DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Experimental Bench procedure

[Cuddle Beam]

random message of not-deadness.

and holy wow have there been a lot of messages lol

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Experimental procedure for assigning CFJs.  You can just tell me
> what Court you want to be on.  Favoring still works of course.
> Comments welcome.
>
>
> Night Court [Assigned quick turnaround cases (either trivial or
> game-urgent), generally
>  promises to judge in 4 days].
> 
>   G.
>
>
> Day Court [Default, rotate roster through as needed].
> 
>  Publius
>  o
>  Aris
>  Gaelan
>  Alexis
>
>
> Weekend Court [Backup/partial rotation, generally gets half as
>many cases each as Day Court].
> 
>   V.J. Rada
>   Nichdel
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Take-backsies

[Alexis Hunt]

Welcome to pull me in.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 22:41 Kerim Aydin,  wrote:

>
>
> You were next in line anyway :).  (Boy this batch has been
> hard to assign but that's a topic for later.)
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >
> > I'll take this, G., if you're looking for judges.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Owen Jacobson 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sep 27, 2017, at 12:35 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I transfer one stamp to Agora.
> > >
> > > I cause Agora to transfer this stamp to me.
> > >
> > > I pay Agora 1 sh. to CFJ on the statement “I caused Agora to transfer
> this stamp to me in this message.”
> > >
> > > I think rule 2166 (“Assets”) has a clarity problem around this action,
> so this is a test case CFJ. Either I own one of grok’s Stamps now, or Agora
> does; I don’t care which it is, I just want to know so that I can
> recordkeep similar actions in the future
> > >
> > > The rule in question reads, in part:
> > >
> > >> Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise lack an
> owner, it is owned by Agora. If an asset's backing document restricts its
> ownership to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or
> transferred to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is
> owned by an entity outside that class (except for Agora, in which case any
> player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection). The restrictions in
> the previous sentence are subject to modification by its backing document.
> > >
> > > The backing document for stamps, rule 2498 (“Economic Wins”) presently
> reads:
> > >
> > >>  Stamps are an asset. The Secretary is the recordkeepor of Stamps.
> > >>
> > >>  The Stamp Value is always 1/5th the current Floating Value.
> > >>
> > >>  Once per month, a player CAN, by announcement, create a stamp
> > >>  by transferring the Stamp Value, in shinies, to Agora.
> > >>
> > >>  If Agora owns at least as many Shinies as the current Stamp
> > >>  Value, a player CAN, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns to
> > >>  cause Agora to transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to emself.
> > >>
> > >>  If a player owns Stamps created by at least 10 different
> > >>  players, e CAN win the game by announcement, by destroying 10
> > >>  stamps e owns, each of which was created by a distinct player.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > I submit the following proposal, and pend it for 1 AP:
> > >
> > > Title: Stamp Floating Derived Value Patch
> > > Author: o
> > > AI: 1.0
> > >
> > > Amend rule 2498 (“Economic Wins”) by removing the paragraph that
> begins “The Stamp Value is”.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: My first proposal!

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 9:20 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> 
> [Okay. I think I've got it as I want. I'm going to pend it now, and this time 
> for real.]
> I retract the proposal "Cheer Up v6?" and create and pend the following 
> proposal in its place:

With AP or with shinies? (Remember to send your reply to a-b!)

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Proto: Election Campaigns

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> Proto-Proposal: Election Campaigns (AI=3)

I like this a lot. You appear to have been careful to preserve the AI/Power 
system for these proposals, which should stop candidates from passing 
inordinately-weird proposals simply as part of filling a vacant office.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Proto: Election Campaigns

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 13:30 VJ Rada  > wrote:
> I mean I like the interim thing because it fixes the ADoP's unlimited
> power and gives other people to call elections when they're actually
> needed. I would like the Campaign Proposals if it was just
> for...say... the Prime Minister. But I don't like going through all
> that for uncontested 2-0 Superintendent elections, for example.
> 
> Hmm, there should be something for uncontested elections: if they don't have 
> a proposal, just install em; if they do, run the proposal and install em if 
> it passes.

Given that persons can become candidates for an office mid-election, I don’t 
see how this is possible.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Oh right

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> I cause myself to receive a Welcome Package.
> 
> Folks, this is why donations were pointless - you can't bandaid a gaping 
> wound.

We had a brief discussion about this in IRC earlier today, too. I plan on 
getting something into this week’s distribution to materially address this, 
based on the “distributing assets” draft. I don’t mind if it doesn’t pass, but 
I want to try.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: [Proto] Reposting

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 9:53 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> 
> I think I've mostly got the hang of this by now, but it still sounds like a 
> great idea to me, in case other new players join and are confused by it as 
> well.

Looks like you have, which I appreciate, but this is a recurrent problem for 
new players. I’d like experienced players to be able to do more than tell 
people they’ve made mistakes, if possible and safe.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vital History Gone Missing!

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 6:05 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> I do include a list of people deregistered by Writ of FAGE in the Monthly 
> report because it does not say Registrar's report_s_, I interpreted this to 
> fulfill the requirement.

I wondered about that. That’s one of the reasons I made sure a green card was 
justifiable before issuing a card: I didn’t want to get it wrong and materially 
penalize you for something you’d made a sincere effort to do correctly. 
Fortunately, the FAGE list is very low impact.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My first proposal!

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 9:45 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> 
> I did end up changing the "may" to "MAY.”

MAY means “you won’t get a card for doing this.” You wanted CAN by announcement 
(“attempts to do this this way will work”).

This is a recurrent bug. I can think of at least three players, including 
myself, who regularly cross that up. Don’t fret it too hard on this proposal, 
but the consequences of getting that backwards on more complex systems can be 
messy. That’s what’s behind the stamps omnibus fix thread, for example.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: PROTO: Saving moiney with nested proposals

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 4:55 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Author: VJ
> Title: A million proposals for the price of one.
> AI: 3 probably.
> Text:
> Create and pend the following proposal
> {{Author: VJ Rada
> Title: Repeal All Cards
> AI: 3
> Text: Repeal all rules listed at the time of the proposal "a million
> proposals for the price of one" under the rule section "punishment".
> Remove from the rule titled "executive orders" the dot-point beginning
> with "Dive"}}
> 
> Create and pend the following proposal
> {{Author: VJ Rada
> Title: VJ Rada Wins
> AI: 1
> Text:Upon the adoption of this proposal, VJ Rada wins the game}}

If you prepare all of your proposals in advance, then I don’t see why nesting 
is necessary. Set the outer proposal to the AI of the highest included 
proposal, then catenate the clauses of the proposal (making changes to any 
proposal-specific clauses to scope them correctly, if necessary), and you’ve 
got a single giant equivalent proposal. As an added bonus, it doesn’t burn an 
extra adoption cycle to get there.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Take-backsies

[Kerim Aydin]

You were next in line anyway :).  (Boy this batch has been
hard to assign but that's a topic for later.)

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> I'll take this, G., if you're looking for judges.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 27, 2017, at 12:35 PM, grok (caleb vines)  
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I transfer one stamp to Agora.
> >
> > I cause Agora to transfer this stamp to me.
> >
> > I pay Agora 1 sh. to CFJ on the statement “I caused Agora to transfer this 
> > stamp to me in this message.”
> >
> > I think rule 2166 (“Assets”) has a clarity problem around this action, so 
> > this is a test case CFJ. Either I own one of grok’s Stamps now, or Agora 
> > does; I don’t care which it is, I just want to know so that I can 
> > recordkeep similar actions in the future
> >
> > The rule in question reads, in part:
> >
> >> Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise lack an 
> >> owner, it is owned by Agora. If an asset's backing document restricts its 
> >> ownership to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or 
> >> transferred to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is 
> >> owned by an entity outside that class (except for Agora, in which case any 
> >> player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection). The restrictions in 
> >> the previous sentence are subject to modification by its backing document.
> >
> > The backing document for stamps, rule 2498 (“Economic Wins”) presently 
> > reads:
> >
> >>  Stamps are an asset. The Secretary is the recordkeepor of Stamps.
> >>
> >>  The Stamp Value is always 1/5th the current Floating Value.
> >>
> >>  Once per month, a player CAN, by announcement, create a stamp
> >>  by transferring the Stamp Value, in shinies, to Agora.
> >>
> >>  If Agora owns at least as many Shinies as the current Stamp
> >>  Value, a player CAN, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns to
> >>  cause Agora to transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to emself.
> >>
> >>  If a player owns Stamps created by at least 10 different
> >>  players, e CAN win the game by announcement, by destroying 10
> >>  stamps e owns, each of which was created by a distinct player.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I submit the following proposal, and pend it for 1 AP:
> >
> > Title: Stamp Floating Derived Value Patch
> > Author: o
> > AI: 1.0
> >
> > Amend rule 2498 (“Economic Wins”) by removing the paragraph that begins 
> > “The Stamp Value is”.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Take-backsies

[VJ Rada]

I'll take this, G., if you're looking for judges.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 27, 2017, at 12:35 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
>>
>> I transfer one stamp to Agora.
>
> I cause Agora to transfer this stamp to me.
>
> I pay Agora 1 sh. to CFJ on the statement “I caused Agora to transfer this 
> stamp to me in this message.”
>
> I think rule 2166 (“Assets”) has a clarity problem around this action, so 
> this is a test case CFJ. Either I own one of grok’s Stamps now, or Agora 
> does; I don’t care which it is, I just want to know so that I can recordkeep 
> similar actions in the future
>
> The rule in question reads, in part:
>
>> Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, 
>> it is owned by Agora. If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership 
>> to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred 
>> to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an 
>> entity outside that class (except for Agora, in which case any player CAN 
>> transfer or destroy it without objection). The restrictions in the previous 
>> sentence are subject to modification by its backing document.
>
> The backing document for stamps, rule 2498 (“Economic Wins”) presently reads:
>
>>  Stamps are an asset. The Secretary is the recordkeepor of Stamps.
>>
>>  The Stamp Value is always 1/5th the current Floating Value.
>>
>>  Once per month, a player CAN, by announcement, create a stamp
>>  by transferring the Stamp Value, in shinies, to Agora.
>>
>>  If Agora owns at least as many Shinies as the current Stamp
>>  Value, a player CAN, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns to
>>  cause Agora to transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to emself.
>>
>>  If a player owns Stamps created by at least 10 different
>>  players, e CAN win the game by announcement, by destroying 10
>>  stamps e owns, each of which was created by a distinct player.
>>
>
>
> I submit the following proposal, and pend it for 1 AP:
>
> Title: Stamp Floating Derived Value Patch
> Author: o
> AI: 1.0
>
> Amend rule 2498 (“Economic Wins”) by removing the paragraph that begins “The 
> Stamp Value is”.
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Using Certiorari for Good! Also, judgement of CFJ 3110!

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 27, 2017, at 7:02 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> Sorry yeah, my plan was p much to get people to call CFJs on my
> frivolous win attempt thinking they were safe and then tricking them
> by revealing this was invalid and I still had certiorari.

On Sep 27, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> Really now?
> 
> I point my finger at VJ for violation of “No Faking.” Sorry, Referee!

I’ve got seven days to issue a decision on this, no worries.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: bye

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

You will be missed.

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



> On Sep 27, 2017, at 12:38 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> 
> I deregister
> 
> 
> -grok



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Elections: Assessor and Tailor

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Naw, it would be an attempt for a paradox win.  Which doesn't exist
> > so I didn't do it.  :)
> 
> I'm pretty sure that particular paradox attempt (Epimenedes versus
> Truthiness) is one that's been thoroughly explored already. CFJ 1902 is
> probably the most direct precedent. (CFJ 2103 is a fun diversion on the
> same theme.)

Yep - but it depends on implementation - a test of whether a paradox win
rule is well-written is whether it excludes trivial Epimenedes-style
statement paradoxes.  IIRC the first few wins that happened after we put
in the ca 2005 version of paradox win were trivial ones.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Elections: Assessor and Tailor

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Naw, it would be an attempt for a paradox win.  Which doesn't exist
> so I didn't do it.  :)

I'm pretty sure that particular paradox attempt (Epimenedes versus
Truthiness) is one that's been thoroughly explored already. CFJ 1902 is
probably the most direct precedent. (CFJ 2103 is a fun diversion on the
same theme.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Elections: Assessor and Tailor

[Kerim Aydin]

Naw, it would be an attempt for a paradox win.  Which doesn't exist so I didn't
do it.  :)

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Okay. You're still going to have trouble with the intent to mislead
> component though.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > E actually posted that comment to BUS for whatever reason (maybe just 
> > replying
> > to emself and not the list-forwarded copy, I dunno).
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> Wait, does the lying ban cover DIS?
> >>
> >> Gaelan
> >>
> >> > On Sep 27, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> >> Ok, VJ this has been probably the worst, dumbest day for you in agora
> >> >> nomic. Every damn message has been wrong.
> >> >
> >> > (G. is tempted to finger-point you for lying because this message isn't 
> >> > wrong...)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Elections: Assessor and Tailor

[Aris Merchant]

Okay. You're still going to have trouble with the intent to mislead
component though.

-Aris

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> E actually posted that comment to BUS for whatever reason (maybe just replying
> to emself and not the list-forwarded copy, I dunno).
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Wait, does the lying ban cover DIS?
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>> > On Sep 27, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >> Ok, VJ this has been probably the worst, dumbest day for you in agora
>> >> nomic. Every damn message has been wrong.
>> >
>> > (G. is tempted to finger-point you for lying because this message isn't 
>> > wrong...)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Elections: Assessor and Tailor

[Kerim Aydin]

E actually posted that comment to BUS for whatever reason (maybe just replying
to emself and not the list-forwarded copy, I dunno).

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Wait, does the lying ban cover DIS?
> 
> Gaelan
> 
> > On Sep 27, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> Ok, VJ this has been probably the worst, dumbest day for you in agora
> >> nomic. Every damn message has been wrong.
> > 
> > (G. is tempted to finger-point you for lying because this message isn't 
> > wrong...)
> > 
> > 
> > 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Elections: Assessor and Tailor

[Aris Merchant]

It doesn't.

-Aris

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> Wait, does the lying ban cover DIS?
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Sep 27, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> Ok, VJ this has been probably the worst, dumbest day for you in agora
>>> nomic. Every damn message has been wrong.
>>
>> (G. is tempted to finger-point you for lying because this message isn't 
>> wrong...)
>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Elections: Assessor and Tailor

[Gaelan Steele]

Wait, does the lying ban cover DIS?

