify any player to lose karma, and provide a reason for
>specifying that player.
>
>   When a valid Notice of Honour is published, the player specified to gain
>   karma has eir karma flipped to be one integer higher than it was, and 
> the
>   player specified to lose karma has eir karma flipped to be one integer
>   lower than it was.
>
> [can't remember, can we use natural language like "increase by 1" and 
> "decrease
> by 1" for integer/natural switches?]
>
>   - Any player with a karma of 5 or greater is a Samurai.
>
>   - Any player with a karma of -5 or less is a (Japanese term for serf?).
>
>   - The player with the highest karma (if any) is the Shogun.
>
>   - The player with the lowest karma (if any) is the Honourless Worm.
>
>
> [Future rewards for holding these positions possible].
>
> [Once per week allows people to express satisfaction/dissatisfaction in a 
> meaningful
> way without it being a true "piling on"].
>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


I publish the following ADoP weekly report.


The alignments are rather out of whack here (and not just the one with 
Japanese in).


Greetings,
Ørjan.


Informal Measures
Consolidation (number of filled offices over number of officeholders): 1.556
Late reports: (number of late reports as a percentage of reports): 23.53%
Empty offices (Empty offices as a percentage of offices): 17.64%

This report is effective as of 11pm GMT on 13 Sep
Date of Last Report: 2017-09-06

Note: The "holder" column self-ratifies
Office  Holder  Since   Last Election  Can Elect
-
Arbitor  Y
Assessornichdel  2017-06-05  2017-07-16
ADoP[1] V.J. Rada  2017-06-05  2017-09-13
Herald  G. 2017-09-06   2017-09-13
Prime Minister VJ[2] 2017-09-13   2017-09-13
PromotorAris2016-10-21   2017-05-26  Y
Referee o   2017-04-172017-06-09   Y
Registrar   PSS[3]  2017-04-18  2017-06-09  Y
Regkeepor   Aris  2017-09-13[4] 2017-09-13
Reportor 天火狐2017-09-13 2017-09-13
Rulekeepor  Gaelan  2017-05-17 2017-05-26 Y
Secretary   o   2016-11-06  2017-06-27
Speaker   CB[5]   2017-09-13[6]  2014-04-21  Never
SuperintendentY
Surveyoro   2017-05-08 2017-05-10   Y
Tailor  Y
Agronimist   Babelien 2017-09-13  Never   Y

[1]Associate Director of Personnel
[2]V.J. Rada
[3]Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
[4]Disputed, although Aris is the regkeepor, he may have held the
office earlier.
[5]Super disputed and does not self-ratify. Stands for Cuddlebeam
[6]Also disputed

Office  M[1]  Report  Last Published  Late[2]
---
ADoP[3]   Offices 2017-09-13   if i get
this done fast, no
Herald  Y Patent titles   2017-09-04
Promotor  Proposal pool   2017-09-11
Referee   Rule violations 2017-09-12
Registrar Players, Fora   2017-09-03   !
Registrar   Y Player history  2017-08-01!
Regkeepor Regulations 2017-09-07[4]
Reportor  The Agoran Newspaper2017-09-13
RulekeeporShort Logical Ruleset   2017-09-11
Rulekeepor  Y Full Logical Ruleset2017-08-25
Secretary OLEBaS[5]   2017-09-12
Secretary   Y Charters2017-09-02
SuperintendentAgencies (incremental) 2017-08-28 !!
Superintendent  Y Agencies (Full) 2017-08-01  !
Surveyor  Estates   2017-09-13
Tailor  Y Ribbons 2017-08-24
Agronomist   FarmsNever
---
[1] Monthly
[2] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed.
[3] Associate Director of Personnel
[4] Disputed
[5] Organizations, Lockout, Expenditure, Balances, and Shinies

===Events===
Not this week! I was considering breaking the tie in favour of o. for
this reason but I wanted regular elections to be ensured. I apologize
for my inefficiency in this regard.

[snip]

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a replacement
> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the first option
> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my vote 
> doesn't
> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the majority?
> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard definition of 
> instant
> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less essential 
> offices.
> Fun!!

This question is also a concern for endorsements.

Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates A..G, then my
vote:

P:  {A, B, C}
Q:  {A, B, C}
R:  {A, B, C}

S:  {D, E, F}
T:  {D, E, F}
U:  {D, E, F}

Z:  {G, A}

Me:  {endorse Z, D}

>From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1 endorsement).

G is eliminated.

So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the second
vote on my list is for D, D wins.

But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm endorsing Z's
second choice, and A wins.

Which is right, if either?

The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and Endorse are
whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).  But
I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?

Re: DIS: Proposal: Add your typo fixes here

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think I understand.

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



> On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying (1) there's no issue, and (2) if there was an issue with that text,
> it's in the version up for ratification.
> 
> Looking at VJ Rada's original note, e literally is interpreting half a 
> sentence,
> and dropped the second half of the sentence!  Sentence interpretation doesn't 
> work
> that way.
> 
> VJ Rada wrote:
>> "When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if the
>> outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, and
>> unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to
>> the minimum of four"
>> 
>> Yep that's right. Minimum.
> 
> But the full clause is (in this month's SLR):
>   "its power is set to the minimum of four AND ITS ADOPTION INDEX"
> 
> pretty important difference you get from finishing the sentence...
> 
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> If I understand you correctly, I am confused. Are you saying that the issue 
>> exists in the version up for ratification?
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> First, the Minimum of "4 and its adoption index" is almost always
>>> the adoption index.  Maximum is absolutely wrong and would break
>>> it.  (minimum means "lowest", right?).  Since they all have AIs,
>>> this means AIs of 5,6, etc. get set to 4, and AIs less than 4 are
>>> set to the AI.  That's how it's supposed to work.
>>> 
>>> Secondly this doesn't change the power that rules are set to
>>> *within* the proposal.  Even if a proposal has a power of 4,
>>> R105 sets a rule's power to 1 by default, and a different power
>>> if the proposal specifies within each rule change.
>>> 
>>> Thirdly, if you still think it's a problem, it is that way in
>>> the one up for ratification...
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
 thank god for ratification ayyy lmao
 
 On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
  wrote:
> Actually, I just checked an archived version [1] of the rule since the 
> last change to it from the period when G. kept the ruleset and this error 
> wasn’t there, so my guess is that it is a typo and if it is not the SLR 
> ratification will resolve the problem because the typo is not in that 
> version, therefore I suggest that you retract your proposal and put it 
> back without the unneeded fix.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> [1] 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20160208105847/http://faculty.washington.edu:80/kerim/nomic/rkeep/current_flr.txt
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:14 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Could we make the change to Rule 106 retroactive to avoid cleanup.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Title: Minor fixes 2.0
>>> AI: 3
>>> In rule 2423, "First Among Equals", replace the text "The holder of
>>> the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is increased by 1 on
>>> all Agoran decisions other than a elections of the Prime Minister."
>>> with "The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is
>>> increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than elections for the
>>> office of Prime Minister"
>>> 
>>> If, in rule 2496 "Rewards", the words "Publishing a duty-fulfilling
>>> report: 5 shinies" are not followed by the words "This reward can be
>>> claimed a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and
>>> once per office per month for a monthly report.", add those words
>>> immediately after "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies"
>>> 
>>> In rule 2451 "Executive orders", remove all instances of the word 
>>> "current".
>>> 
>>> Change the power of rule 2451, "Executive Orders" to 2 and replace the
>>> text "The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a specified
>>> player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by the Prime
>>> Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against the person
>>> to whom the Card is issued." with "The Prime Minister issues a
>>> specified Card to a specified player. The reason for the card MAY be
>>> any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation
>>> of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is issued. The
>>> previous sentence takes priority over rule 2426 entitled "Cards"".

Re: DIS: Proposal: Add your typo fixes here

[Kerim Aydin]

I'm saying (1) there's no issue, and (2) if there was an issue with that text,
it's in the version up for ratification.

Looking at VJ Rada's original note, e literally is interpreting half a sentence,
and dropped the second half of the sentence!  Sentence interpretation doesn't 
work
that way.

VJ Rada wrote:
> "When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if the
> outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, and
> unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to
> the minimum of four"
>
> Yep that's right. Minimum.

But the full clause is (in this month's SLR):
   "its power is set to the minimum of four AND ITS ADOPTION INDEX"

pretty important difference you get from finishing the sentence...