Gaelan

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> Ok, VJ this has been probably the worst, dumbest day for you in agora
>> nomic. Every damn message has been wrong.
> 
> (G. is tempted to finger-point you for lying because this message isn't 
> wrong...)
> 
> 
> 

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 11:17 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > [I also resigned to remove myself from the temptation of scamming a
> > Black Ribbon with the position - was considering it - so maybe it was
> > future-controversial :P ]
> 
> How were you planning to do that? Just putting it on the report and
> hoping it self-ratified?

I will say that it would start with an erroneous report but that the
endgame is more interesting than that (but not a slam dunk).  Otherwise
I'm keeping this one in my back pocket.

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

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 11:17 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> [I also resigned to remove myself from the temptation of scamming a
> Black Ribbon with the position - was considering it - so maybe it was
> future-controversial :P ]

How were you planning to do that? Just putting it on the report and
hoping it self-ratified?

-- 
ais523

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 12:20 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>   G. wins the Victory Election.
>   G. wins the game (of Agora).
> 
> 
> For whatever reason, this seemed contentious, so I initiate an election for 
> Tailor. Happy to take it on.
> 
> -Alexis

The tailor itself isn't controversial I think; I won a clean election last week
(uncontested pretty much) but just resigned because I realized I'd taken on too
much.  It was vacant before election and ow.  My resignation was in parallel 
with
more controversial stuff with other offices.

[I also resigned to remove myself from the temptation of scamming a Black Ribbon
with the position - was considering it - so maybe it was future-controversial 
:P ]

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

[Gaelan Steele]

I think bribe-conditionals (gFP and the like) go a long way towards making 
these things interesting. 

Gaelan 

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 9:22 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> CuddleBeam:
>>> I dislike having wins being granted by election like this, because it feels 
>>> too easy. I vote present.
> 
> So I agree with CuddleBeam's sentiment here - in this case the Victory 
> Election
> was basically an ad hoc Speaker election (at least, I'm guessing that was some
> of the motivation of voters when it was thought CuddleBeam was speaker).  
> Current system doesn't really have much interesting gameplay potential IMO.
> 
> Is there a way to make them interesting?
> 
> I'm thinking of a Proto that would scrap Victory elections, but also institute
> a gameable system of Speaker Succession (similar to Oligarchies of the past),
> in such a way that you buy into the succession initially (giving another thing
> to spend shinies on).
> 
> Though I do want to give Agora Game winners some kind of temporary game 
> advantage
> beyond titles and ribbons!
> 
> -G.
> 
> 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Elections: Assessor and Tailor

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Ok, VJ this has been probably the worst, dumbest day for you in agora
> nomic. Every damn message has been wrong.

(G. is tempted to finger-point you for lying because this message isn't 
wrong...)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My first proposal!

[ATMunn .]

You're right. I'll change that.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:56 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

>  any value it is currently not.
> < It is IMPOSSIBLE to change another player's Emotion.
> < When doing this, e MUST provide a reason as to why e changed eir
> Emotion as such.
>
> This could be read as mandating players provide reasons for changing
> another player's emotion.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:53 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> > [Yay more spam! This time, fixed a typo and the weird text bug.]
> > Retract the proposal "Cheer Up vIDEK" and create the following proposal
> in
> > its place:
> >
> > Title: "Cheer Up v6?"
> > Author: ATMunn
> > AI: 1
> >
> > Create a power-1 rule titled "Emotions"
> > {
> > Emotion is a player switch, tracked by the registrar, with possible
> > values Joyous, Melancholy, and Indifferent, that defaults to Indifferent.
> > At any time, any player CAN by announcement flip eir own Emotion to
> any
> > value it is currently not.
> > It is IMPOSSIBLE to change another player's Emotion.
> > When doing this, e MUST provide a reason as to why e changed eir
> Emotion
> > as such.
> > A player's Emotion has the following effects:
> >
> > Indifferent: No effect.
> > Melancholy: Any player that is not currently Melancholy MAY pat
> any
> > Melancholy player on the back. Upon doing this, the Melancholy player is
> > ENCOURAGED to change eir emotion to Joyous.
> > Joyous: Any player that is Joyous is ENCOURAGED to pat Melancholy
> > players on the back. E is also ENCOURAGED to do other kind acts, such as
> > paying shinies to other players or pending other players' proposals.
> >
> > }
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:30 PM, ATMunn . 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> [I really shouldn't be so quick to pend. Hopefully this will be the last
> >> change, but in case it's not, I won't pend this until the end of today.]
> >> I retract the proposal "Cheer Up" (AGAIN) and create the following
> >> proposal in its place:
> >>
> >> Title: "Cheer Up vIDEK" [version I Don't Even Know]
> >> Author: ATMunn
> >> AI: 1
> >>
> >> Create a power-1 rule titled "Emotions"
> >> {
> >> Emotion is a player switch, tracked bu the registrar, with possible
> >> values Joyous, Melancholy, and Indifferent, that defaults to
> Indifferent.
> >> At any time, any player CAN by announcement flip eir own Emotion to
> >> any value it is currently not.
> >> It is IMPOSSIBLE to change another player's Emotion.
> >> When doing this, e MUST provide a reason as to why e changed eir
> >> Emotion as such.
> >> A player's Emotion has the following effects:
> >>
> >> Indifferent: No effect.
> >> Melancholy: Any player that is not currently Melancholy MAY pat any
> >> Melancholy player on the back. Upon doing this, the Melancholy player is
> >> ENCOURAGED to change eir emotion to Joyous.
> >> Joyous: Any player that is Joyous is ENCOURAGED to pat Melancholy
> >> players on the back. E is also ENCOURAGED to do other kind acts, such as
> >> paying shinies to other players or pending other players' proposals.
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:03 PM, ATMunn . 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Wait, I got confused by the reply being sent to discussion by default
> >>> AGAIN. It shows both as a new thread and as a reply to this one, but
> it was
> >>> still only sent to Discussion. Forget it.
> >>> I undo all actions done in this thread so far, and create and pend the
> >>> following proposal:
> >>>
> >>> Title: "Cheer Up"
> >>> Author: ATMunn
> >>> Co-Authors: none
> >>> AI: 1
> >>>
> >>> Create a power-1 rule titled "Emotions"
> >>> {
> >>> Emotion is a player switch, tracked by the registrar, with possible
> >>> values Joyous, Melancholy, and Indifferent, that defaults to
> Indifferent.
> >>> At any time, any player CAN flip eir own Emotion to any value it is
> >>> currently not.
> >>> When doing this, e MUST provide a reason as to why e changed eir
> >>> Emotion as such.
> >>> A player's Emotion has the following affects:
> >>>
> >>> Indifferent: No effect.
> >>> Melancholy: Any player that is not currently Melancholy MAY pat any
> >>> Melancholy player on the back. Upon doing this, the Melancholy player
> is
> >>> ENCOURAGED to change eir emotion to Joyous.
> >>> Joyous: Any player that is Joyous is ENCOURAGED to pat Melancholy
> >>> players on the back. E is also ENCOURAGED to do other kind acts, such
> as
> >>> paying shinies to other players or pending other players' proposals.
> >>>
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> I'm sorry for all the spam. Hopefully this works out as I intend in the
> >>> end.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:58 PM, ATMunn . 
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  Actually, can't you just state that you change things in a proposal
>  instead of retracting it and creating it again?
>  If so, then I make the following change. to the proposal "Cheer Up".
> If
>  not, then I retract the proposal and create a new proposal titled
> "Cheer Up

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Elections: Assessor and Tailor

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 13:52 VJ Rada  wrote:

> >Re: being wrong: that's just nomic! it happens to all of us! :)
>
> Part of it is me being super-tired today. Also part of it is the
> volume. This month, our BUS and OFF volume is nearly identical to
> previous months (since May) but our DIS volume is over 5 times as many
> messages, the highest it's been since at least 2013.
>

Yeah, it can get overwhelming especially if you have multiple offices to
deal with.

But I'm never going to be so upset about any mistake as when I threw away
an easy win by transposing music incorrectly.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7876-7898

[Nic Evans]

On 09/27/17 12:45, Josh T wrote:
> I'm not going to officially CoE on this, but I am listed not by 天火狐

Sorry. I do that in my records to avoid any potential unicode problems.
Normally I manually edit it.

>
> 天火狐
>
> On 26 September 2017 at 15:49, nichdel  > wrote:
>
> Good luck Gaelan.
>
> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7876-7898as below.
>
> 
>
> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
>  following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
>  Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!). If a
>  decision's voting period is still ongoing, I end it immediately
>  before resolving it and after resolving the previous decision.]
>
> ID     Author(s)     AI   Title                        Pender     
> Pend fee
> 
> ---
> 7876*  o             2.0  Float On                     o         
>  1 AP
> 7877x  CB [1]        1.0  Monsters                     CB [1]     
> 1 AP
> 7878x  Gaelan        1.0  Not So Cuddly Now            Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7879*  o, Aris       1.0  You can take it with you     o         
>  1 sh.
> 7880*  o             1.0  Agency Typo Fix              o         
>  1 sh.
> 7881*  o, [2]        1.0  Stamp CAN Patch              o         
>  1 sh.
> 7882*  o, K, ais523  1.0  Welcome Package CAN Patch    o         
>  1 sh.
> 7883*  G.            1.0  Fear v2.1                    G.         
> 1 sh.
> 7884x  V.J Rada      3.0  Mother, May I?               V.J Rada   
> 1 sh.
> 7885*  o, [3]        3.0  Restraining Bolt             o         
>  1 sh.
> 7886*  Aris, [4]     2.0  Card Reform and Expansion v4 Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7887*  Aris          3.0  SLR Ratification             Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7888*  o, V.J Rada   3.1  BILLY MAYS HERE              o         
>  1 sh.
> 7889*  Aris          3.0  Agora Protection Act         Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7890*  Aris, G.      2.0  Improved Buoyancy v2         Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7891x  Gaelan        1.0  Proletarian Revolution       Gaelan     
> 1 sh.
> 7892*  Aris          1.0  Truthfulness v2              Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7893x  V.J Rada, [1] 2.0  Zimbabwe-style economics     V.J Rada   
> 1 sh.
> 7894x  G.            2.0  Shiny Weather                G.         
> 1 AP
> 7895x  Gaelan        3.0  No Telepathy                 Gaelan     
> 1 sh.
> 7896x  P.S.S. [5]    3.0  Registration Delay Fix       P.S.S.     
> 1 AP
> 7897*  CB [1]        1.0  University Funding           Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7898*  G.            2.0  Community Chest              G.         
> 1 AP
>
> |    | 7876 | 7877 | 7878 | 7879 | 7880 | 7881 | 7882 | 7883 |
> 7884 |
> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> |Aris    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |
> A    |
> |Bayushi | F    | A    | A    | F    | F    | F    | F    | P    |
> P    |
> |CB  | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |
> F    |
> |G.  | F    | F    | A    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |
> A    |
> |grok    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
> A    |
> |Josh T. | N    | F    | N    | N    | N    | F    | F    | A    |
> N    |
> |K   | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |
> A    |
> |Nichdel | F    | A    | P    | F    | F    | F    | F    | P    |
> P    |
> |o   | F    | A    | P    | F    | F    | F    | F    | P    |
> A    |
> |PSS | F    | A    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |
> A    |
> |VJ Rada | F    | A    | A    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |
> P    |
> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> |F/A | 9/1  | 5/6  | 4/4  | 9/1  | 9/1  | 10/1 | 10/1 | 6/2  |
> 1/6  |
> |AI  | 2.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  |
> 3.0  |
> |V   | 10   | 11   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 11   | 11   | 11   |
> 10   |
> |Q   | 3    | 3    | 3    | 3    | 3    | 3    | 3    | 3    |
> 3    |
> |P   | T    | F    | F    | T    | T    | T    | T    | T    |
> F    |
>
> |    | 7885 | 7886 | 7887 | 7888 | 7889 | 7890 | 7891 | 7892 |
> 7893 |
> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> |Aris    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | A    | F    |
> F    |
> |Bayushi | F    | F    | P    | F    | F    | F    | P    | P    |
> P    |
> |CB  | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |

DIS: Re: BUS: My first proposal!

[VJ Rada]

 wrote:
> [Yay more spam! This time, fixed a typo and the weird text bug.]
> Retract the proposal "Cheer Up vIDEK" and create the following proposal in
> its place:
>
> Title: "Cheer Up v6?"
> Author: ATMunn
> AI: 1
>
> Create a power-1 rule titled "Emotions"
> {
> Emotion is a player switch, tracked by the registrar, with possible
> values Joyous, Melancholy, and Indifferent, that defaults to Indifferent.
> At any time, any player CAN by announcement flip eir own Emotion to any
> value it is currently not.
> It is IMPOSSIBLE to change another player's Emotion.
> When doing this, e MUST provide a reason as to why e changed eir Emotion
> as such.
> A player's Emotion has the following effects:
>
> Indifferent: No effect.
> Melancholy: Any player that is not currently Melancholy MAY pat any
> Melancholy player on the back. Upon doing this, the Melancholy player is
> ENCOURAGED to change eir emotion to Joyous.
> Joyous: Any player that is Joyous is ENCOURAGED to pat Melancholy
> players on the back. E is also ENCOURAGED to do other kind acts, such as
> paying shinies to other players or pending other players' proposals.
>
> }
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:30 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>>
>> [I really shouldn't be so quick to pend. Hopefully this will be the last
>> change, but in case it's not, I won't pend this until the end of today.]
>> I retract the proposal "Cheer Up" (AGAIN) and create the following
>> proposal in its place:
>>
>> Title: "Cheer Up vIDEK" [version I Don't Even Know]
>> Author: ATMunn
>> AI: 1
>>
>> Create a power-1 rule titled "Emotions"
>> {
>> Emotion is a player switch, tracked bu the registrar, with possible
>> values Joyous, Melancholy, and Indifferent, that defaults to Indifferent.
>> At any time, any player CAN by announcement flip eir own Emotion to
>> any value it is currently not.
>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to change another player's Emotion.
>> When doing this, e MUST provide a reason as to why e changed eir
>> Emotion as such.
>> A player's Emotion has the following effects:
>>
>> Indifferent: No effect.
>> Melancholy: Any player that is not currently Melancholy MAY pat any
>> Melancholy player on the back. Upon doing this, the Melancholy player is
>> ENCOURAGED to change eir emotion to Joyous.
>> Joyous: Any player that is Joyous is ENCOURAGED to pat Melancholy
>> players on the back. E is also ENCOURAGED to do other kind acts, such as
>> paying shinies to other players or pending other players' proposals.
>>
>> }
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:03 PM, ATMunn . 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Wait, I got confused by the reply being sent to discussion by default
>>> AGAIN. It shows both as a new thread and as a reply to this one, but it was
>>> still only sent to Discussion. Forget it.
>>> I undo all actions done in this thread so far, and create and pend the
>>> following proposal:
>>>
>>> Title: "Cheer Up"
>>> Author: ATMunn
>>> Co-Authors: none
>>> AI: 1
>>>
>>> Create a power-1 rule titled "Emotions"
>>> {
>>> Emotion is a player switch, tracked by the registrar, with possible
>>> values Joyous, Melancholy, and Indifferent, that defaults to Indifferent.
>>> At any time, any player CAN flip eir own Emotion to any value it is
>>> currently not.
>>> When doing this, e MUST provide a reason as to why e changed eir
>>> Emotion as such.
>>> A player's Emotion has the following affects:
>>>
>>> Indifferent: No effect.
>>> Melancholy: Any player that is not currently Melancholy MAY pat any
>>> Melancholy player on the back. Upon doing this, the Melancholy player is
>>> ENCOURAGED to change eir emotion to Joyous.
>>> Joyous: Any player that is Joyous is ENCOURAGED to pat Melancholy
>>> players on the back. E is also ENCOURAGED to do other kind acts, such as
>>> paying shinies to other players or pending other players' proposals.
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> I'm sorry for all the spam. Hopefully this works out as I intend in the
>>> end.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:58 PM, ATMunn . 
>>> wrote:

 Actually, can't you just state that you change things in a proposal
 instead of retracting it and creating it again?
 If so, then I make the following change. to the proposal "Cheer Up". If
 not, then I retract the proposal and create a new proposal titled "Cheer Up
 v3" in its place with the following change.

 Replace
 {
 Melancholy: Any player that is not Melancholy may pat any Melancholy
 player on the back. Upon doing this, the Melancholy player is ENCOURAGED to
 change eir emotion to Joyous.
 }
 with
 {
 Melancholy: Any player that is not currently Melancholy MAY pat any
 Melancholy player on the back. Upon doing this, the Melancholy player is
 ENCOURAGED to change eir emotion to Joyous.
 }

 I then pend the proposal "Cheer Up" (or "Cheer Up v3", depending on how
 that works) using 1 AP.

 On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Elections: Assessor and Tailor

[VJ Rada]

>Re: being wrong: that's just nomic! it happens to all of us! :)

Part of it is me being super-tired today. Also part of it is the
volume. This month, our BUS and OFF volume is nearly identical to
previous months (since May) but our DIS volume is over 5 times as many
messages, the highest it's been since at least 2013.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 13:44 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> Pre-emptive send, thanks enter button.
>>
>> I initiate the elections for and associated agoran decisions for the
>> determination of the Assessor and Tailor. The quorum is 2.0, the valid
>> options are PRESENT and the players, the system is instant run-off,
>> the vote collector is the ADoP.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:43 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> > Ok, VJ this has been probably the worst, dumbest day for you in agora
>> > nomic. Every damn message has been wrong.
>
>
> Re: being wrong: that's just nomic! it happens to all of us! :)
>
> I vote myself for Tailor and endorse G. for Assessor.
>
> -Alexis



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7876-7898

[Josh T]

I'm not going to officially CoE on this, but I am listed not by 天火狐

天火狐

On 26 September 2017 at 15:49, nichdel  wrote:

> Good luck Gaelan.
>
> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7876-7898as below.
>
> 
>
> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
>  following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
>  Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!). If a
>  decision's voting period is still ongoing, I end it immediately
>  before resolving it and after resolving the previous decision.]
>
> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend fee
> 
> ---
> 7876*  o 2.0  Float On o   1 AP
> 7877x  CB [1]1.0  Monsters CB [1]  1 AP
> 7878x  Gaelan1.0  Not So Cuddly NowAris1 sh.
> 7879*  o, Aris   1.0  You can take it with you o   1 sh.
> 7880*  o 1.0  Agency Typo Fix  o   1 sh.
> 7881*  o, [2]1.0  Stamp CAN Patch  o   1 sh.
> 7882*  o, K, ais523  1.0  Welcome Package CAN Patcho   1 sh.
> 7883*  G.1.0  Fear v2.1G.  1 sh.
> 7884x  V.J Rada  3.0  Mother, May I?   V.J Rada1 sh.
> 7885*  o, [3]3.0  Restraining Bolt o   1 sh.
> 7886*  Aris, [4] 2.0  Card Reform and Expansion v4 Aris1 sh.
> 7887*  Aris  3.0  SLR Ratification Aris1 sh.
> 7888*  o, V.J Rada   3.1  BILLY MAYS HERE  o   1 sh.
> 7889*  Aris  3.0  Agora Protection Act Aris1 sh.
> 7890*  Aris, G.  2.0  Improved Buoyancy v2 Aris1 sh.
> 7891x  Gaelan1.0  Proletarian Revolution   Gaelan  1 sh.
> 7892*  Aris  1.0  Truthfulness v2  Aris1 sh.
> 7893x  V.J Rada, [1] 2.0  Zimbabwe-style economics V.J Rada1 sh.
> 7894x  G.2.0  Shiny WeatherG.  1 AP
> 7895x  Gaelan3.0  No Telepathy Gaelan  1 sh.
> 7896x  P.S.S. [5]3.0  Registration Delay Fix   P.S.S.  1 AP
> 7897*  CB [1]1.0  University Funding   Aris1 sh.
> 7898*  G.2.0  Community Chest  G.  1 AP
>
> || 7876 | 7877 | 7878 | 7879 | 7880 | 7881 | 7882 | 7883 | 7884 |
> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> |Aris| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| A|
> |Bayushi | F| A| A| F| F| F| F| P| P|
> |CB  | F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F|
> |G.  | F| F| A| F| F| F| F| F| A|
> |grok| A| A| A| A| A| A| A| A| A|
> |Josh T. | N| F| N| N| N| F| F| A| N|
> |K   | F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| A|
> |Nichdel | F| A| P| F| F| F| F| P| P|
> |o   | F| A| P| F| F| F| F| P| A|
> |PSS | F| A| F| F| F| F| F| F| A|
> |VJ Rada | F| A| A| F| F| F| F| F| P|
> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> |F/A | 9/1  | 5/6  | 4/4  | 9/1  | 9/1  | 10/1 | 10/1 | 6/2  | 1/6  |
> |AI  | 2.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 3.0  |
> |V   | 10   | 11   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 11   | 11   | 11   | 10   |
> |Q   | 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3|
> |P   | T| F| F| T| T| T| T| T| F|
>
> || 7885 | 7886 | 7887 | 7888 | 7889 | 7890 | 7891 | 7892 | 7893 |
> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> |Aris| F| F| F| F| F| F| A| F| F|
> |Bayushi | F| F| P| F| F| F| P| P| P|
> |CB  | F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F|
> |G.  | A| F| F| F| A| F| F| A| A|
> |grok| A| A| A| A| A| A| A| A| A|
> |Josh T. | F| F| F| F| F| N| N| N| N|
> |K   | F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F|
> |Nichdel | P| P| F| F| F| F| A| F| A|
> |o   | F| F| A| F| P| F| A| F| A|
> |PSS | F| F| F| F| F| F| A| F| A|
> |VJ Rada | F| F| F| F| P| P| P| A| F|
> |+--+--+--+--+--+

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

[VJ Rada]

Oh good lord who put me in charge of this stuff :(. It doesn't matter
specifically who initiated though. Right? I've been wrong today
already like... 20 times.



On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:37 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 13:22 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> You, currently. cannot. But I can and now will.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 12:20 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> G. wins the Victory Election.
>> >> G. wins the game (of Agora).
>> >
>> >
>> > For whatever reason, this seemed contentious, so I initiate an election
>> > for
>> > Tailor. Happy to take it on.
>
>
> "by announcement, if e is the ADoP, if the office has been deputised for
> within the past two weeks, or if no election has been initiated for the
> office either since *the last time a player won the game* or within the past
> 90 days;"
>
> -Alexis



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Tailor Election

[VJ Rada]

True.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 13:25 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> If we reach quorum it will honestly be _miraculous_.
>>
>> I endorse Alexis. If she does not vote, I vote for Alexis.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:23 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> > Oh let's just get it done now. I inititate an election for Tailor and
>> > the agoran decision associated with it, the quorum being 8.0, the
>> > valid options being the players and PRESENT and the voting system
>> > being instant run-off
>
>
> CoE: This is invalid since it doesn't mention the identity of the vote
> collector.
>
> CoE: Same for Herald and Assessor.
>
> -Alexis



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 13:22 VJ Rada  wrote:

> You, currently. cannot. But I can and now will.
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 12:20 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >>
> >> G. wins the Victory Election.
> >> G. wins the game (of Agora).
> >
> >
> > For whatever reason, this seemed contentious, so I initiate an election
> for
> > Tailor. Happy to take it on.
>

"by announcement, if e is the ADoP, if the office
 has been deputised for within
the past two weeks, or if no election has been initiated for the office
 either since *the last time a
player  won the game* or within
the past 90 days;"

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Proto: Election Campaigns

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 13:30 VJ Rada  wrote:

> I mean I like the interim thing because it fixes the ADoP's unlimited
> power and gives other people to call elections when they're actually
> needed. I would like the Campaign Proposals if it was just
> for...say... the Prime Minister. But I don't like going through all
> that for uncontested 2-0 Superintendent elections, for example.
>

Hmm, there should be something for uncontested elections: if they don't
have a proposal, just install em; if they do, run the proposal and install
em if it passes.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Proto: Election Campaigns

[VJ Rada]

I mean I like the interim thing because it fixes the ADoP's unlimited
power and gives other people to call elections when they're actually
needed. I would like the Campaign Proposals if it was just
for...say... the Prime Minister. But I don't like going through all
that for uncontested 2-0 Superintendent elections, for example.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Election Campaigns (AI=3)
> {{{
> Amend rule 1607 (Distribution) by replacing "In a given Agoran week, the
> Promotor SHALL, as part of eir weekly duties, distribute all pending
> proposals." with "In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir
> weekly duties, distribute all pending proposals except for those whose
> automatic distribution is exempted by other rules."
>
> Amend rule 1006 (Offices) by adding the following paragraph before the final
> one:
>   A holder of an elected office who did not become its holder by
>   winning an election, and has not won an election for that
>   office since, is an interim holder. An elected office that is
>   either vacant or has an interim holder is an interim office.
>
> Amend rule 2154 (Election Procedure) to read as follows:
>   A player CAN initiate an election for a specified office:
>   a) With 2 Support, if either the office is interim or the
>  most recent election for that office was resolved more
>  than 90 days prior, and provided that the initiator
>  becomes a candidate in the same message.
>   b) By announcement, if e is the ADoP and if the office is
>  interim.
>   The above notwithstanding, an election for an office CANNOT be
>   initiated if one is already in progress.
>
>   After an election is initiated and until it concludes, any
>   player CAN become a candidate by announcement. A canadidate
>   ceases to be a candidate if e ceases to be a player during the
>   election.
>
>   When an election is initiated, it enters the nomination phase,
>   which lasts for 7 days. In a timely fashion after the
>   nomination phase ends, the ADoP CAN and SHALL, in the same
>   message:
>   1) Initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
>  election (the poll). For this decision, the Vote
>  Collector is the Assessor, the valid options are the
>  candidates for that election (including those who become
>  candidates after its initiation), and the voting method
>  is instant runoff.
>   2) Distribute all pending Campaign Proposals associated
>  with the election.
>
>   A poll CANNOT be resolved until the decisions to adopt all
>   associated Campaign Proposals are resolved. When resolving the
>   poll, if a given candidate authored one of the associated
>   Campaign Proposals, and it was not adopted, then that player is
>   disqualified.
>
>   When the poll is resolved, its outcome (syn. winner), if a
>   player, is installed into the associated office and the
>   election ends.
>
> Enact a new rule entitled (Campaign Proposals, with power 3), reading as
> follows:
>   During the nomination phase of an election, any candidate for
>   that election CAN submit a Campaign Proposal for that election,
>   provided e does not currently have a pending Campaign Proposal
>   for that election, using the normal mechanism for proposal
>   submission.
>
>   A Campaign Proposal is an Official Proposal exempt from
>   automatic distribution, and SHALL NOT be distributed except in
>   the same message as the associated election's election
>   decision.
>
>   When a Campaign Proposal is adopted, it CANNOT take effect
>   until the poll for its associated election is resolved. When
>   the poll is resolved, if the winner was the proposal's author,
>   it then takes effect (with its power set as usual for an
>   adopted proposal).
>
> Amend rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by appending "The rule
> providing for an Agoran Decision by instant runoff may disqualify one or
> more options; in such a case, they are eliminated prior to beginning the
> first stage of the vote count."
>
> Amend rule 2138 (The Associate Director of Personnel) by replacing the
> bullet:
>   2. The date on which the most recent election for each office
>  was initiated.
> with:
>   2. The current status of the ongoing election for that office
>  or, if there is no ongoing election for that office, the
>  date on which the last election was resolved.
>   3. For filled elected offices, whether or not the holder is
>  interim.
>
> Amend rule 2472 (Office Incompatibilities) by replacing "Promotor and ADoP"
> with "Assessor and ADoP".
> }}}
>
> -Alexis



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 10:13 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I’m curious about the RWO “no rule changes thing.” It says something
> along the lines of “RWO can’t cause a rule change.” That obviously
> bans direct rule changes, but what about RWO’ing into existence a
> proposal with FOR votes from everybody set to resolve tomorrow? If
> that doesn’t work, what level of indirect cause and effect do we have
> to reach for it to be legal? Giving shinies that are later spent to
> pend? Ratifications that for whatever reason cause a player to think
> of an idea for a rule?
You can RWO a gamestate that's likely to cause a rules change in the
future. I did that a while back to close a scam loophole.

This wouldn't happen automatically, though; you'd have to be quite
clear on what the gamestate was in your ratification message. This
would make it much more likely that people would object.

> Even scarier question: what happens to the gamestate if we discover
> that ratification itself has no effect?

We'd have to reconstruct the gamestate. Typically, this is done by
identifying a time in the past at which ratification (or another
similar consistency rule) definitely worked correctly, then identifying
a minimum subset of rules that can be used to alter the gamestate and
haven't significantly changed in that time (e.g. the proposal adoption
rules rarely change), and then using those rules to fix ratification.
At that point you can use the newly fixed ratification rule to repair
the rest of the gamestate.

(This has happened a couple of times before. Sometimes it involves
things like all but one player deregistering to gain certainty about
who the Assessor is, but we haven't needed to do that in ages.)