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> If I understand you correctly, I am confused. Are you saying that the issue 
> exists in the version up for ratification?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > First, the Minimum of "4 and its adoption index" is almost always
> > the adoption index.  Maximum is absolutely wrong and would break
> > it.  (minimum means "lowest", right?).  Since they all have AIs,
> > this means AIs of 5,6, etc. get set to 4, and AIs less than 4 are
> > set to the AI.  That's how it's supposed to work.
> > 
> > Secondly this doesn't change the power that rules are set to
> > *within* the proposal.  Even if a proposal has a power of 4,
> > R105 sets a rule's power to 1 by default, and a different power
> > if the proposal specifies within each rule change.
> > 
> > Thirdly, if you still think it's a problem, it is that way in
> > the one up for ratification...
> > 
> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> thank god for ratification ayyy lmao
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >>  wrote:
> >>> Actually, I just checked an archived version [1] of the rule since the 
> >>> last change to it from the period when G. kept the ruleset and this error 
> >>> wasn’t there, so my guess is that it is a typo and if it is not the SLR 
> >>> ratification will resolve the problem because the typo is not in that 
> >>> version, therefore I suggest that you retract your proposal and put it 
> >>> back without the unneeded fix.
> >>> 
> >>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> [1] 
> >>> http://web.archive.org/web/20160208105847/http://faculty.washington.edu:80/kerim/nomic/rkeep/current_flr.txt
> >>> 
>  On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:14 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>   wrote:
>  
>  Could we make the change to Rule 106 retroactive to avoid cleanup.
>  
>  Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>  
>  
>  
> > On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > 
> > Title: Minor fixes 2.0
> > AI: 3
> > In rule 2423, "First Among Equals", replace the text "The holder of
> > the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is increased by 1 on
> > all Agoran decisions other than a elections of the Prime Minister."
> > with "The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is
> > increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than elections for the
> > office of Prime Minister"
> > 
> > If, in rule 2496 "Rewards", the words "Publishing a duty-fulfilling
> > report: 5 shinies" are not followed by the words "This reward can be
> > claimed a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and
> > once per office per month for a monthly report.", add those words
> > immediately after "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies"
> > 
> > In rule 2451 "Executive orders", remove all instances of the word 
> > "current".
> > 
> > Change the power of rule 2451, "Executive Orders" to 2 and replace the
> > text "The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a specified
> > player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by the Prime
> > Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against the person
> > to whom the Card is issued." with "The Prime Minister issues a
> > specified Card to a specified player. The reason for the card MAY be
> > any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation
> > of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is issued. The
> > previous sentence takes priority over rule 2426 entitled "Cards"".
> > [COMMENTARY: The rule allowing the PM to issue people cards for no
> > reason is lower than the rule banning that behaviour"]
> > 
> > In rule 106 "Adopting proposals", replace any instances of the word
> 

Re: DIS: Proposal: Add your typo fixes here

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

If I understand you correctly, I am confused. Are you saying that the issue 
exists in the version up for ratification?

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



> On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the Minimum of "4 and its adoption index" is almost always
> the adoption index.  Maximum is absolutely wrong and would break
> it.  (minimum means "lowest", right?).  Since they all have AIs,
> this means AIs of 5,6, etc. get set to 4, and AIs less than 4 are
> set to the AI.  That's how it's supposed to work.
> 
> Secondly this doesn't change the power that rules are set to
> *within* the proposal.  Even if a proposal has a power of 4,
> R105 sets a rule's power to 1 by default, and a different power
> if the proposal specifies within each rule change.
> 
> Thirdly, if you still think it's a problem, it is that way in
> the one up for ratification...
> 
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> thank god for ratification ayyy lmao
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>  wrote:
>>> Actually, I just checked an archived version [1] of the rule since the last 
>>> change to it from the period when G. kept the ruleset and this error wasn’t 
>>> there, so my guess is that it is a typo and if it is not the SLR 
>>> ratification will resolve the problem because the typo is not in that 
>>> version, therefore I suggest that you retract your proposal and put it back 
>>> without the unneeded fix.
>>> 
>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] 
>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20160208105847/http://faculty.washington.edu:80/kerim/nomic/rkeep/current_flr.txt
>>> 
 On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:14 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
  wrote:
 
 Could we make the change to Rule 106 retroactive to avoid cleanup.
 
 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
 
 
 
> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Title: Minor fixes 2.0
> AI: 3
> In rule 2423, "First Among Equals", replace the text "The holder of
> the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is increased by 1 on
> all Agoran decisions other than a elections of the Prime Minister."
> with "The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is
> increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than elections for the
> office of Prime Minister"
> 
> If, in rule 2496 "Rewards", the words "Publishing a duty-fulfilling
> report: 5 shinies" are not followed by the words "This reward can be
> claimed a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and
> once per office per month for a monthly report.", add those words
> immediately after "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies"
> 
> In rule 2451 "Executive orders", remove all instances of the word 
> "current".
> 
> Change the power of rule 2451, "Executive Orders" to 2 and replace the
> text "The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a specified
> player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by the Prime
> Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against the person
> to whom the Card is issued." with "The Prime Minister issues a
> specified Card to a specified player. The reason for the card MAY be
> any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation
> of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is issued. The
> previous sentence takes priority over rule 2426 entitled "Cards"".
> [COMMENTARY: The rule allowing the PM to issue people cards for no
> reason is lower than the rule banning that behaviour"]
> 
> In rule 106 "Adopting proposals", replace any instances of the word
> "minimum" with the word "maximum"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From V.J. Rada
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Proposal: Add your typo fixes here

[Kerim Aydin]

First, the Minimum of "4 and its adoption index" is almost always
the adoption index.  Maximum is absolutely wrong and would break
it.  (minimum means "lowest", right?).  Since they all have AIs,
this means AIs of 5,6, etc. get set to 4, and AIs less than 4 are
set to the AI.  That's how it's supposed to work.