-- 
ais523

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

[VJ Rada]

You, currently. cannot. But I can and now will.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 12:20 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>> G. wins the Victory Election.
>> G. wins the game (of Agora).
>
>
> For whatever reason, this seemed contentious, so I initiate an election for
> Tailor. Happy to take it on.
>
> -Alexis



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 13:20 VJ Rada  wrote:

> " what about RWO’ing into existence a proposal with FOR votes from
> everybody set to resolve tomorrow?"
>
> This works. AIS did it to fix the "without objection" thing.
>
> "Even scarier question: what happens to the gamestate if we discover
> that ratification itself has no effect?"
> We change the rules so it does have effect, fixing whatever loophole,
> and then we ratify the old gamestate into existence.


Note that, historically, there has usually been an occasional proposal to
ratify the ruleset to resolve this problem. It might be a good time for one
once it's brought up to date.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

[VJ Rada]

" what about RWO’ing into existence a proposal with FOR votes from
everybody set to resolve tomorrow?"

This works. AIS did it to fix the "without objection" thing.

"Even scarier question: what happens to the gamestate if we discover
that ratification itself has no effect?"
We change the rules so it does have effect, fixing whatever loophole,
and then we ratify the old gamestate into existence.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I’m curious about the RWO “no rule changes thing.” It says something along 
> the lines of “RWO can’t cause a rule change.” That obviously bans direct rule 
> changes, but what about RWO’ing into existence a proposal with FOR votes from 
> everybody set to resolve tomorrow? If that doesn’t work, what level of 
> indirect cause and effect do we have to reach for it to be legal? Giving 
> shinies that are later spent to pend? Ratifications that for whatever reason 
> cause a player to think of an idea for a rule?
>
> Even scarier question: what happens to the gamestate if we discover that 
> ratification itself has no effect?
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Sep 27, 2017, at 7:46 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 18:18 +1000, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> An agency has been listed for a long time called "G is Overlord of
>>> Dunce". Is is a verb, so that agency is clearly not an agency. The
>>> problem? That agency was used months ago (like...May) to create
>>> another agency, which was used to pend a proposal!
>>
>> The existence of a proposal is automatically ratified seven days after
>> it resolves as ADOPTED. (If the proposal gets REJECTED, it doesn't
>> really matter whether it existed or not.) So it's unlikely that this
>> can cause damage to the ruleset.
>>
>> If it did, RWO won't save you; you can't change the ruleset via RWO.
>>
>> --
>> ais523



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

[Gaelan Steele]

I’m curious about the RWO “no rule changes thing.” It says something along the 
lines of “RWO can’t cause a rule change.” That obviously bans direct rule 
changes, but what about RWO’ing into existence a proposal with FOR votes from 
everybody set to resolve tomorrow? If that doesn’t work, what level of indirect 
cause and effect do we have to reach for it to be legal? Giving shinies that 
are later spent to pend? Ratifications that for whatever reason cause a player 
to think of an idea for a rule?

Even scarier question: what happens to the gamestate if we discover that 
ratification itself has no effect?

Gaelan 

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 7:46 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 18:18 +1000, VJ Rada wrote:
>> An agency has been listed for a long time called "G is Overlord of
>> Dunce". Is is a verb, so that agency is clearly not an agency. The
>> problem? That agency was used months ago (like...May) to create
>> another agency, which was used to pend a proposal!
> 
> The existence of a proposal is automatically ratified seven days after
> it resolves as ADOPTED. (If the proposal gets REJECTED, it doesn't
> really matter whether it existed or not.) So it's unlikely that this
> can cause damage to the ruleset.
> 
> If it did, RWO won't save you; you can't change the ruleset via RWO.
> 
> -- 
> ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Slower Promotion

[Alexis Hunt]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 at 20:49 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> > I personally find it frustrating that we vote on things before the last
> > setis resolved. This should be a relatively safe way to slow down, if we
> > want to.
> >
> > Title: Slower Promotion
> > AI: 3
> > author: nichdel
> > co-authors:
> >
> > Amend R1607 (Distribution) by replacing:
> >
> >   In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir
> >   weekly duties, distribute all pending proposals.
> >
> > with
> >
> >   In a given Agoran week, as part of eir weekly duties, the Promotor
> >   SHALL:
> >
> >  * distribute all pending proposals if there are no unresolved
> > Agoran decisions to adopt a proposal.
> >
> >  * list all unresolved Agoran decisions to adopt a proposal. The
> >Promotor MAY still distribute all pending proposals.
> >
>
> No objections here. Ideally, it would be completely optional whether I
> distributed, listed, or both (presuming that there was something to
> list), but I certainly don't object to trying this out.
>
> -Aris
>

I have to say I'm not a fan of this at all. I've seen rapid bursts of
gameplay like this before, and usually you either:
  a) muddle through and deal with a not-up-to-date ruleset, or
  b) replace the responsible officers, occasionally
  c) incentivize them more.

a) gives a notable advantage to those willing to maintain their own in-head
copies of the rules, which I think is generally a positive rather than a
negative; if others wish to fight against that, they should push for b) or
c). For a long time, the Rulekeepor was the most highly-paid of offices by
a fair margin, for instance. The proposal pipeline we have also allows for
the occasional slip-up where two proposals interact in unexpected ways and
the result is a weird mistake in the rules and fun emergent gameplay.

-Alexis

DIS: Proto: Election Campaigns

[Alexis Hunt]

Proto-Proposal: Election Campaigns (AI=3)
{{{
Amend rule 1607 (Distribution) by replacing "In a given Agoran week, the
Promotor  SHALL, as part of eir
weekly duties, distribute all pending
 proposals." with "In a given
Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir weekly duties, distribute
all pending proposals except for those whose automatic distribution is
exempted by other rules."

Amend rule 1006 (Offices) by adding the following paragraph before the
final one:
  A holder of an elected office who did not become its holder by
  winning an election, and has not won an election for that
  office since, is an interim holder. An elected office that is
  either vacant or has an interim holder is an interim office.

Amend rule 2154 (Election Procedure) to read as follows:
  A player CAN initiate an election for a specified office:
  a) With 2 Support, if either the office is interim or the
 most recent election for that office was resolved more
 than 90 days prior, and provided that the initiator
 becomes a candidate in the same message.
  b) By announcement, if e is the ADoP and if the office is
 interim.
  The above notwithstanding, an election for an office CANNOT be
  initiated if one is already in progress.

  After an election is initiated and until it concludes, any
  player CAN become a candidate by announcement. A canadidate
  ceases to be a candidate if e ceases to be a player during the
  election.

  When an election is initiated, it enters the nomination phase,
  which lasts for 7 days. In a timely fashion after the
  nomination phase ends, the ADoP CAN and SHALL, in the same
  message:
  1) Initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the
 election (the poll). For this decision, the Vote
 Collector is the Assessor, the valid options are the
 candidates for that election (including those who become
 candidates after its initiation), and the voting method
 is instant runoff.
  2) Distribute all pending Campaign Proposals associated
 with the election.

  A poll CANNOT be resolved until the decisions to adopt all
  associated Campaign Proposals are resolved. When resolving the
  poll, if a given candidate authored one of the associated
  Campaign Proposals, and it was not adopted, then that player is
  disqualified.

  When the poll is resolved, its outcome (syn. winner), if a
  player, is installed into the associated office and the
  election ends.

Enact a new rule entitled (Campaign Proposals, with power 3), reading as
follows:
  During the nomination phase of an election, any candidate for
  that election CAN submit a Campaign Proposal for that election,
  provided e does not currently have a pending Campaign Proposal
  for that election, using the normal mechanism for proposal
  submission.

  A Campaign Proposal is an Official Proposal exempt from
  automatic distribution, and SHALL NOT be distributed except in
  the same message as the associated election's election
  decision.

  When a Campaign Proposal is adopted, it CANNOT take effect
  until the poll for its associated election is resolved. When
  the poll is resolved, if the winner was the proposal's author,
  it then takes effect (with its power set as usual for an
  adopted proposal).

Amend rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by appending "The rule
providing for an Agoran Decision by instant runoff may disqualify one or
more options; in such a case, they are eliminated prior to beginning the
first stage of the vote count."

Amend rule 2138 (The Associate Director of Personnel) by replacing the
bullet:
  2. The date on which the most recent election for each office
 was initiated.
with:
  2. The current status of the ongoing election for that office
 or, if there is no ongoing election for that office, the
 date on which the last election was resolved.
  3. For filled elected offices, whether or not the holder is
 interim.

Amend rule 2472 (Office Incompatibilities) by replacing "Promotor and ADoP"
with "Assessor and ADoP".
}}}

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Using Certiorari for Good! Also, judgement of CFJ 3110!

[Kerim Aydin]

> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > Talking of moots, have you ever resolved that moot on the CFJ I judged?

Just as a followup, this was resolved on Sept 19 (both moot and re-judgement):

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011814.html
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-September/036002.html

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

[Nic Evans]

On 09/27/17 11:22, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> CuddleBeam:
>>> I dislike having wins being granted by election like this, because it feels 
>>> too easy. I vote present.
> So I agree with CuddleBeam's sentiment here - in this case the Victory 
> Election
> was basically an ad hoc Speaker election (at least, I'm guessing that was some
> of the motivation of voters when it was thought CuddleBeam was speaker).  
> Current system doesn't really have much interesting gameplay potential IMO.
>
> Is there a way to make them interesting?
>
> I'm thinking of a Proto that would scrap Victory elections, but also institute
> a gameable system of Speaker Succession (similar to Oligarchies of the past),
> in such a way that you buy into the succession initially (giving another thing
> to spend shinies on).
>
> Though I do want to give Agora Game winners some kind of temporary game 
> advantage
> beyond titles and ribbons!

Advantages for winners are a risky business, considering how many wins
come from amassing advantages that don't necessarily disappear right
afterwards.

>
> -G.
>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: Oh right

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I cause myself to receive a Welcome Package.

Folks, this is why donations were pointless - you can't bandaid a gaping wound.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating election for the Assessor and Herald

[VJ Rada]

"An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a
notice satisfying the following conditions:

2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the initiation of
the decision, a player."

You're right that I tend to be hard on myself though.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> Mistakes happen, don't need to be so hard on yourself... You can just
> unilaterally initiate another election for Tailor anyway, can't you?
>
> That said, it appears that for elections, unlike proposals, the set of
> eligible voters is not locked in at initiation, so I believe my votes do
> count.
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 01:52 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> FUCK WHY DID I INITIATE AN ELECTION FOR HERALD WHEN I MEANT TAILOR WE
>> JUST RE-ELECTED G. HERALD WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME!!!
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:50 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> > You are not, by about 50 minutes.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> >> I think I'm seeing messages come in with weird timestamps, but if I am
>> >> eligible to vote, I will endorse G. in both elections for the time
>> >> being
>> >> just to make sure that quorum is satisfied.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 at 22:18 grok (caleb vines) 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sep 26, 2017 8:33 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I was gonna do these in two days after I resolved the election for
>> >>> Superintendent but if y'all want to go now, I'm down with it. I
>> >>> initiate the elections for Assessor and Herald, as the ADoP. I then
>> >>> initiate the Agoran Decisions for the determination of those offices,
>> >>> the valid options are the players, and the quorum? Well, the quorum is
>> >>> 8.0. Yup, 8.0. Good luck!
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> From V.J. Rada
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> In the election for Herald, I endorse G.
>> >>>
>> >>> In the election for Assessor, I endorse the player whose name matches
>> >>> the
>> >>> value of gFP's Name switch (currently "grok"), unless its value is set
>> >>> to
>> >>> "grok". If gFP's Name switch is set to "grok", I vote present.
>> >>>
>> >>> I pledge that, until the current elections for Herald and Assessor are
>> >>> assessed, I will not change the value of gFP's Name switch unless
>> >>> another
>> >>> player acts on my behalf to do so.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -grok
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating election for the Assessor and Herald

[Alexis Hunt]

Mistakes happen, don't need to be so hard on yourself... You can just
unilaterally initiate another election for Tailor anyway, can't you?

That said, it appears that for elections, unlike proposals, the set of
eligible voters is not locked in at initiation, so I believe my votes do
count.

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 01:52 VJ Rada  wrote:

> FUCK WHY DID I INITIATE AN ELECTION FOR HERALD WHEN I MEANT TAILOR WE
> JUST RE-ELECTED G. HERALD WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME!!!
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:50 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > You are not, by about 50 minutes.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >> I think I'm seeing messages come in with weird timestamps, but if I am
> >> eligible to vote, I will endorse G. in both elections for the time being
> >> just to make sure that quorum is satisfied.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 at 22:18 grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 26, 2017 8:33 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I was gonna do these in two days after I resolved the election for
> >>> Superintendent but if y'all want to go now, I'm down with it. I
> >>> initiate the elections for Assessor and Herald, as the ADoP. I then
> >>> initiate the Agoran Decisions for the determination of those offices,
> >>> the valid options are the players, and the quorum? Well, the quorum is
> >>> 8.0. Yup, 8.0. Good luck!
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> From V.J. Rada
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In the election for Herald, I endorse G.
> >>>
> >>> In the election for Assessor, I endorse the player whose name matches
> the
> >>> value of gFP's Name switch (currently "grok"), unless its value is set
> to
> >>> "grok". If gFP's Name switch is set to "grok", I vote present.
> >>>
> >>> I pledge that, until the current elections for Herald and Assessor are
> >>> assessed, I will not change the value of gFP's Name switch unless
> another
> >>> player acts on my behalf to do so.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -grok
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: proto: more trust

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 08:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > (Historically, it's normally been possible in nomics to find another
> > player who's willing to give you a win in return for a bribe. In some
> > cases, especially in BlogNomic, you can often find a player who's
> > willing to give you a win even without a bribe.)
> 
> Here, the solution is if it's trivially scammable, dilute it by giving
> *everyone* a win without a bribe.

It's written so that it only works once.

In practice, this means that the win would go to the Assessor or a
confederate.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: proto: more trust

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> (Historically, it's normally been possible in nomics to find another
> player who's willing to give you a win in return for a bribe. In some
> cases, especially in BlogNomic, you can often find a player who's
> willing to give you a win even without a bribe.)

Here, the solution is if it's trivially scammable, dilute it by giving
*everyone* a win without a bribe.

Re: DIS: proto: more trust

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 10:14 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> {
> Excessive Trust
> AI = 1
> Authors: grok
> 
> Amend Rule 2452 "Trust Tokens" to include the following text immediately
> after the final paragraph:
> 
> "A person can win the game by announcement if e has been issued fifty Trust
> Tokens by another individual player; if no person has won via this
> mechanism in the past; and if, in the same message, e quotes, for each
> trust token, a public message in which that player issued em a Trust Token."
> }
> 
> the only reason this is proto is because I find it likely that someone
> already has fifty trust tokens.

This is trivially scammable. Just get a confederate to give you fifty
trust tokens.