Secondly this doesn't change the power that rules are set to
*within* the proposal.  Even if a proposal has a power of 4, 
R105 sets a rule's power to 1 by default, and a different power
if the proposal specifies within each rule change.

Thirdly, if you still think it's a problem, it is that way in
the one up for ratification...

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> thank god for ratification ayyy lmao
> 
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
> > Actually, I just checked an archived version [1] of the rule since the last 
> > change to it from the period when G. kept the ruleset and this error wasn’t 
> > there, so my guess is that it is a typo and if it is not the SLR 
> > ratification will resolve the problem because the typo is not in that 
> > version, therefore I suggest that you retract your proposal and put it back 
> > without the unneeded fix.
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > [1] 
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20160208105847/http://faculty.washington.edu:80/kerim/nomic/rkeep/current_flr.txt
> >
> >> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:14 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> Could we make the change to Rule 106 retroactive to avoid cleanup.
> >> 
> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Title: Minor fixes 2.0
> >>> AI: 3
> >>> In rule 2423, "First Among Equals", replace the text "The holder of
> >>> the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is increased by 1 on
> >>> all Agoran decisions other than a elections of the Prime Minister."
> >>> with "The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is
> >>> increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than elections for the
> >>> office of Prime Minister"
> >>>
> >>> If, in rule 2496 "Rewards", the words "Publishing a duty-fulfilling
> >>> report: 5 shinies" are not followed by the words "This reward can be
> >>> claimed a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and
> >>> once per office per month for a monthly report.", add those words
> >>> immediately after "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies"
> >>>
> >>> In rule 2451 "Executive orders", remove all instances of the word 
> >>> "current".
> >>>
> >>> Change the power of rule 2451, "Executive Orders" to 2 and replace the
> >>> text "The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a specified
> >>> player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by the Prime
> >>> Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against the person
> >>> to whom the Card is issued." with "The Prime Minister issues a
> >>> specified Card to a specified player. The reason for the card MAY be
> >>> any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation
> >>> of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is issued. The
> >>> previous sentence takes priority over rule 2426 entitled "Cards"".
> >>> [COMMENTARY: The rule allowing the PM to issue people cards for no
> >>> reason is lower than the rule banning that behaviour"]
> >>>
> >>> In rule 106 "Adopting proposals", replace any instances of the word
> >>> "minimum" with the word "maximum"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From V.J. Rada
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Proposal: Add your typo fixes here

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Having thoroughly checked archives, I am very confident in saying that it is 
only a typo and not the actual text of the rule and that no rule changes are 
needed.

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



> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:22 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> No bc that would invalidate our treating of rule conflicts for 3 years.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> Actually, this isn’t needed. All we need to do is go through and specify per 
>> rule what the power is supposed to be.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:14 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Could we make the change to Rule 106 retroactive to avoid cleanup.
>>> 
>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
 
 Title: Minor fixes 2.0
 AI: 3
 In rule 2423, "First Among Equals", replace the text "The holder of
 the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is increased by 1 on
 all Agoran decisions other than a elections of the Prime Minister."
 with "The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is
 increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than elections for the
 office of Prime Minister"
 
 If, in rule 2496 "Rewards", the words "Publishing a duty-fulfilling
 report: 5 shinies" are not followed by the words "This reward can be
 claimed a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and
 once per office per month for a monthly report.", add those words
 immediately after "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies"
 
 In rule 2451 "Executive orders", remove all instances of the word 
 "current".
 