(Historically, it's normally been possible in nomics to find another
player who's willing to give you a win in return for a bribe. In some
cases, especially in BlogNomic, you can often find a player who's
willing to give you a win even without a bribe.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ Re my win (no, I'm not assigning it to myself)

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 27, 2017 9:18 AM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:

Third: Is Aris's attempt to object sufficient? E simply stated "I
object to all the intents in the below message" or similar. Under our
precedents, which ban somebody from taking an unreasonable number of
actions in shorthand where copying and pasting would be hard, does
this shorthand take too many actions? Is our precedent in this area,
more common-law than textual, able to be flexibly applied to serve the
purpose of stopping scams as Aris contends?


I submit the following gratuitous arguments:

I think it's important to consider, esp since shorthand is common law, an
interpretation where the intent and outcomes are important. In this case,
where Aris specifically isolates a group of intents and uses shorthand to
object to all of them, it's clear what the intent and outcome are. I think
this is clearly different from a message sent directly to a-b claiming "I
object to everything it is legal to object to."

If we are willing to use clarity as part of our interpretation of
"acceptable shorthand," I think an unambiguous intent to perform a specific
action (ie object to a specific intent) and outcome (that specific intent
fails).

If we accept this interpretation, the CFJ is very easy and the brightline
is clear for future cases. That said, since I'm still a new(er) player I
don't know much historical precedent to inform this argument. Considering
that shortcutting seems to be a long-honored tradition from well before I
arrived, I'd be happy to consider historical evidence if someone could
direct me.


-grok

Re: DIS: proto: more trust

[grok (caleb vines)]

Sure would. Given the timeframe of pending / promoting / assessing, I'm
assuming that would quickly not be the case if this was pended.


-grok

On Sep 27, 2017 10:19 AM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:

There's an agency of Quazie's that allows people to get trust tokens
from em if they give them to em. It would be trivial to get 50 from em
and win the game on the spot.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:14 AM, grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:
> {
> Excessive Trust
> AI = 1
> Authors: grok
>
> Amend Rule 2452 "Trust Tokens" to include the following text immediately
> after the final paragraph:
>
> "A person can win the game by announcement if e has been issued fifty
Trust
> Tokens by another individual player; if no person has won via this
mechanism
> in the past; and if, in the same message, e quotes, for each trust token,
a
> public message in which that player issued em a Trust Token."
> }
>
> the only reason this is proto is because I find it likely that someone
> already has fifty trust tokens.



--
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: proto: more trust

[VJ Rada]

There's an agency of Quazie's that allows people to get trust tokens
from em if they give them to em. It would be trivial to get 50 from em
and win the game on the spot.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:14 AM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> {
> Excessive Trust
> AI = 1
> Authors: grok
>
> Amend Rule 2452 "Trust Tokens" to include the following text immediately
> after the final paragraph:
>
> "A person can win the game by announcement if e has been issued fifty Trust
> Tokens by another individual player; if no person has won via this mechanism
> in the past; and if, in the same message, e quotes, for each trust token, a
> public message in which that player issued em a Trust Token."
> }
>
> the only reason this is proto is because I find it likely that someone
> already has fifty trust tokens.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: proto: more trust

[grok (caleb vines)]

{
Excessive Trust
AI = 1
Authors: grok

Amend Rule 2452 "Trust Tokens" to include the following text immediately
after the final paragraph:

"A person can win the game by announcement if e has been issued fifty Trust
Tokens by another individual player; if no person has won via this
mechanism in the past; and if, in the same message, e quotes, for each
trust token, a public message in which that player issued em a Trust Token."
}

the only reason this is proto is because I find it likely that someone
already has fifty trust tokens.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

[VJ Rada]

Oh, you're quite right, yes. You can change votes on old proposals,
which then changes the ruleset, but you can't affect those proposals
themselves if that causes a change.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 00:51 +1000, VJ Rada wrote:
>> No, yeah, the proposal was rejected anyway. As I recall it repealed
>> the already-repealed dictatorship and existed only for the purpose of
>> a CFJ. I'm just doing this because of the uncontroversial nature of
>> GOD, the amount of reports it existed in, and the fact that SOME game
>> actions rested on it.
>>
>> You're mistaken though that you can't change the existence of
>> proposals by RWO: precedent is clear that you can create proposals
>> with it.
>
> I said you can't change the /ruleset/ with it. You can change the
> gamestate so that a proposal existed and was adopted, but it won't have
> created a rule when it did so (unless the proposal actually did exist)
> because RWO is incapable of making that consequence of proposal
> adoption happen.
>
> --
> ais523



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Using Certiorari for Good! Also, judgement of CFJ 3110!

[VJ Rada]

I never used a power of the office. If I actually used certiorari to
judge my own CFJ, that would be a different story.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I'm sure the referee realizes that the timely fashion response will stretch 
> into
> next week's supply of cards.  (And if ever there was a case for Pink Slip,
> it's this one).
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> "  A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A statment is a 
>> lie
>>   if its publisher either knew or believed it to be not to be true at the 
>> time
>>   e published it (or, in the case of an action, not to be effective), and it
>>   was made with the intent to mislead. Merely quoting a statement does not
>>   constitute making it for the purposes of this rule."
>>
>> Whoops. This attempt was certainly illegal. Although, unless the card
>> issued to nichdel didn't work, there's nothing the referee can do
>> about it.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I ... thought I did?  On mobile now, but planning to catch up with all the
>> > tasks later today and will check.
>> >
>> > There are "bad" judgements that were never appealed or were forced
>> > through similarly, and the result was an immediate follow up CFJ saying
>> > the earlier one was wrong and overriding the precedent.
>> >
>> > There might be some interesting end play and discussion about forcing
>> > officers to disobey rules, but in the end CFJs are only guidelines.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >> My plan would be to use some combination of my two PM votes, grok's
>> >> habit of voting with gFP, Celestial Fire-Fox's agency and ridiculously
>> >> high quorums to try and strongarm it, even though I'm sure others
>> >> would simply ignore me.
>> >>
>> >> Talking of moots, have you ever resolved that moot on the CFJ I judged?
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin  
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I did wonder if it was something like that :p
>> >> >
>> >> > (If one does turn up truly unjudged I would try to get it resolved).
>> >> >
>> >> > Also:  even if you judge on your win, you're just fast-tracking it for
>> >> > moot, there's really no endgame where a wrong CFJ stands and
>> >> > becomes precedent AFAICT.
>> >> >
>> >> > In the past when there's been an obvious bad faith judge, a parallel
>> >> > CFJ is just called in the mean time and everyone ignores the bad one
>> >> > pretty much.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >> >> Sorry yeah, my plan was p much to get people to call CFJs on my
>> >> >> frivolous win attempt thinking they were safe and then tricking them
>> >> >> by revealing this was invalid and I still had certiorari.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Kerim Aydin  
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Follow up, 3110 was judged by Murphy 24 Oct 2011.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >> >> >> Please please do not do this without asking.  There are a ream of
>> >> >> >> court cases that have been judged but were not put in the official
>> >> >> >> Court online records.  I have been catching up about 10 a month on 
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> back end from my email archive and updated about 50 so far.
>> >> >> >> In doing so, of those 50 I only found 1 wit hough a judgement.
>> >> >> >> I'm happy to do the research when you pick one, but before you
>> >> >> >> grab it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >> >> >> > I found heaps of CFJs that seem to be never judged. I plan to use
>> >> >> >> > Certiorari to judge them all like a boss. The first one is 3110, 
>> >> >> >> > I use
>> >> >> >> > Certiorari to assign it to myself.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The statement of the CFJ is this:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I (Pavitra) satisfy the Victory Condition of Being Pavitra, 
>> >> >> >> > by means
>> >> >> >> > of sending this message.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > My judgement is UNDETERMINED. See 3111 and 3109,
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >> > From V.J. Rada
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> From V.J. Rada
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J. Rada
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Using Certiorari for Good! Also, judgement of CFJ 3110!

[VJ Rada]

CFJ 3509 is restrictive.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:00 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> I never used a power of the office. If I actually used certiorari to
> judge my own CFJ, that would be a different story.
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm sure the referee realizes that the timely fashion response will stretch 
>> into
>> next week's supply of cards.  (And if ever there was a case for Pink Slip,
>> it's this one).
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> "  A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A statment is 
>>> a lie
>>>   if its publisher either knew or believed it to be not to be true at the 
>>> time
>>>   e published it (or, in the case of an action, not to be effective), and it
>>>   was made with the intent to mislead. Merely quoting a statement does not
>>>   constitute making it for the purposes of this rule."
>>>
>>> Whoops. This attempt was certainly illegal. Although, unless the card
>>> issued to nichdel didn't work, there's nothing the referee can do
>>> about it.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Kerim Aydin  
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I ... thought I did?  On mobile now, but planning to catch up with all the
>>> > tasks later today and will check.
>>> >
>>> > There are "bad" judgements that were never appealed or were forced
>>> > through similarly, and the result was an immediate follow up CFJ saying
>>> > the earlier one was wrong and overriding the precedent.
>>> >
>>> > There might be some interesting end play and discussion about forcing
>>> > officers to disobey rules, but in the end CFJs are only guidelines.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> >> My plan would be to use some combination of my two PM votes, grok's
>>> >> habit of voting with gFP, Celestial Fire-Fox's agency and ridiculously
>>> >> high quorums to try and strongarm it, even though I'm sure others
>>> >> would simply ignore me.
>>> >>
>>> >> Talking of moots, have you ever resolved that moot on the CFJ I judged?
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin  
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I did wonder if it was something like that :p
>>> >> >
>>> >> > (If one does turn up truly unjudged I would try to get it resolved).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Also:  even if you judge on your win, you're just fast-tracking it for
>>> >> > moot, there's really no endgame where a wrong CFJ stands and
>>> >> > becomes precedent AFAICT.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > In the past when there's been an obvious bad faith judge, a parallel
>>> >> > CFJ is just called in the mean time and everyone ignores the bad one
>>> >> > pretty much.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> >> >> Sorry yeah, my plan was p much to get people to call CFJs on my
>>> >> >> frivolous win attempt thinking they were safe and then tricking them
>>> >> >> by revealing this was invalid and I still had certiorari.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>>> >> >>  wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Follow up, 3110 was judged by Murphy 24 Oct 2011.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> >> >> >> Please please do not do this without asking.  There are a ream of
>>> >> >> >> court cases that have been judged but were not put in the official
>>> >> >> >> Court online records.  I have been catching up about 10 a month on 
>>> >> >> >> the
>>> >> >> >> back end from my email archive and updated about 50 so far.
>>> >> >> >> In doing so, of those 50 I only found 1 wit hough a judgement.
>>> >> >> >> I'm happy to do the research when you pick one, but before you
>>> >> >> >> grab it.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> >> >> >> > I found heaps of CFJs that seem to be never judged. I plan to use
>>> >> >> >> > Certiorari to judge them all like a boss. The first one is 3110, 
>>> >> >> >> > I use
>>> >> >> >> > Certiorari to assign it to myself.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > The statement of the CFJ is this:
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > I (Pavitra) satisfy the Victory Condition of Being Pavitra, 
>>> >> >> >> > by means
>>> >> >> >> > of sending this message.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > My judgement is UNDETERMINED. See 3111 and 3109,
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > --
>>> >> >> >> > From V.J. Rada
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> From V.J. Rada
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> From V.J. Rada
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Using Certiorari for Good! Also, judgement of CFJ 3110!

[Kerim Aydin]

I'm sure the referee realizes that the timely fashion response will stretch into
next week's supply of cards.  (And if ever there was a case for Pink Slip,
it's this one).

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> "  A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A statment is a 
> lie
>   if its publisher either knew or believed it to be not to be true at the time
>   e published it (or, in the case of an action, not to be effective), and it
>   was made with the intent to mislead. Merely quoting a statement does not
>   constitute making it for the purposes of this rule."
> 
> Whoops. This attempt was certainly illegal. Although, unless the card
> issued to nichdel didn't work, there's nothing the referee can do
> about it.
> 
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > I ... thought I did?  On mobile now, but planning to catch up with all the
> > tasks later today and will check.
> >
> > There are "bad" judgements that were never appealed or were forced
> > through similarly, and the result was an immediate follow up CFJ saying
> > the earlier one was wrong and overriding the precedent.
> >
> > There might be some interesting end play and discussion about forcing
> > officers to disobey rules, but in the end CFJs are only guidelines.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> My plan would be to use some combination of my two PM votes, grok's
> >> habit of voting with gFP, Celestial Fire-Fox's agency and ridiculously
> >> high quorums to try and strongarm it, even though I'm sure others
> >> would simply ignore me.
> >>
> >> Talking of moots, have you ever resolved that moot on the CFJ I judged?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin  
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I did wonder if it was something like that :p
> >> >
> >> > (If one does turn up truly unjudged I would try to get it resolved).
> >> >
> >> > Also:  even if you judge on your win, you're just fast-tracking it for
> >> > moot, there's really no endgame where a wrong CFJ stands and
> >> > becomes precedent AFAICT.
> >> >
> >> > In the past when there's been an obvious bad faith judge, a parallel
> >> > CFJ is just called in the mean time and everyone ignores the bad one
> >> > pretty much.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> >> Sorry yeah, my plan was p much to get people to call CFJs on my
> >> >> frivolous win attempt thinking they were safe and then tricking them
> >> >> by revealing this was invalid and I still had certiorari.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Kerim Aydin  
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Follow up, 3110 was judged by Murphy 24 Oct 2011.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> >> >> Please please do not do this without asking.  There are a ream of
> >> >> >> court cases that have been judged but were not put in the official
> >> >> >> Court online records.  I have been catching up about 10 a month on 
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> back end from my email archive and updated about 50 so far.
> >> >> >> In doing so, of those 50 I only found 1 wit hough a judgement.
> >> >> >> I'm happy to do the research when you pick one, but before you
> >> >> >> grab it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> >> >> > I found heaps of CFJs that seem to be never judged. I plan to use
> >> >> >> > Certiorari to judge them all like a boss. The first one is 3110, I 
> >> >> >> > use
> >> >> >> > Certiorari to assign it to myself.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The statement of the CFJ is this:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I (Pavitra) satisfy the Victory Condition of Being Pavitra, by 
> >> >> >> > means
> >> >> >> > of sending this message.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > My judgement is UNDETERMINED. See 3111 and 3109,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> >> > From V.J. Rada
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> From V.J. Rada
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 00:51 +1000, VJ Rada wrote:
> No, yeah, the proposal was rejected anyway. As I recall it repealed
> the already-repealed dictatorship and existed only for the purpose of
> a CFJ. I'm just doing this because of the uncontroversial nature of
> GOD, the amount of reports it existed in, and the fact that SOME game
> actions rested on it.
> 
> You're mistaken though that you can't change the existence of
> proposals by RWO: precedent is clear that you can create proposals
> with it.