 Change the power of rule 2451, "Executive Orders" to 2 and replace the
 text "The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a specified
 player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by the Prime
 Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against the person
 to whom the Card is issued." with "The Prime Minister issues a
 specified Card to a specified player. The reason for the card MAY be
 any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation
 of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is issued. The
 previous sentence takes priority over rule 2426 entitled "Cards"".
 [COMMENTARY: The rule allowing the PM to issue people cards for no
 reason is lower than the rule banning that behaviour"]
 
 In rule 106 "Adopting proposals", replace any instances of the word
 "minimum" with the word "maximum"
 
 
 
 
 
 From V.J. Rada
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J. Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Proposal: Add your typo fixes here

[VJ Rada]

thank god for ratification ayyy lmao

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> Actually, I just checked an archived version [1] of the rule since the last 
> change to it from the period when G. kept the ruleset and this error wasn’t 
> there, so my guess is that it is a typo and if it is not the SLR ratification 
> will resolve the problem because the typo is not in that version, therefore I 
> suggest that you retract your proposal and put it back without the unneeded 
> fix.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
> [1] 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20160208105847/http://faculty.washington.edu:80/kerim/nomic/rkeep/current_flr.txt
>
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:14 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Could we make the change to Rule 106 retroactive to avoid cleanup.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> Title: Minor fixes 2.0
>>> AI: 3
>>> In rule 2423, "First Among Equals", replace the text "The holder of
>>> the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is increased by 1 on
>>> all Agoran decisions other than a elections of the Prime Minister."
>>> with "The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is
>>> increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than elections for the
>>> office of Prime Minister"
>>>
>>> If, in rule 2496 "Rewards", the words "Publishing a duty-fulfilling
>>> report: 5 shinies" are not followed by the words "This reward can be
>>> claimed a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and
>>> once per office per month for a monthly report.", add those words
>>> immediately after "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies"
>>>
>>> In rule 2451 "Executive orders", remove all instances of the word "current".
>>>
>>> Change the power of rule 2451, "Executive Orders" to 2 and replace the
>>> text "The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a specified
>>> player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by the Prime
>>> Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against the person
>>> to whom the Card is issued." with "The Prime Minister issues a
>>> specified Card to a specified player. The reason for the card MAY be
>>> any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation
>>> of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is issued. The
>>> previous sentence takes priority over rule 2426 entitled "Cards"".
>>> [COMMENTARY: The rule allowing the PM to issue people cards for no
>>> reason is lower than the rule banning that behaviour"]
>>>
>>> In rule 106 "Adopting proposals", replace any instances of the word
>>> "minimum" with the word "maximum"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Proposal: Add your typo fixes here

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Actually, I just checked an archived version [1] of the rule since the last 
change to it from the period when G. kept the ruleset and this error wasn’t 
there, so my guess is that it is a typo and if it is not the SLR ratification 
will resolve the problem because the typo is not in that version, therefore I 
suggest that you retract your proposal and put it back without the unneeded fix.

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


[1] 
http://web.archive.org/web/20160208105847/http://faculty.washington.edu:80/kerim/nomic/rkeep/current_flr.txt

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:14 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> Could we make the change to Rule 106 retroactive to avoid cleanup.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> 
>> Title: Minor fixes 2.0
>> AI: 3
>> In rule 2423, "First Among Equals", replace the text "The holder of
>> the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is increased by 1 on
>> all Agoran decisions other than a elections of the Prime Minister."
>> with "The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is
>> increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than elections for the
>> office of Prime Minister"
>> 
>> If, in rule 2496 "Rewards", the words "Publishing a duty-fulfilling
>> report: 5 shinies" are not followed by the words "This reward can be
>> claimed a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and
>> once per office per month for a monthly report.", add those words
>> immediately after "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies"
>> 
>> In rule 2451 "Executive orders", remove all instances of the word "current".
>> 
>> Change the power of rule 2451, "Executive Orders" to 2 and replace the
>> text "The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a specified
>> player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by the Prime
>> Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against the person
>> to whom the Card is issued." with "The Prime Minister issues a
>> specified Card to a specified player. The reason for the card MAY be
>> any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation
>> of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is issued. The
>> previous sentence takes priority over rule 2426 entitled "Cards"".
>> [COMMENTARY: The rule allowing the PM to issue people cards for no
>> reason is lower than the rule banning that behaviour"]
>> 
>> In rule 106 "Adopting proposals", replace any instances of the word
>> "minimum" with the word "maximum"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From V.J. Rada
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Proposal: Add your typo fixes here

[VJ Rada]