I said you can't change the /ruleset/ with it. You can change the
gamestate so that a proposal existed and was adopted, but it won't have
created a rule when it did so (unless the proposal actually did exist)
because RWO is incapable of making that consequence of proposal
adoption happen.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

[VJ Rada]

No, yeah, the proposal was rejected anyway. As I recall it repealed
the already-repealed dictatorship and existed only for the purpose of
a CFJ. I'm just doing this because of the uncontroversial nature of
GOD, the amount of reports it existed in, and the fact that SOME game
actions rested on it.

You're mistaken though that you can't change the existence of
proposals by RWO: precedent is clear that you can create proposals
with it.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:46 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 18:18 +1000, VJ Rada wrote:
>> An agency has been listed for a long time called "G is Overlord of
>> Dunce". Is is a verb, so that agency is clearly not an agency. The
>> problem? That agency was used months ago (like...May) to create
>> another agency, which was used to pend a proposal!
>
> The existence of a proposal is automatically ratified seven days after
> it resolves as ADOPTED. (If the proposal gets REJECTED, it doesn't
> really matter whether it existed or not.) So it's unlikely that this
> can cause damage to the ruleset.
>
> If it did, RWO won't save you; you can't change the ruleset via RWO.
>
> --
> ais523



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 18:18 +1000, VJ Rada wrote:
> An agency has been listed for a long time called "G is Overlord of
> Dunce". Is is a verb, so that agency is clearly not an agency. The
> problem? That agency was used months ago (like...May) to create
> another agency, which was used to pend a proposal!

The existence of a proposal is automatically ratified seven days after
it resolves as ADOPTED. (If the proposal gets REJECTED, it doesn't
really matter whether it existed or not.) So it's unlikely that this
can cause damage to the ruleset.

If it did, RWO won't save you; you can't change the ruleset via RWO.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vital History Gone Missing!

[Josh T]

Google does kind of fall flat on its face when it comes to tricky honorific
expressions, especially since the register of addressing royalty is
regulated to historical fiction authors who decide to be sticklers on the
subject.

天火狐

On 27 September 2017 at 10:38, VJ Rada  wrote:

> "I am fortunate that the princess will be made available to Agora."
>
> Google did that pretty well, actually. Although I doubt you meant
> "made available".
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vital History Gone Missing!

[VJ Rada]

"I am fortunate that the princess will be made available to Agora."

Google did that pretty well, actually. Although I doubt you meant
"made available".
-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Vital History Gone Missing!

[Josh T]

姫様がアゴラに有らせられるのは幸いになります。

天火狐

On 26 September 2017 at 22:17, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> I register.
>
> I Point a Finger at Publius Scribonius Scholasticus alleging that, as
> Registrar, e has committed the Class-2 Crime of Tardiness by not reporting
> last week on the players deregistered by Writ of Fage, as required by Rule
> 1789.
>
> -Alexis
>

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ Re my win (no, I'm not assigning it to myself)

[Kerim Aydin]

Just for the record, my own prejudice is that I saw sufficient objections
and I think the burden is on the scammer before I as herald would
Award a win, but I've always been bothered by our approach to
scams that work by spamming actions because it's such a squishy
standard - might be persuadable.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I call a CFJ with ap: With the below resolution of intent, VJ Rada won
> the game by apathy.
> 
> First: Is the text, with no spaces between apathy and the next
> without, sufficient to create many many intents to win by apathy?
> 
> Second: Was Gaelan's attempt sufficient? That consists of finding and
> replacing my words with what appears to be "I object" in Chinese.
> 2a: Is this OK under our language precedents?
> 2b: Is simply typing "I object" as many times as there are intents,
> without more, enough to unambiguously signify which intents the
> objector is objecting to?
> 
> Third: Is Aris's attempt to object sufficient? E simply stated "I
> object to all the intents in the below message" or similar. Under our
> precedents, which ban somebody from taking an unreasonable number of
> actions in shorthand where copying and pasting would be hard, does
> this shorthand take too many actions? Is our precedent in this area,
> more common-law than textual, able to be flexibly applied to serve the
> purpose of stopping scams as Aris contends?
> 
> It's quite hard to decide who to bar, honestly. Aris has already
> expressed an opinion on it, PSS has also done so, G. has also done so,
> I don't think o. has? He might be the only one. I bar PSS bc G and
> Aris are already overloaded.
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Using Certiorari for Good! Also, judgement of CFJ 3110!

[VJ Rada]

"  A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A statment is a lie
  if its publisher either knew or believed it to be not to be true at the time
  e published it (or, in the case of an action, not to be effective), and it
  was made with the intent to mislead. Merely quoting a statement does not
  constitute making it for the purposes of this rule."

Whoops. This attempt was certainly illegal. Although, unless the card
issued to nichdel didn't work, there's nothing the referee can do
about it.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I ... thought I did?  On mobile now, but planning to catch up with all the
> tasks later today and will check.
>
> There are "bad" judgements that were never appealed or were forced
> through similarly, and the result was an immediate follow up CFJ saying
> the earlier one was wrong and overriding the precedent.
>
> There might be some interesting end play and discussion about forcing
> officers to disobey rules, but in the end CFJs are only guidelines.
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> My plan would be to use some combination of my two PM votes, grok's
>> habit of voting with gFP, Celestial Fire-Fox's agency and ridiculously
>> high quorums to try and strongarm it, even though I'm sure others
>> would simply ignore me.
>>
>> Talking of moots, have you ever resolved that moot on the CFJ I judged?
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I did wonder if it was something like that :p
>> >
>> > (If one does turn up truly unjudged I would try to get it resolved).
>> >
>> > Also:  even if you judge on your win, you're just fast-tracking it for
>> > moot, there's really no endgame where a wrong CFJ stands and
>> > becomes precedent AFAICT.
>> >
>> > In the past when there's been an obvious bad faith judge, a parallel
>> > CFJ is just called in the mean time and everyone ignores the bad one
>> > pretty much.
>> >
>> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >> Sorry yeah, my plan was p much to get people to call CFJs on my
>> >> frivolous win attempt thinking they were safe and then tricking them
>> >> by revealing this was invalid and I still had certiorari.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Kerim Aydin  
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Follow up, 3110 was judged by Murphy 24 Oct 2011.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >> >> Please please do not do this without asking.  There are a ream of
>> >> >> court cases that have been judged but were not put in the official
>> >> >> Court online records.  I have been catching up about 10 a month on the
>> >> >> back end from my email archive and updated about 50 so far.
>> >> >> In doing so, of those 50 I only found 1 wit hough a judgement.
>> >> >> I'm happy to do the research when you pick one, but before you
>> >> >> grab it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >> >> > I found heaps of CFJs that seem to be never judged. I plan to use
>> >> >> > Certiorari to judge them all like a boss. The first one is 3110, I 
>> >> >> > use
>> >> >> > Certiorari to assign it to myself.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The statement of the CFJ is this:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I (Pavitra) satisfy the Victory Condition of Being Pavitra, by 
>> >> >> > means
>> >> >> > of sending this message.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > My judgement is UNDETERMINED. See 3111 and 3109,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > From V.J. Rada
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J. Rada
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Using Certiorari for Good! Also, judgement of CFJ 3110!

[Kerim Aydin]

I ... thought I did?  On mobile now, but planning to catch up with all the
tasks later today and will check.

There are "bad" judgements that were never appealed or were forced
through similarly, and the result was an immediate follow up CFJ saying
the earlier one was wrong and overriding the precedent.

There might be some interesting end play and discussion about forcing 
officers to disobey rules, but in the end CFJs are only guidelines.


On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> My plan would be to use some combination of my two PM votes, grok's
> habit of voting with gFP, Celestial Fire-Fox's agency and ridiculously
> high quorums to try and strongarm it, even though I'm sure others
> would simply ignore me.
> 
> Talking of moots, have you ever resolved that moot on the CFJ I judged?
> 
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > I did wonder if it was something like that :p
> >
> > (If one does turn up truly unjudged I would try to get it resolved).
> >
> > Also:  even if you judge on your win, you're just fast-tracking it for
> > moot, there's really no endgame where a wrong CFJ stands and
> > becomes precedent AFAICT.
> >
> > In the past when there's been an obvious bad faith judge, a parallel
> > CFJ is just called in the mean time and everyone ignores the bad one
> > pretty much.
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> Sorry yeah, my plan was p much to get people to call CFJs on my
> >> frivolous win attempt thinking they were safe and then tricking them
> >> by revealing this was invalid and I still had certiorari.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Kerim Aydin  
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Follow up, 3110 was judged by Murphy 24 Oct 2011.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> >> Please please do not do this without asking.  There are a ream of
> >> >> court cases that have been judged but were not put in the official
> >> >> Court online records.  I have been catching up about 10 a month on the
> >> >> back end from my email archive and updated about 50 so far.
> >> >> In doing so, of those 50 I only found 1 wit hough a judgement.
> >> >> I'm happy to do the research when you pick one, but before you
> >> >> grab it.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> >> > I found heaps of CFJs that seem to be never judged. I plan to use
> >> >> > Certiorari to judge them all like a boss. The first one is 3110, I use
> >> >> > Certiorari to assign it to myself.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The statement of the CFJ is this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I (Pavitra) satisfy the Victory Condition of Being Pavitra, by 
> >> >> > means
> >> >> > of sending this message.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My judgement is UNDETERMINED. See 3111 and 3109,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > From V.J. Rada
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Using Certiorari for Good! Also, judgement of CFJ 3110!

[VJ Rada]

Or rather, failed to judge

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:14 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> My plan would be to use some combination of my two PM votes, grok's
> habit of voting with gFP, Celestial Fire-Fox's agency and ridiculously
> high quorums to try and strongarm it, even though I'm sure others
> would simply ignore me.
>
> Talking of moots, have you ever resolved that moot on the CFJ I judged?
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I did wonder if it was something like that :p
>>
>> (If one does turn up truly unjudged I would try to get it resolved).
>>
>> Also:  even if you judge on your win, you're just fast-tracking it for
>> moot, there's really no endgame where a wrong CFJ stands and
>> becomes precedent AFAICT.
>>
>> In the past when there's been an obvious bad faith judge, a parallel
>> CFJ is just called in the mean time and everyone ignores the bad one
>> pretty much.
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> Sorry yeah, my plan was p much to get people to call CFJs on my
>>> frivolous win attempt thinking they were safe and then tricking them
>>> by revealing this was invalid and I still had certiorari.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Kerim Aydin  
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Follow up, 3110 was judged by Murphy 24 Oct 2011.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> >> Please please do not do this without asking.  There are a ream of
>>> >> court cases that have been judged but were not put in the official
>>> >> Court online records.  I have been catching up about 10 a month on the
>>> >> back end from my email archive and updated about 50 so far.
>>> >> In doing so, of those 50 I only found 1 wit hough a judgement.
>>> >> I'm happy to do the research when you pick one, but before you
>>> >> grab it.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> >> > I found heaps of CFJs that seem to be never judged. I plan to use
>>> >> > Certiorari to judge them all like a boss. The first one is 3110, I use
>>> >> > Certiorari to assign it to myself.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The statement of the CFJ is this:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I (Pavitra) satisfy the Victory Condition of Being Pavitra, by 
>>> >> > means
>>> >> > of sending this message.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > My judgement is UNDETERMINED. See 3111 and 3109,
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > From V.J. Rada
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Using Certiorari for Good! Also, judgement of CFJ 3110!

[VJ Rada]

My plan would be to use some combination of my two PM votes, grok's
habit of voting with gFP, Celestial Fire-Fox's agency and ridiculously
high quorums to try and strongarm it, even though I'm sure others
would simply ignore me.

Talking of moots, have you ever resolved that moot on the CFJ I judged?

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I did wonder if it was something like that :p
>
> (If one does turn up truly unjudged I would try to get it resolved).
>
> Also:  even if you judge on your win, you're just fast-tracking it for
> moot, there's really no endgame where a wrong CFJ stands and
> becomes precedent AFAICT.
>
> In the past when there's been an obvious bad faith judge, a parallel
> CFJ is just called in the mean time and everyone ignores the bad one
> pretty much.
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> Sorry yeah, my plan was p much to get people to call CFJs on my
>> frivolous win attempt thinking they were safe and then tricking them
>> by revealing this was invalid and I still had certiorari.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Follow up, 3110 was judged by Murphy 24 Oct 2011.
>> >
>> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >> Please please do not do this without asking.  There are a ream of
>> >> court cases that have been judged but were not put in the official
>> >> Court online records.  I have been catching up about 10 a month on the
>> >> back end from my email archive and updated about 50 so far.
>> >> In doing so, of those 50 I only found 1 wit hough a judgement.
>> >> I'm happy to do the research when you pick one, but before you
>> >> grab it.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >> > I found heaps of CFJs that seem to be never judged. I plan to use
>> >> > Certiorari to judge them all like a boss. The first one is 3110, I use
>> >> > Certiorari to assign it to myself.
>> >> >
>> >> > The statement of the CFJ is this:
>> >> >
>> >> > I (Pavitra) satisfy the Victory Condition of Being Pavitra, by means
>> >> > of sending this message.
>> >> >
>> >> > My judgement is UNDETERMINED. See 3111 and 3109,
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > From V.J. Rada
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Using Certiorari for Good! Also, judgement of CFJ 3110!

[Kerim Aydin]

I did wonder if it was something like that :p

(If one does turn up truly unjudged I would try to get it resolved).

Also:  even if you judge on your win, you're just fast-tracking it for
moot, there's really no endgame where a wrong CFJ stands and
becomes precedent AFAICT.

In the past when there's been an obvious bad faith judge, a parallel
CFJ is just called in the mean time and everyone ignores the bad one
pretty much.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Sorry yeah, my plan was p much to get people to call CFJs on my
> frivolous win attempt thinking they were safe and then tricking them
> by revealing this was invalid and I still had certiorari.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Follow up, 3110 was judged by Murphy 24 Oct 2011.
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> Please please do not do this without asking.  There are a ream of
> >> court cases that have been judged but were not put in the official
> >> Court online records.  I have been catching up about 10 a month on the
> >> back end from my email archive and updated about 50 so far.
> >> In doing so, of those 50 I only found 1 wit hough a judgement.
> >> I'm happy to do the research when you pick one, but before you
> >> grab it.
> >>
> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> > I found heaps of CFJs that seem to be never judged. I plan to use
> >> > Certiorari to judge them all like a boss. The first one is 3110, I use
> >> > Certiorari to assign it to myself.
> >> >
> >> > The statement of the CFJ is this:
> >> >
> >> > I (Pavitra) satisfy the Victory Condition of Being Pavitra, by means
> >> > of sending this message.
> >> >
> >> > My judgement is UNDETERMINED. See 3111 and 3109,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > From V.J. Rada
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Using Certiorari for Good! Also, judgement of CFJ 3110!