No bc that would invalidate our treating of rule conflicts for 3 years.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> Actually, this isn’t needed. All we need to do is go through and specify per 
> rule what the power is supposed to be.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:14 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Could we make the change to Rule 106 retroactive to avoid cleanup.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> Title: Minor fixes 2.0
>>> AI: 3
>>> In rule 2423, "First Among Equals", replace the text "The holder of
>>> the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is increased by 1 on
>>> all Agoran decisions other than a elections of the Prime Minister."
>>> with "The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is
>>> increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than elections for the
>>> office of Prime Minister"
>>>
>>> If, in rule 2496 "Rewards", the words "Publishing a duty-fulfilling
>>> report: 5 shinies" are not followed by the words "This reward can be
>>> claimed a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and
>>> once per office per month for a monthly report.", add those words
>>> immediately after "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies"
>>>
>>> In rule 2451 "Executive orders", remove all instances of the word "current".
>>>
>>> Change the power of rule 2451, "Executive Orders" to 2 and replace the
>>> text "The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a specified
>>> player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by the Prime
>>> Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against the person
>>> to whom the Card is issued." with "The Prime Minister issues a
>>> specified Card to a specified player. The reason for the card MAY be
>>> any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation
>>> of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is issued. The
>>> previous sentence takes priority over rule 2426 entitled "Cards"".
>>> [COMMENTARY: The rule allowing the PM to issue people cards for no
>>> reason is lower than the rule banning that behaviour"]
>>>
>>> In rule 106 "Adopting proposals", replace any instances of the word
>>> "minimum" with the word "maximum"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Proposal: Add your typo fixes here

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Actually, this isn’t needed. All we need to do is go through and specify per 
rule what the power is supposed to be.

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



> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:14 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> Could we make the change to Rule 106 retroactive to avoid cleanup.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> 
>> Title: Minor fixes 2.0
>> AI: 3
>> In rule 2423, "First Among Equals", replace the text "The holder of
>> the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is increased by 1 on
>> all Agoran decisions other than a elections of the Prime Minister."
>> with "The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is
>> increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than elections for the
>> office of Prime Minister"
>> 
>> If, in rule 2496 "Rewards", the words "Publishing a duty-fulfilling
>> report: 5 shinies" are not followed by the words "This reward can be
>> claimed a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and
>> once per office per month for a monthly report.", add those words
>> immediately after "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies"
>> 
>> In rule 2451 "Executive orders", remove all instances of the word "current".
>> 
>> Change the power of rule 2451, "Executive Orders" to 2 and replace the
>> text "The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a specified
>> player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by the Prime
>> Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against the person
>> to whom the Card is issued." with "The Prime Minister issues a
>> specified Card to a specified player. The reason for the card MAY be
>> any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation
>> of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is issued. The
>> previous sentence takes priority over rule 2426 entitled "Cards"".
>> [COMMENTARY: The rule allowing the PM to issue people cards for no
>> reason is lower than the rule banning that behaviour"]
>> 
>> In rule 106 "Adopting proposals", replace any instances of the word
>> "minimum" with the word "maximum"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From V.J. Rada
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Proposal: Add your typo fixes here

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Could we make the change to Rule 106 retroactive to avoid cleanup.

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



> On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:09 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Title: Minor fixes 2.0
> AI: 3
> In rule 2423, "First Among Equals", replace the text "The holder of
> the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is increased by 1 on
> all Agoran decisions other than a elections of the Prime Minister."
> with "The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is
> increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than elections for the
> office of Prime Minister"
> 
> If, in rule 2496 "Rewards", the words "Publishing a duty-fulfilling
> report: 5 shinies" are not followed by the words "This reward can be
> claimed a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and
> once per office per month for a monthly report.", add those words
> immediately after "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies"
> 
> In rule 2451 "Executive orders", remove all instances of the word "current".
> 
> Change the power of rule 2451, "Executive Orders" to 2 and replace the
> text "The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a specified
> player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by the Prime
> Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against the person
> to whom the Card is issued." with "The Prime Minister issues a
> specified Card to a specified player. The reason for the card MAY be
> any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation
> of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is issued. The
> previous sentence takes priority over rule 2426 entitled "Cards"".
> [COMMENTARY: The rule allowing the PM to issue people cards for no
> reason is lower than the rule banning that behaviour"]
> 
> In rule 106 "Adopting proposals", replace any instances of the word
> "minimum" with the word "maximum"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From V.J. Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Proposal: Add your typo fixes here

[VJ Rada]

Title: Minor fixes 2.0
AI: 3
In rule 2423, "First Among Equals", replace the text "The holder of
the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is increased by 1 on
all Agoran decisions other than a elections of the Prime Minister."
with "The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is
increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than elections for the
office of Prime Minister"

If, in rule 2496 "Rewards", the words "Publishing a duty-fulfilling
report: 5 shinies" are not followed by the words "This reward can be
claimed a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and
once per office per month for a monthly report.", add those words
immediately after "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies"

In rule 2451 "Executive orders", remove all instances of the word "current".

Change the power of rule 2451, "Executive Orders" to 2 and replace the
text "The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a specified
player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by the Prime
Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against the person
to whom the Card is issued." with "The Prime Minister issues a
specified Card to a specified player. The reason for the card MAY be
any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation
of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is issued. The
previous sentence takes priority over rule 2426 entitled "Cards"".
[COMMENTARY: The rule allowing the PM to issue people cards for no
reason is lower than the rule banning that behaviour"]

In rule 106 "Adopting proposals", replace any instances of the word
"minimum" with the word "maximum"





>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: I found a serious mistake, again. Read the rules, folks.

[VJ Rada]

This is in rule 106, which by virtue of its earlier adoption, likely
takes precedence over contradictory rules: it's power 3.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:03 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> "When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if the
> outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, and
> unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to
> the minimum of four"
>
> Yep that's right. Minimum.
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: I found a serious mistake, again. Read the rules, folks.

[VJ Rada]

"When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if the
outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, and
unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to
the minimum of four"

Yep that's right. Minimum.

-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] More than one way to skin a win

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I intentionally left it open because I want that clause to allow anyone who 
agrees with the sentiment.

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



> On Sep 14, 2017, at 5:58 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> You may want to exclude me and CB from the second clause as well as the third.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> I vote [G.,nichdel,Aris,o,PSS], followed by all players who endorse this 
>> vote, with those doing so first coming earliest, followed by all players, 
>> not included earlier, excluding Cuddlebeam and VJ Rada sorted from the 
>> earliest registration to the latest.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 2:40 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So I pledged to resolve a victory election recently.  I was planning to
>>> do that now.  I looked back.
>>> 
>>> PSS, as Herald, tried twice to initiate one back in May.  The first time,
>>> e forgot to include an option, which was CoEd and accepted as failed.
>>> The second attempt was CFJ'd by me, based on a detail of its form.  This
>>> detail was found to be inconsequential in CFJ 3513, so the initiation was
>>> found to have worked:
>>> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3513
>>> 
>>> HOWEVER, neither the Caller, nor the Judge noticed the fatal flaw in
>>> that judgement - the initiation attempt had only been sent to Discussion!
>>>  
>>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2017-May/042742.html
>>> 
>>> After searching, I believe there was no followup PF, and the judgement 
>>> was
>>> wrong for this trivial reason.  Which means no Victory Election has been
>>> initiated in the past 180 days.  [Note:  PSS said as much recently, but 
>>> didn't
>>> give the reason, so I thought e'd just missed the CFJ result... apologies 
>>> for
>>> doubting you PSS!].
>>> 
>>> Aaaanyway...
>>> 
>>>   ==THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED
>>> 
>>> As Herald, I initiate a VICTORY ELECTION, a type of Agoran Decision.
>>> All players are valid options, as is PRESENT; non-player persons
>>> can also become valid options during the voting period by
>>> announcement. The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting
>>> method is instant runoff.
>>> 
>>>  ===
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J. Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] More than one way to skin a win

[VJ Rada]

You may want to exclude me and CB from the second clause as well as the third.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I vote [G.,nichdel,Aris,o,PSS], followed by all players who endorse this 
> vote, with those doing so first coming earliest, followed by all players, not 
> included earlier, excluding Cuddlebeam and VJ Rada sorted from the earliest 
> registration to the latest.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 2:40 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> So I pledged to resolve a victory election recently.  I was planning to
>> do that now.  I looked back.
>>
>> PSS, as Herald, tried twice to initiate one back in May.  The first time,
>> e forgot to include an option, which was CoEd and accepted as failed.
>> The second attempt was CFJ'd by me, based on a detail of its form.  This
>> detail was found to be inconsequential in CFJ 3513, so the initiation was
>> found to have worked:
>>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3513
>>
>> HOWEVER, neither the Caller, nor the Judge noticed the fatal flaw in
>> that judgement - the initiation attempt had only been sent to Discussion!
>>   
>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2017-May/042742.html
>>
>> After searching, I believe there was no followup PF, and the judgement 
>> was
>> wrong for this trivial reason.  Which means no Victory Election has been
>> initiated in the past 180 days.  [Note:  PSS said as much recently, but 
>> didn't
>> give the reason, so I thought e'd just missed the CFJ result... apologies for
>> doubting you PSS!].
>>
>> Aaaanyway...
>>
>>==THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED
>>
>>  As Herald, I initiate a VICTORY ELECTION, a type of Agoran Decision.
>>  All players are valid options, as is PRESENT; non-player persons
>>  can also become valid options during the voting period by
>>  announcement. The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting
>>  method is instant runoff.
>>
>>   ===
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Speaker & Card

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

This can be made a legal fiction by collusion between the Referee and the 
Arbitor.