[VJ Rada]

Sorry yeah, my plan was p much to get people to call CFJs on my
frivolous win attempt thinking they were safe and then tricking them
by revealing this was invalid and I still had certiorari.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Follow up, 3110 was judged by Murphy 24 Oct 2011.
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Please please do not do this without asking.  There are a ream of
>> court cases that have been judged but were not put in the official
>> Court online records.  I have been catching up about 10 a month on the
>> back end from my email archive and updated about 50 so far.
>> In doing so, of those 50 I only found 1 wit hough a judgement.
>> I'm happy to do the research when you pick one, but before you
>> grab it.
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> > I found heaps of CFJs that seem to be never judged. I plan to use
>> > Certiorari to judge them all like a boss. The first one is 3110, I use
>> > Certiorari to assign it to myself.
>> >
>> > The statement of the CFJ is this:
>> >
>> > I (Pavitra) satisfy the Victory Condition of Being Pavitra, by means
>> > of sending this message.
>> >
>> > My judgement is UNDETERMINED. See 3111 and 3109,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>> >
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Using Certiorari for Good! Also, judgement of CFJ 3110!

[Kerim Aydin]

Follow up, 3110 was judged by Murphy 24 Oct 2011.

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Please please do not do this without asking.  There are a ream of
> court cases that have been judged but were not put in the official
> Court online records.  I have been catching up about 10 a month on the
> back end from my email archive and updated about 50 so far.  
> In doing so, of those 50 I only found 1 wit hough a judgement.
> I'm happy to do the research when you pick one, but before you
> grab it.
> 
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > I found heaps of CFJs that seem to be never judged. I plan to use
> > Certiorari to judge them all like a boss. The first one is 3110, I use
> > Certiorari to assign it to myself.
> > 
> > The statement of the CFJ is this:
> > 
> > I (Pavitra) satisfy the Victory Condition of Being Pavitra, by means
> > of sending this message.
> > 
> > My judgement is UNDETERMINED. See 3111 and 3109,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > From V.J. Rada
> >
> 
> 

Re: DIS: [Proto] Reposting

[ATMunn .]

I think I've mostly got the hang of this by now, but it still sounds like a
great idea to me, in case other new players join and are confused by it as
well.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> This could be done as an opt-in thing with Agencies.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 2017, at 10:15 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> > In light of our newer players’ issues with the groups, and my own, it
> might be nice to allow players to repost obviously-misposted messages on
> others’ behalves. I recognize that this is a risk-laden idea, though, so I
> wanted to float it here first:
> >
> > * Any player CAN repost a message to the public forum, on behalf of any
> person, if the message has not previously been reposted. A reposted message
> takes effect as if it had been sent to the public forum by its nominal
> author, not by the player reposting it.
>
> One way to handle this would be to make it take effective 48 hours after
> the repost.
>
> >
> > * A repost is INEFFECTIVE unless the message is clearly identified as a
> repost, clearly identifies a single, specific author of the original
> message, and reproduces, in full and without modification, a
> publicly-available document [this is meant to mean “a-d emails, but not
> private emails]" or message that is being reposted.
>
> Why not use "a document available on a discussion forum" as opposed to
> "publicly-available", the former is more clear and precise and I already
> keep a list of it as Registrar.
>
> >
> > * A repost is further INEFFECTIVE if the original author of the document
> would not reasonably become aware of the repost in a timely fashion.
> >
> > * If the original author of a document objects, by public message, in a
> timely fashion, to a repost, the objection immediately ratifies game state
> such that the message was never sent.
> >
> > I think this is a bit of a mousetrap hazard, so please, rip it apart.
> I’d love to be able to help ATMunn and other new players sort out minor
> posting issues, but I don’t want to create the world’s most open-ended
> Agency.
> >
> > -o
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Kerim Aydin]

As herald, I believe this has failed and these have been objected to,
and my reports will reflect this.

I suggest all players leave VJ Rada to call any CFJ otherwise, as the
  burden of proof is on the scammer.

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

> I resolve the fifteenth below intent.
> 
> Debate away, folks.
> 
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:27 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > This is Cuddlebeam-esque and I'm ashamed of myself. But I
> > will now copy and paste "Without objection, I intend to win by
> > apathy", until there is thousands of  copies of that text, each of
> > which is a seperate action. Under the precedent of several CFJs,
> > shorthand actions do apply, but not when it is not reasonable to
> > believe the actor would not copy-and-paste that action that many
> > times. Something like "I object to all of the above statements" would
> > seem to me impermissible shorthand. I intend to use certiorari to
> > assign CFJs coming out of this to myself.
> >
> >
> > that's buried in there and was meant to be my introduction.
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:25 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> o win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathy Without objection, I intend to
> >> win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWit

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My first proposal!

[ATMunn .]

I did end up changing the "may" to "MAY."
I would add the "by announcement," however I'm not sure I can at this
point. Can you make changes to a pended proposal? If you do, do you get
back the AP/shinies you used to pend it?

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> See my comment below. Also, I greatly appreciate the current usage of
> Spivak pronouns/
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 2017, at 9:43 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> >
> > I retract the proposal "Cheer Up" and create the following proposal in
> its place:
> >
> > Title: "Cheer Up"
> > Author: ATMunn
> > Co-Authors: none
> > AI: 1
> >
> > Create a power-1 rule titled "Emotions"
> > {
> > Emotion is a player switch, tracked by the registrar, with possible
> values Joyous, Melancholy, and Indifferent, that defaults to Indifferent.
> > At any time, any player CAN flip eir own Emotion to any value it is
> currently not.
>
> Just to safeguard this, you should probably add a "by announcement" to the
> CAN and a clause making it INEFFECTIVE or IMPOSSIBLE, or ILLEGAL, depending
> on the dynamic you want, for another person to flip someone else's emotion.
>
> > When doing this, e MUST provide a reason as to why e changed eir
> Emotion as such.
> > A player's Emotion has the following affects:
> >   • Indifferent: No effect.
> >   • Melancholy: Any player that is not Melancholy may pat any
> Melancholy player on the back. Upon doing this, the Melancholy player is
> ENCOURAGED to change eir emotion to Joyous.
>
> If patting on the back is intended to be a game state action and not
> physical patting on the back, you should replace this "may" with a "CAN and
> MAY".
>
> >   • Joyous: Any player that is Joyous is ENCOURAGED to pat
> Melancholy players on the back. E is also ENCOURAGED to do other kind acts,
> such as paying shinies to other players or pending other players' proposals.
> > }
> >
> > [Reason: As several people pointed out, there was some redundancy
> regarding punishments.]
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:34 PM, ATMunn . 
> wrote:
> > I create the following proposal:
> >
> > Title: "Cheer Up"
> > Author: ATMunn
> > Co-Authors: none
> > AI: 1
> >
> > Create a power-1 rule titled "Emotions"
> > {
> > Emotion is a player switch, tracked by the registrar, with possible
> values Joyous, Melancholy, and Indifferent, that defaults to Indifferent.
> > At any time, any player CAN flip eir own Emotion to any value it is
> currently not.
> > When doing this, e MUST provide a reason as to why e changed eir
> Emotion as such.
> > Failing to do so can result in a Green Card being issued to the
> player.
> > If a player thinks that another player's reason for changing eir
> Emotion is invalid, e SHOULD point eir finger at em.
> > A player's Emotion has the following affects:
> >   • Indifferent: No effect.
> >   • Melancholy: Any player that is not Melancholy may pat any
> Melancholy player on the back. Upon doing this, the Melancholy player is
> ENCOURAGED to change eir emotion to Joyous.
> >   • Joyous: Any player that is Joyous is ENCOURAGED to pat
> Melancholy players on the back. E is also ENCOURAGED to do other kind acts,
> such as paying shinies to other players or pending other players' proposals.
> > }
> >
> > [I thought I would do something sillier for my first proposal. I doubt
> it'll pass, but it might. I'm still not entirely sure how the whole
> figer-pointing thing and cards work, so I won't pend it just yet.]
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Using Certiorari for Good! Also, judgement of CFJ 3110!

[Kerim Aydin]

Please please do not do this without asking.  There are a ream of
court cases that have been judged but were not put in the official
Court online records.  I have been catching up about 10 a month on the
back end from my email archive and updated about 50 so far.  
In doing so, of those 50 I only found 1 wit hough a judgement.
I'm happy to do the research when you pick one, but before you
grab it.

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I found heaps of CFJs that seem to be never judged. I plan to use
> Certiorari to judge them all like a boss. The first one is 3110, I use
> Certiorari to assign it to myself.
> 
> The statement of the CFJ is this:
> 
> I (Pavitra) satisfy the Victory Condition of Being Pavitra, by means
> of sending this message.
> 
> My judgement is UNDETERMINED. See 3111 and 3109,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

[Gaelan Steele]

Does your report not self-ratify?

Gaelan 

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 1:18 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> An agency has been listed for a long time called "G is Overlord of
> Dunce". Is is a verb, so that agency is clearly not an agency. The
> problem? That agency was used months ago (like...May) to create
> another agency, which was used to pend a proposal!
> 
> I therefore intend to ratify the following document, without objection.
> 
> {{There is an agency with the following text.
> "G: Overlord of Dunce  (GOD)
> Head: Quazie
> Agents:  G.
> Powers:   1 - The ability to give notice to establish Agencies with
>  Quazie as the Director or Head and G. as the only agent
>  2 - The ability to establish Agencies with Quazie as the Director or
>  Head and G. as the only agent".
> That agency was established by a message sent by Quazie, purporting to
> establish a message called "G is Overlord of Dunce", but the name of
> the agency is, and has been since its establishment, "G: Overlord of
> Dunce"}}
> 
> I'm counting this as an agency for today's weekly and monthly reports,
> but if this gets shot down that might be a problem.
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: PROTO: Saving moiney with nested proposals

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

That would work for the first. For the Repeal All Cards, I am working on a more 
comprehensive repeal.

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



> On Sep 27, 2017, at 4:55 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Author: VJ
> Title: A million proposals for the price of one.
> AI: 3 probably.
> Text:
> Create and pend the following proposal
> {{Author: VJ Rada
> Title: Repeal All Cards
> AI: 3
> Text: Repeal all rules listed at the time of the proposal "a million
> proposals for the price of one" under the rule section "punishment".
> Remove from the rule titled "executive orders" the dot-point beginning
> with "Dive"}}
> 
> Create and pend the following proposal
> {{Author: VJ Rada
> Title: VJ Rada Wins
> AI: 1
> Text:Upon the adoption of this proposal, VJ Rada wins the game}}
> 
> etc etc. Basically having a whole promotor's report for one shiny or AP.
> --
> From V.J. Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vital History Gone Missing!

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I know and I have added the list to the Weekly Report.

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



> On Sep 27, 2017, at 6:13 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> It doesn't.
> 
> Also, I use GII to give 20 shinies to Trigon and Alexis.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> I do include a list of people deregistered by Writ of FAGE in the Monthly 
>> report because it does not say Registrar's report_s_, I interpreted this to 
>> fulfill the requirement.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 11:28 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>> 
 I Point a Finger at Publius Scribonius Scholasticus alleging that, as 
 Registrar, e has committed the Class-2 Crime of Tardiness by not reporting 
 last week on the players deregistered by Writ of Fage, as required by Rule 
 1789.
>>> 
>>> Neither of the two most recent unchallenged documents identified as a 
>>> Registrar’s report contain the list required by rule 1789 ("Cantus 
>>> Cygneus”):
>>> 
 The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and the notation 
 in the Registrar's Report will ensure that, henceforth, all may know said 
 Player deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.
>>> 
>>> The wording in this rule is unusual, but it appears to require that a 
>>> deregistration by Writ of FAGE be recorded in the Registrar’s reports 
>>> indefinitely. This is supported by language in rule 2143:
>>> 
 Any information defined by the rules as part of a person's report, without 
 specifying which one, is part of eir weekly report. Failure of a person to 
 perform any duty required of em within the allotted time is the Class-2 
 crime of Tardiness.
>>> 
>>> The requirement for a “notation in the Registrar’s Report” clearly makes 
>>> such a notation part of the Registrar’s report.
>>> 
>>> I issue Publius Scribonius Scholasticus a green card by summary judgement 
>>> for violating rule 2143.
>>> 
>>> I believe I’m out of cards for the week, depending the results of V.J 
>>> Rada’s CFJ.
>>> 
>>> -o
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J. Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: Vital History Gone Missing!

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I do include a list of people deregistered by Writ of FAGE in the Monthly 
report because it does not say Registrar's report_s_, I interpreted this to 
fulfill the requirement.

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



> On Sep 26, 2017, at 11:28 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> On Sep 26, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
>> I Point a Finger at Publius Scribonius Scholasticus alleging that, as 
>> Registrar, e has committed the Class-2 Crime of Tardiness by not reporting 
>> last week on the players deregistered by Writ of Fage, as required by Rule 
>> 1789.
> 
> Neither of the two most recent unchallenged documents identified as a 
> Registrar’s report contain the list required by rule 1789 ("Cantus Cygneus”):
> 
>> The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and the notation 
>> in the Registrar's Report will ensure that, henceforth, all may know said 
>> Player deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.
> 
> The wording in this rule is unusual, but it appears to require that a 
> deregistration by Writ of FAGE be recorded in the Registrar’s reports 
> indefinitely. This is supported by language in rule 2143:
> 
>> Any information defined by the rules as part of a person's report, without 
>> specifying which one, is part of eir weekly report. Failure of a person to 
>> perform any duty required of em within the allotted time is the Class-2 
>> crime of Tardiness.
> 
> The requirement for a “notation in the Registrar’s Report” clearly makes such 
> a notation part of the Registrar’s report.
> 
> I issue Publius Scribonius Scholasticus a green card by summary judgement for 
> violating rule 2143.
> 
> I believe I’m out of cards for the week, depending the results of V.J Rada’s 
> CFJ.
> 
> -o
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: [Proto] Reposting

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

This could be done as an opt-in thing with Agencies.

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



> On Sep 26, 2017, at 10:15 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> In light of our newer players’ issues with the groups, and my own, it might 
> be nice to allow players to repost obviously-misposted messages on others’ 
> behalves. I recognize that this is a risk-laden idea, though, so I wanted to 
> float it here first:
> 
> * Any player CAN repost a message to the public forum, on behalf of any 
> person, if the message has not previously been reposted. A reposted message 
> takes effect as if it had been sent to the public forum by its nominal 
> author, not by the player reposting it.

One way to handle this would be to make it take effective 48 hours after the 
repost.

> 
> * A repost is INEFFECTIVE unless the message is clearly identified as a 
> repost, clearly identifies a single, specific author of the original message, 
> and reproduces, in full and without modification, a publicly-available 
> document [this is meant to mean “a-d emails, but not private emails]" or 
> message that is being reposted.

Why not use "a document available on a discussion forum" as opposed to 
"publicly-available", the former is more clear and precise and I already keep a 
list of it as Registrar.

> 
> * A repost is further INEFFECTIVE if the original author of the document 
> would not reasonably become aware of the repost in a timely fashion.
> 
> * If the original author of a document objects, by public message, in a 
> timely fashion, to a repost, the objection immediately ratifies game state 
> such that the message was never sent.
> 
> I think this is a bit of a mousetrap hazard, so please, rip it apart. I’d 
> love to be able to help ATMunn and other new players sort out minor posting 
> issues, but I don’t want to create the world’s most open-ended Agency.
> 
> -o
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My first proposal!

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

See my comment below. Also, I greatly appreciate the current usage of Spivak 
pronouns/

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



> On Sep 26, 2017, at 9:43 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> 
> I retract the proposal "Cheer Up" and create the following proposal in its 
> place:
> 
> Title: "Cheer Up"
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Authors: none
> AI: 1
> 
> Create a power-1 rule titled "Emotions"
> {
> Emotion is a player switch, tracked by the registrar, with possible 
> values Joyous, Melancholy, and Indifferent, that defaults to Indifferent.
> At any time, any player CAN flip eir own Emotion to any value it is 
> currently not.

Just to safeguard this, you should probably add a "by announcement" to the CAN 
and a clause making it INEFFECTIVE or IMPOSSIBLE, or ILLEGAL, depending on the 
dynamic you want, for another person to flip someone else's emotion.

> When doing this, e MUST provide a reason as to why e changed eir Emotion 
> as such.
> A player's Emotion has the following affects:
>   • Indifferent: No effect.
>   • Melancholy: Any player that is not Melancholy may pat any 
> Melancholy player on the back. Upon doing this, the Melancholy player is 
> ENCOURAGED to change eir emotion to Joyous.

If patting on the back is intended to be a game state action and not physical 
patting on the back, you should replace this "may" with a "CAN and MAY".

>   • Joyous: Any player that is Joyous is ENCOURAGED to pat Melancholy 
> players on the back. E is also ENCOURAGED to do other kind acts, such as 
> paying shinies to other players or pending other players' proposals.
> }
> 
> [Reason: As several people pointed out, there was some redundancy regarding 
> punishments.]
> 
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:34 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> I create the following proposal:
> 
> Title: "Cheer Up"
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Authors: none
> AI: 1
> 
> Create a power-1 rule titled "Emotions"
> {
> Emotion is a player switch, tracked by the registrar, with possible 
> values Joyous, Melancholy, and Indifferent, that defaults to Indifferent.
> At any time, any player CAN flip eir own Emotion to any value it is 
> currently not.
> When doing this, e MUST provide a reason as to why e changed eir Emotion 
> as such.
> Failing to do so can result in a Green Card being issued to the player.
> If a player thinks that another player's reason for changing eir Emotion 
> is invalid, e SHOULD point eir finger at em.
> A player's Emotion has the following affects:
>   • Indifferent: No effect.
>   • Melancholy: Any player that is not Melancholy may pat any 
> Melancholy player on the back. Upon doing this, the Melancholy player is 
> ENCOURAGED to change eir emotion to Joyous.
>   • Joyous: Any player that is Joyous is ENCOURAGED to pat Melancholy 
> players on the back. E is also ENCOURAGED to do other kind acts, such as 
> paying shinies to other players or pending other players' proposals.
> }
> 
> [I thought I would do something sillier for my first proposal. I doubt it'll 
> pass, but it might. I'm still not entirely sure how the whole figer-pointing 
> thing and cards work, so I won't pend it just yet.]
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My first proposal!

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

We could also overtime add nice emotions.

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



> On Sep 26, 2017, at 9:39 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 9:34 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>> 
>> I create the following proposal:
> 
> Some initial feedback: this is fantastic as a first proposal goes. You’ve 
> nailed the mechanical elements, it looks like, and taken advantage of 
> existing systems where appropriate. Furthermore, it’s a neat piece of theme. 
> Nice work all around,
> 
>> Title: "Cheer Up"
>> Author: ATMunn
>> Co-Authors: none
>> AI: 1
>> 
>> Create a power-1 rule titled "Emotions"
>> {
>> Emotion is a player switch, tracked by the registrar, with possible 
>> values Joyous, Melancholy, and Indifferent, that defaults to Indifferent.
>> At any time, any player CAN flip eir own Emotion to any value it is 
>> currently not.
>> When doing this, e MUST provide a reason as to why e changed eir Emotion 
>> as such.
>> Failing to do so can result in a Green Card being issued to the player.
> 
> You can remove this clause entirely. The “e MUST provide a reason” is 
> sufficient to trigger a card, and rules that specify which card tend to be 
> prone to abuse. Furthermore, the platonic voice “can result in” is an unusual 
> way to constrain the Referee, and I’m not sure it would work as required.
> 
> If you really want to recommend that breaches be punished only with a Green 
> Card, then “The Referee SHOULD issue a Green Card for violations of this 
> rule” or something to that effect might be a more effective way to encode it.
> 
>> If a player thinks that another player's reason for changing eir Emotion 
>> is invalid, e SHOULD point eir finger at em.
> 
> This is a subtle bug, for a first proposal, but: finger-pointing is for 
> rule-breaking, and I can’t see any rule, including in this proposal, that 
> makes providing an invalid reason for flipping an Emotion switch against the 
> rules. You might need a MUST or SHALL NOT in here somewhere, at which point 
> the direction to point fingers is superfluous as that’s what those terms 
> imply anyways.
> 
>> A player's Emotion has the following affects:
>>  • Indifferent: No effect.
>>  • Melancholy: Any player that is not Melancholy may pat any 
>> Melancholy player on the back. Upon doing this, the Melancholy player is 
>> ENCOURAGED to change eir emotion to Joyous.
>>  • Joyous: Any player that is Joyous is ENCOURAGED to pat Melancholy 
>> players on the back. E is also ENCOURAGED to do other kind acts, such as 
>> paying shinies to other players or pending other players' proposals.
>> }
> 
> This is super cute, and provides some neat prompts for interaction. Adding 
> some length or structure SHOULDs might help, just as writing prompts, but I 
> like the overall feel of this.
> 
> -o
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: PROTO: Saving moiney with nested proposals

[VJ Rada]

Author: VJ
Title: A million proposals for the price of one.
AI: 3 probably.
Text:
Create and pend the following proposal
{{Author: VJ Rada
Title: Repeal All Cards
AI: 3
Text: Repeal all rules listed at the time of the proposal "a million
proposals for the price of one" under the rule section "punishment".
Remove from the rule titled "executive orders" the dot-point beginning
with "Dive"}}

Create and pend the following proposal
{{Author: VJ Rada
Title: VJ Rada Wins
AI: 1
Text:Upon the adoption of this proposal, VJ Rada wins the game}}

etc etc. Basically having a whole promotor's report for one shiny or AP.
-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vital History Gone Missing!

[VJ Rada]

Oh good call, sorry. That's clever of you, actually.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> This is the text of my Agency GII: “Perform any actions Gaelan has listed as 
> Performable By Agency, subject to any restrictions e has specified in that 
> announcement, if Gaelan has not specified more than 24 hours prior that the 
> action is no longer Performable By Agency.” I’m not actually changing an 
> Agency, just making a public announcement that the text of GII happens to 
> care about.
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Sep 27, 2017, at 12:41 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> No? The text is this: "An Agency's Director may amend its properties
>> or revoke it with 24 hours Notice.". 24 hours notice has the same
>> rules as without objection or with support: you have to give 24 hours
>> notice and then resolve the intent.
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>> GII “agencies” get created instantly. They do take 24 hours to remove, but 
>>> that is specified as something along the lines of “not retracted more than 
>>> 24 hours prior,” which means that I need no explicit resolution of the 
>>> action.
>>>
>>> Gaelan
>>>
 On Sep 26, 2017, at 8:05 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

 Although I think the way he did it might have been invalid? E said "I
 list the following as performable by agency, which will automatically
 resolve in 24 hours" but I don't think it is automatic? E never
 resolved that intent.

> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:02 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Use Gaelan's agency: It's performable by GII for Gaelan to give anyone
> without a Package 20 shinies.
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>> I register.
>>>
>>> I Point a Finger at Publius Scribonius Scholasticus alleging that, as
>>> Registrar, e has committed the Class-2 Crime of Tardiness by not 
>>> reporting
>>> last week on the players deregistered by Writ of Fage, as required by 
>>> Rule
>>> 1789.
>>>
>>> -Alexis
>>
>> I note that, if all the players currently registered and eligible for
>> Welcome Packages claimed them, it would devastate the economy (again).
>> I have no clue what to do about this short of giving them some money
>> ourselves, but I don't have that much left.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the last Registrar's report to contain the
>> mentioned information was here [1].
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2016-August/011218.html
>>
>> -Aris
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



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



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vital History Gone Missing!

[Gaelan Steele]

This is the text of my Agency GII: “Perform any actions Gaelan has listed as 
Performable By Agency, subject to any restrictions e has specified in that 
announcement, if Gaelan has not specified more than 24 hours prior that the 
action is no longer Performable By Agency.” I’m not actually changing an 
Agency, just making a public announcement that the text of GII happens to care 
about. 

Gaelan

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 12:41 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> No? The text is this: "An Agency's Director may amend its properties
> or revoke it with 24 hours Notice.". 24 hours notice has the same
> rules as without objection or with support: you have to give 24 hours
> notice and then resolve the intent.
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> GII “agencies” get created instantly. They do take 24 hours to remove, but 
>> that is specified as something along the lines of “not retracted more than 
>> 24 hours prior,” which means that I need no explicit resolution of the 
>> action.
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 8:05 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Although I think the way he did it might have been invalid? E said "I
>>> list the following as performable by agency, which will automatically
>>> resolve in 24 hours" but I don't think it is automatic? E never
>>> resolved that intent.
>>> 
 On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:02 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
 Use Gaelan's agency: It's performable by GII for Gaelan to give anyone
 without a Package 20 shinies.
 
 On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Aris Merchant
  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> I register.
>> 
>> I Point a Finger at Publius Scribonius Scholasticus alleging that, as
>> Registrar, e has committed the Class-2 Crime of Tardiness by not 
>> reporting
>> last week on the players deregistered by Writ of Fage, as required by 
>> Rule
>> 1789.
>> 
>> -Alexis
> 
> I note that, if all the players currently registered and eligible for
> Welcome Packages claimed them, it would devastate the economy (again).
> I have no clue what to do about this short of giving them some money
> ourselves, but I don't have that much left.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the last Registrar's report to contain the
> mentioned information was here [1].
> 
> [1] 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2016-August/011218.html
> 
> -Aris
 
 
 
 --
 From V.J. Rada
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vital History Gone Missing!

[VJ Rada]

No? The text is this: "An Agency's Director may amend its properties
or revoke it with 24 hours Notice.". 24 hours notice has the same
rules as without objection or with support: you have to give 24 hours
notice and then resolve the intent.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> GII “agencies” get created instantly. They do take 24 hours to remove, but 
> that is specified as something along the lines of “not retracted more than 24 
> hours prior,” which means that I need no explicit resolution of the action.
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 8:05 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> Although I think the way he did it might have been invalid? E said "I
>> list the following as performable by agency, which will automatically
>> resolve in 24 hours" but I don't think it is automatic? E never
>> resolved that intent.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:02 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> Use Gaelan's agency: It's performable by GII for Gaelan to give anyone
>>> without a Package 20 shinies.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Aris Merchant
>>>  wrote:
 On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> I register.
>
> I Point a Finger at Publius Scribonius Scholasticus alleging that, as
> Registrar, e has committed the Class-2 Crime of Tardiness by not reporting
> last week on the players deregistered by Writ of Fage, as required by Rule
> 1789.
>
> -Alexis

 I note that, if all the players currently registered and eligible for
 Welcome Packages claimed them, it would devastate the economy (again).
 I have no clue what to do about this short of giving them some money
 ourselves, but I don't have that much left.

 As far as I can tell, the last Registrar's report to contain the
 mentioned information was here [1].

 [1] 
 https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2016-August/011218.html

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



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vital History Gone Missing!

[Gaelan Steele]

GII “agencies” get created instantly. They do take 24 hours to remove, but that 
is specified as something along the lines of “not retracted more than 24 hours 
prior,” which means that I need no explicit resolution of the action.

Gaelan

> On Sep 26, 2017, at 8:05 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Although I think the way he did it might have been invalid? E said "I
> list the following as performable by agency, which will automatically
> resolve in 24 hours" but I don't think it is automatic? E never
> resolved that intent.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:02 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> Use Gaelan's agency: It's performable by GII for Gaelan to give anyone
>> without a Package 20 shinies.
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
 I register.
 
 I Point a Finger at Publius Scribonius Scholasticus alleging that, as
 Registrar, e has committed the Class-2 Crime of Tardiness by not reporting
 last week on the players deregistered by Writ of Fage, as required by Rule
 1789.
 
 -Alexis
>>> 
>>> I note that, if all the players currently registered and eligible for
>>> Welcome Packages claimed them, it would devastate the economy (again).
>>> I have no clue what to do about this short of giving them some money
>>> ourselves, but I don't have that much left.
>>> 
>>> As far as I can tell, the last Registrar's report to contain the
>>> mentioned information was here [1].
>>> 
>>> [1] 
>>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2016-August/011218.html
>>> 
>>> -Aris
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Assessor election

[VJ Rada]

Already initiated.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I support. I’d also be willing to take this one long term.
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 6:20 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>> I intend, with four support, to initiate an election for the office of 
>> Assessor.
>>
>> Please don’t make me do it. I’ll take the job temporarily unless someone 
>> else wants it, but I’m at my paperwork-processing capacity for the time 
>> being already, and likely won’t do it _well_.
>>
>> -o
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Assessor election

[Gaelan Steele]

I support. I’d also be willing to take this one long term.

Gaelan

> On Sep 26, 2017, at 6:20 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> I intend, with four support, to initiate an election for the office of 
> Assessor.
> 
> Please don’t make me do it. I’ll take the job temporarily unless someone else 
> wants it, but I’m at my paperwork-processing capacity for the time being 
> already, and likely won’t do it _well_.
> 
> -o
>