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



> On Sep 14, 2017, at 5:52 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> No, the words used are "abusing the office for personal gain". Quite
> clearly corruption stuff, taking bribes or just being unfair.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> I like the idea of impeachment, but couldn’t a pink slip be issued for not 
>> representing the community.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 10:20 PM, Aris Merchant 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Maybe add impeachment proceedings? That seems generally advisable,
>>> past this specific occasion.
>>> 
>>> -Aris
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
 That can be cool too. Although if people dereg each time I may win in 
 future
 circumstances (or someone else they may disagree enough with), I suggest
 amending the Speaker position to an elected office.
 
 On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Aris Merchant
  wrote:
> 
> Oh dear. I recommend we install a new speaker by proposal. How about
> G.? We don't even have to give em a win, although we could if people
> wanted to do that.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>> On 09/13/17 16:58, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> Because we currently have no speaker if Cuddlebeam was not the
>>> speaker, and because e is in both sets of possible recent winners, I
>>> appoint Cuddlebeam speaker.
>> 
>> After consideration, it strikes me as flagrantly beligerent to make CB
>> the Speaker. From a mechanical standpoint, e has a tendency to object to
>> things for no good reason and now has full veto power. From a
>> 'figurehead leader of Agora' standpoint, I have no intent of being part
>> of a community represented by someone prone to sexism, racism, and
>> misgendering.
>> 
>> If CB is the Speaker, I submit the above as a Cantus Cygneus.
>> 
>>> 
>>> I also yellow card myself for being bad in several ways.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
 
 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J. Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Speaker & Card

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I like the idea of impeachment, but couldn’t a pink slip be issued for not 
representing the community.

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



> On Sep 13, 2017, at 10:20 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Maybe add impeachment proceedings? That seems generally advisable,
> past this specific occasion.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> That can be cool too. Although if people dereg each time I may win in future
>> circumstances (or someone else they may disagree enough with), I suggest
>> amending the Speaker position to an elected office.
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Oh dear. I recommend we install a new speaker by proposal. How about
>>> G.? We don't even have to give em a win, although we could if people
>>> wanted to do that.
>>> 
>>> -Aris
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
 On 09/13/17 16:58, VJ Rada wrote:
> Because we currently have no speaker if Cuddlebeam was not the
> speaker, and because e is in both sets of possible recent winners, I
> appoint Cuddlebeam speaker.
 
 After consideration, it strikes me as flagrantly beligerent to make CB
 the Speaker. From a mechanical standpoint, e has a tendency to object to
 things for no good reason and now has full veto power. From a
 'figurehead leader of Agora' standpoint, I have no intent of being part
 of a community represented by someone prone to sexism, racism, and
 misgendering.
 
 If CB is the Speaker, I submit the above as a Cantus Cygneus.
 
> 
> I also yellow card myself for being bad in several ways.
> 
 
 
>> 
>> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Speaker & Card

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

If you don’t mind, I will wait until it is clear who the speaker is via 
resolution of the CFJs before I deregister you.

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



> On Sep 13, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 09/13/17 20:55, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 
>> Without meaning to take away from the sentiment expressed in any way
>> or anyone's right to express it, this little bit of win uncertainty is now 
>> *really*
>> propagating into the game state.  When VJ Rada made this appointment attempt,
>> I almost CFJd on whether a conditional built on a conditional built on a
>> conditional was beyond a reasonable effort to allow, now we're a level 
>> deeper...
> 
> This is part of the reason I did a CC instead of immediate
> deregistration. I can continue normal actions until the Registrar
> deregisters me, so there's no chance of causing more reversion and
> uncertainty in the meantime.
> 
>> this little bit of Win uncertainty is *really* stre
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>>> On 09/13/17 16:58, VJ Rada wrote:
 Because we currently have no speaker if Cuddlebeam was not the
 speaker, and because e is in both sets of possible recent winners, I
 appoint Cuddlebeam speaker.
>>> After consideration, it strikes me as flagrantly beligerent to make CB
>>> the Speaker. From a mechanical standpoint, e has a tendency to object to
>>> things for no good reason and now has full veto power. From a
>>> 'figurehead leader of Agora' standpoint, I have no intent of being part
>>> of a community represented by someone prone to sexism, racism, and
>>> misgendering.
>>> 
>>> If CB is the Speaker, I submit the above as a Cantus Cygneus.
>>> 
 I also yellow card myself for being bad in several ways.
 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail