DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[Gaelan Steele]

I unconditionally vote for Assessor as follows: {Gaelan, PSS} followed by {all 
players nichdel votes for, in the order in which e votes for them, excluding 
Gaelan and PSS}.

I list performing exactly the above action (considering any changes to 
nichdel's vote) as Performable By Agency (GII).

That should work like a conditional vote as long as someone remembers to update 
it before Assessment.

Gaelan

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 11:52 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> I conditionally vote for Assessor as follows: {Gaelan, PSS} followed by {all 
> players nichdel votes for, in the order in which e votes for them, excluding 
> Gaelan and PSS}
> 
> Gaelan
> 
>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 11:41 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> 
>> I shame them, rather than shaning them. And what I meant was I issue
>> them Humiliating Public Reminders.
>> 
>> I also clarify that I vote Alexis in the Tailor election and PRESENT
>> for Assessor.
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:39 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> Addendum: ENDORSE votes not being votes apparently, I also publically
>>> shane Quazie, Trigon and Alexis,
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
 I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.
 
 On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had the
> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first time. The
> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
> 
> ===Tailor===
> Alexis: Alexis
> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> Trigon: Alexis
> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
> 
> ===Assessor===
> Alexis: Endorse G.
> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> Trigon: Endorse G.
> PSS: {PSS, G}
> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is 
> currently PSS)
> 
> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G, Cuddlebeam,
> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
> 
> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all you
> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
> 
> From V.J. Rada
 
 
 
 --
 From V.J. Rada
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> From V.J. Rada
> 

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[VJ Rada]

They don't even count towards quorum. You need to make a definitive vote.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:53 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Conditional votes do not work, see Alexis's latest CFJ.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> I conditionally vote for Assessor as follows: {Gaelan, PSS} followed by {all 
>> players nichdel votes for, in the order in which e votes for them, excluding 
>> Gaelan and PSS}
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 11:41 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> I shame them, rather than shaning them. And what I meant was I issue
>>> them Humiliating Public Reminders.
>>>
>>> I also clarify that I vote Alexis in the Tailor election and PRESENT
>>> for Assessor.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:39 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
 Addendum: ENDORSE votes not being votes apparently, I also publically
 shane Quazie, Trigon and Alexis,

 On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had the
>> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first time. The
>> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
>> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
>>
>> ===Tailor===
>> Alexis: Alexis
>> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
>> Trigon: Alexis
>> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
>> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
>>
>> ===Assessor===
>> Alexis: Endorse G.
>> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
>> Trigon: Endorse G.
>> PSS: {PSS, G}
>> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is 
>> currently PSS)
>>
>> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
>> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G, Cuddlebeam,
>> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
>>
>> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all you
>> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
>>
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



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



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[VJ Rada]

Conditional votes do not work, see Alexis's latest CFJ.


On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I conditionally vote for Assessor as follows: {Gaelan, PSS} followed by {all 
> players nichdel votes for, in the order in which e votes for them, excluding 
> Gaelan and PSS}
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 11:41 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> I shame them, rather than shaning them. And what I meant was I issue
>> them Humiliating Public Reminders.
>>
>> I also clarify that I vote Alexis in the Tailor election and PRESENT
>> for Assessor.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:39 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> Addendum: ENDORSE votes not being votes apparently, I also publically
>>> shane Quazie, Trigon and Alexis,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
 I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.

 On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had the
> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first time. The
> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
>
> ===Tailor===
> Alexis: Alexis
> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> Trigon: Alexis
> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
>
> ===Assessor===
> Alexis: Endorse G.
> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> Trigon: Endorse G.
> PSS: {PSS, G}
> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is 
> currently PSS)
>
> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G, Cuddlebeam,
> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
>
> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all you
> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
>
> From V.J. Rada



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



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration

[VJ Rada]

I am well aware of that :). G. has been around in various forms since
2002, right?

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> Of course, many of us (including me) have registered multiple times in the 
> past.
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:44 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> Without objection, I intend to deregister our longest standing player, 
>>> Murphy.
>>>
>>> If this goes through every player will have joined this year I think.
>>> ais deregistered recently,
>>
>> omd has been continuously registered for longer than I’ve been a player.
>>
>> -o
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration

[Gaelan Steele]

Of course, many of us (including me) have registered multiple times in the past.

Gaelan

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:44 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> 
>> Without objection, I intend to deregister our longest standing player, 
>> Murphy.
>> 
>> If this goes through every player will have joined this year I think.
>> ais deregistered recently,
> 
> omd has been continuously registered for longer than I’ve been a player.
> 
> -o
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[VJ Rada]

So uh let's self-ratify my ADoP report? Because every election I have
ever resolved didn't work according to this.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 19:00 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I CFJ on the following by paying a shiny:
>> > If grok had not deregistered, e would have issued trust tokens to
>> > both Aris and G. by eir vote on Proposal 7899.
>>
>>
>> This is CFJ 3569 - I assign it to Alexis.
>
>
> The question here hinges around the definition of "endorsed". Rule 2452
> states:
>
>When the Assessor resolves a Decision to adopt a proposal, then
>any player who cast a valid vote on the Decision and was
>endorsed by another player's valid vote on the Decision is
>issued a Trust Token by the endorsing player.
>
> As G. submitted, grok voted "Endorse Aris" on Proposal 7899 and Aris voted
> "Endorse the Arbitor". At all relevant times, G. was the Assessor and this
> is not in dispute.
>
> G. submitted arguments that could argue in favour of multiple
> interpretations, but ultimately, the first place to look is at the
> definition of a valid vote, found in Rule 955, since Rule 2452 requires
> endorsement "by another player's valid vote". It is clear that on any Agoran
> decision with an Adoption Index, including the one at issue, the valid votes
> are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT.
>
> How does this line up with conditional votes? Rule 2127 defines:
>
>   If a vote on an Agoran decision is submitted conditionally (e.g.
>   "FOR if  is true, otherwise AGAINST"), then the selected
>   option is evaluated based on the value of the condition(s) at
>   the end of the voting period, and, rules to the contrary
>   notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the value
>   of the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting
>   period.  If the option cannot be clearly identified, a vote of
>   PRESENT is cast.
>
>   Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to
>   conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most
>   common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that
>   decision.
>
> This presents some difficulty, as Rule 2127 does not actually expand the
> definition of a valid vote provided in Rule 955. As a result, a conditional
> vote cannot be considered to be a valid vote at the time that it is cast,
> although Rule 2127 indicates that it is evaluated to one at the end of the
> voting period.
>
> Unfortunately, there is an additional wrinkle. According to Rule 683:
>
>   An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a
>   notice satisfying the following conditions:
>
>   [...]
>
>   4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
>  the voting method.
>
> Per established precedent, the correctness of a ballot submission is
> evaluated at the time of its submission. grok's vote of "Endorse Aris" did
> not clearly identify any of the three valid options, to wit, FOR, AGAINST,
> or PRESENT. Therefore the ballot was not even valid to begin with, and so
> there is no way for it to have resulted in an award of Trust Tokens.
>
> Consequently, I judge CFJ 3569 FALSE, claim the CFJ Reward of 7 shinies for
> doing so, and Drop the Mic.
>
> -Alexis



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Innocent Mistake Ratification

[Aris Merchant]

I don't buy this argument. "When a public document is ratified, rules
to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it
would be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the
gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified document as
true and accurate as possible." You can change the gamestate now the
same as it would have been if something had been true a certain time.
In your example, ratification would change the gamestate now to
whatever the gamestate would have been if the floating value had been
132 on October 3. It doesn't make it true, it makes it "as true and
accurate as possible". You can CFJ this if you like, but I think it's
pretty clear as a matter of game custom if nothing else.

-Aris

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 01:28 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> I intend, without objection, to ratify that, at the moment the
>> Secretary published eir purported Weekly Report on October 3rd, the
>> Floating Value was as follows:
>>
>> {
>>   Floating Value: 132
>> }
>>
>> (This is a portion of the Secretary’s report on that date.)
>
> I don't think this works; you ratify documents, not facts.
>
> Come to think of it, I don't think it's possible to ratify a statement
> about the past unless that statement was actually published on that
> date (possibly untruthfully). You can't change the present gamestate so
> as to cause a change in the past, after all; and ratification uses the
> time of publication of the document as the reference time to change to.
> So if you want to set the gamestate as though a change had become 132
> on October 3, you need to actually find a document published on October
> 3 that states that the Floating Value is 132. (If you attempt to ratify
> a document that says "The Floating Value was 132 on October 3", nothing
> changes, as there's no way to change the present gamestate to make that
> true.)
>
> I'm glad that ratification isn't more general than this; people have
> been trying to use it as a general solution to problems quite a bit
> recently, which it isn't really intended for. In particular, using
> ratification to bypass the proposal mechanism isn't really a great
> thing to do; we don't have a method of passing proposals without-
> objection for a reason, and attempts to add one have been shot down in
> the past.
>
> --
> ais523

Re: DIS: Archive implementation (was DIS: Re: BUS: Archival disclosure)

[Aris Merchant]

o, have you seen this?

-Aris

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>> This is the first stage of an attempt to create an annotation system 
>>> designed to formalize game state changes by attaching formal descriptions 
>>> of those changes to documents, represented by email messages. At this time, 
>>> I plan only to archive messages, but there will be a read element allowing 
>>> anonymous users to read and enumerate messages from the archive in the near 
>>> future.
>>
>> The broader scheme here is this:
>>
>> 1. A client app forwards public messages to the archive. They sit in an 
>> “unannotated messages” queue until someone - me, probably - picks them up 
>> and annotates them.
>>
>> 2. A user annotates each message with a short formal description of the 
>> game-state changes imposed by a message. These annotations are mutable, so 
>> mistaken annotations are not a permanent problem, and are versioned so that 
>> vandalism can be undone. I haven’t worked out the exact schema for these 
>> annotations, yet, but the concept I’m working with is loosely based on the 
>> RFC 6902 JSON Patch format, adapted for Agora’s specific needs. For example, 
>> an annotation transferring shinies might read, in YAML form for readability:
>>
>>> - op: event
>>>   office: Secretary
>>>   summary: o paid Ørjan 1 sh.
>>>
>>> - op: transfer
>>>   from: /Shinies/Player/o
>>>   to: /Shinies/Player/Ørjan
>>>   delta: 1
>>
>> Obviously, this is an awkward format, but it has some nice properties that I 
>> think make it worth building on. I’m still tweaking the actual format for 
>> annotaitons, and it’s likely I’ll add a UI or some variety of terse syntax 
>> so that it’s possible to write this kind of simple action in fewer than 
>> eight lines.
>>
>> 3. The archive exposes an API that can sum up the annotations, starting from 
>> the beginning of time, all the way up to a specific point in time, and then 
>> return the computed state of the game plus a list of events by office. My 
>> report scripts will become “query this API in a specific way, and feed the 
>> resulting data to a template to render it for email.”
>>
>> The idea is that instead of trying to reduce Agora to a set of formal 
>> actions, I instead want to keep the prose forms as the primary documents and 
>> allow formal note-taking alongside them. Many of Agora’s state changes are 
>> formalizable, and from there, those parts of Agora’s state are computable, 
>> so this could take a bunch of load off for computing those parts of the game.
>>
>> I’ve had some success with a reduced version of this approach for the office 
>> of Surveyor. All Surveyor’s reports have been generated by a 
>> built-to-purpose Python script that applies the same principles to a set of 
>> local YAML files instead of a web API.
>>
>> -o
>
> I love this idea. It seems very practical without sacrificing
> usability for the end users (i.e. the players). I have a few
> suggestions:
>
> 1. Who annotates. I think giving everyone access to the annotation
> interface would probably make sense. You can't personally annotate
> every message affecting the entire gamestate, and I'd love to help set
> the formats I'm consuming for Promotor. nichdel came up with a
> proposal format suggestion, and now that this has come along I'm
> modifying it to have more information for the Promotor side of the
> Promotor-Assessor pipeline. I'm sure other officers have input on how
> formalization for their parts of the gamestate should take place, and
> they have a unique understanding of what information is needed to do
> their jobs.
>
> 2. Annotation style. As you've mentioned, your format is a bit forced.
> You're doing a great job with what you have to work with, but I think
> the basic problem may be that you're trying to use markup to represent
> transactions. It works wonderfully for representing the data (and
> should probably be a base format for that), but poorly for
> representing things like conditional actions. You can add and add to
> the format, but you'll just be making it more complicated to use. I
> suggest you consider using programs (possibly with methods you
> provide) as annotations. It feels kind of intuitively weird to
> represent an annotation as a program, and they don't have the nice
> formal properties the data itself does (except maybe if you used
> Haskell or something), but I think it might be a lot more practical
> for actual use. Programs allow for loops, unrestricted conditionals,
> and the like, meaning that you don't have to work something out by
> hand or create a new transaction type just for one complicated
> transaction. They would work well for this because they take data and
> compute changes, which is exactly what our action system does. There
> is thus a neat one-to-one correspondence between an action and a
> program.
>
> o, honestly, this is an amazing idea. This is such a brilliant
> s

DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[VJ Rada]

I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had the
> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first time. The
> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
>
> ===Tailor===
> Alexis: Alexis
> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> Trigon: Alexis
> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
>
> ===Assessor===
> Alexis: Endorse G.
> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> Trigon: Endorse G.
> PSS: {PSS, G}
> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is currently 
> PSS)
>
> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G, Cuddlebeam,
> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
>
> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all you
> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
>
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report (rev. 1)

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:40 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> " Date of last report: Tue, 26 Sep 2017"
> 
> This is wrong, although it doesn't matter.

Is it? The last correct report, up to information known at the time of 
publication, was on that date. I actually picked that intentionally to 
acknowledge that this is not a new report, but a revision (plus time slew) of 
the previous report.

That’s not to say I think you’re _wrong_, and I didn’t do that consistently 
throughout the report - the events list still shows the “Last Report” line as 
if the Oct 3 report happened.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

[Owen Jacobson]

On Oct 4, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> There’s also a message in the agora-business archive bearing
> 
> Date: some time near the end of July


On Oct 4, 2017, at 10:33 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Who did that?

ais523. The headers as a whole are pretty amusing, actually:

From: ais523 
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
X-Mailer: Typed by hand over telnet because Yahoo thinks this is spam somehow
Date: some time near the end of July
Message-Id: <20090731172123.41e1881...@yzma.clarkk.net>
Subject: BUS: OFF: [Ambassador] Foreign Relations

The content, however, is perfectly mundane: it’s a report body, and doesn’t 
appear to have been subject to any major dispute or revision at the time. 
Interestingly, I can’t find it in any of mailman’s web archives.

-o


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration

[VJ Rada]

Ah yep, and Aris and Celestial Firefox are both from 2016.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:44 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> Without objection, I intend to deregister our longest standing player, 
>> Murphy.
>>
>> If this goes through every player will have joined this year I think.
>> ais deregistered recently,
>
> omd has been continuously registered for longer than I’ve been a player.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:44 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Without objection, I intend to deregister our longest standing player, Murphy.
> 
> If this goes through every player will have joined this year I think.
> ais deregistered recently,

omd has been continuously registered for longer than I’ve been a player.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Innocent Mistake Ratification

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 06:48 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> So if you want to set the gamestate as though a change had become 132
> on October 3, you need to actually find a document published on
> October 3 that states that the Floating Value is 132.

Looks like I misread; there was indeed such a document.

In that case, your approach is correct but your wording is off. Try
something like "I intend, without objection, to ratify the section of
the Secretary's Report published on October 3 that specifies the
Floating Value". (This definitely used to work; it seems that the rules
have been amended inconsistently, though, which leads rule 2202 to talk
about "scope" without defining what it means. IIRC that used to allow
you to ratify just a portion of the document, or maybe just a portion
of the gamestate, but I'm not at all sure what it does under the
present ruleset.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Innocent Mistake Ratification

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:48 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 01:28 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> I intend, without objection, to ratify that, at the moment the
>> Secretary published eir purported Weekly Report on October 3rd, the
>> Floating Value was as follows:
>> 
>> {
>>  Floating Value: 132
>> }
>> 
>> (This is a portion of the Secretary’s report on that date.)
> 
> I don't think this works; you ratify documents, not facts.

That’s why I specifically identified the document (well, fragment of a 
document) I was attempting to ratify. However, I wasn’t sure it would work, so 
I’m not surprised to hear confirmation that it won’t. However…

> Come to think of it, I don't think it's possible to ratify a statement
> about the past unless that statement was actually published on that
> date (possibly untruthfully). You can't change the present gamestate so
> as to cause a change in the past, after all; and ratification uses the
> time of publication of the document as the reference time to change to.
> So if you want to set the gamestate as though a change had become 132
> on October 3, you need to actually find a document published on October
> 3 that states that the Floating Value is 132. (If you attempt to ratify
> a document that says "The Floating Value was 132 on October 3", nothing
> changes, as there's no way to change the present gamestate to make that
> true.)

…the document fragment I’m attempting to ratify actually was published on the 
date it would be useful for the FV to have taken that value on. This objection 
alone might not be sufficient.

> I'm glad that ratification isn't more general than this; people have
> been trying to use it as a general solution to problems quite a bit
> recently, which it isn't really intended for. In particular, using
> ratification to bypass the proposal mechanism isn't really a great
> thing to do; we don't have a method of passing proposals without-
> objection for a reason, and attempts to add one have been shot down in
> the past.

Does this imply that my attempt to retroactively create dated pledges by 
proposal didn’t work? If so, no big deal - that proposal intentionally made 
enforcement of pledges more social and less ludic, and I expect Agorans will 
likely enforce the two affected pledges in the spirit in which they were made. 
But it’s an important thing for me to be aware of if I ever try a stunt like 
that again.

-o


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Innocent Mistake Ratification

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 01:28 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to ratify that, at the moment the
> Secretary published eir purported Weekly Report on October 3rd, the
> Floating Value was as follows:
> 
> {
>   Floating Value: 132
> }
> 
> (This is a portion of the Secretary’s report on that date.)

I don't think this works; you ratify documents, not facts.

Come to think of it, I don't think it's possible to ratify a statement
about the past unless that statement was actually published on that
date (possibly untruthfully). You can't change the present gamestate so
as to cause a change in the past, after all; and ratification uses the
time of publication of the document as the reference time to change to.
So if you want to set the gamestate as though a change had become 132
on October 3, you need to actually find a document published on October
3 that states that the Floating Value is 132. (If you attempt to ratify
a document that says "The Floating Value was 132 on October 3", nothing
changes, as there's no way to change the present gamestate to make that
true.)

I'm glad that ratification isn't more general than this; people have
been trying to use it as a general solution to problems quite a bit
recently, which it isn't really intended for. In particular, using
ratification to bypass the proposal mechanism isn't really a great
thing to do; we don't have a method of passing proposals without-
objection for a reason, and attempts to add one have been shot down in
the past.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report (rev. 1)

[VJ Rada]

" Date of last report: Tue, 26 Sep 2017"

This is wrong, although it doesn't matter.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> I deny the claim of error raised by VTMunn.
>
> I accept the claims of error raised by Aris, and publish the following 
> revision of the Secretary’s weekly report.
>
> As Secretary, I flip the Floating Value to 33.
>
> Secretary's Weekly Report
>
> Date of this report: Thu,  4 Oct 2017
> Date of last report: Tue, 26 Sep 2017
>
> Recent events (all times UTC):
>
> Wed, 20 Sep 2017 06:11:50  Agora paid o 15 sh.
> Wed, 20 Sep 2017 06:16:18  Agora paid V.J Rada 50 sh.
> Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:02:57  Agora paid 天火狐 5 sh.
> Thu, 21 Sep 2017 19:32:10  Quazie paid ATMunn 1 sh.
> Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:36:08  o paid 天火狐 2 sh.
> Fri, 22 Sep 2017 14:01:12  Agora paid ATMunn 50 sh.
> Sun, 24 Sep 2017 02:23:32  Agora paid V.J Rada 5 sh.
> Sun, 24 Sep 2017 21:02:28  Agora paid P.S.S.[1] 5 sh.
> - previous report -
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 03:49:30  V.J Rada paid Agora 1 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 03:59:47  o destroyed Agoran Betting Market
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 04:41:59  Aris paid Agora 16 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 04:53:22  V.J Rada paid Agora 20 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 05:01:59  o paid Agora 44 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:26:11  Gaelan paid Agora 23 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:54:41  P.S.S.[1] paid Agora 13 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:15:12  V.J Rada created a stamp for 1 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:27:23  grok created a stamp for 1 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 22:18:15  G. paid Agora 14 sh.
> Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:13:46  Gaelan paid Trigon 20 sh.
> Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:13:46  Gaelan paid Alexis 20 sh.
> Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:05:28  Agora paid Alexis 50 sh.
> Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:35:50  grok transferred a stamp (grok) to Agora
> Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:38:43  grok deregistered
> Thu, 28 Sep 2017 01:41:09  o paid Agora 1 sh.
> Fri, 29 Sep 2017 00:45:06  V.J Rada paid Agora 1 sh.
> Fri, 29 Sep 2017 00:45:06  Agora paid the Community Chest 1 sh.
> Fri, 29 Sep 2017 00:54:47  G. paid Gaelan 4 sh.
> Sat, 30 Sep 2017 12:39:18  Agora paid V.J Rada 5 sh.
> Sat, 30 Sep 2017 12:39:18  V.J Rada paid Agora 2 sh.
> Sat, 30 Sep 2017 12:39:18  V.J Rada paid the Community Chest 2 sh.
> Sun,  1 Oct 2017 14:57:04  P.S.S.[1] paid Agora 1 sh.
> Mon,  2 Oct 2017 00:08:16  Gaelan paid Agora 1 sh.
> Mon,  2 Oct 2017 01:19:38  Gaelan paid Agora 1 sh.
> Tue,  3 Oct 2017 21:29:09  Agora paid G. 5 sh.
> Tue,  3 Oct 2017 21:29:09  G. paid nichdel 5 sh.
> - time of last report -
> Wed,  4 Oct 2017 01:37:30  Agora paid o 15 sh.
> Wed,  4 Oct 2017 01:43:46  Agora paid G. 5 sh.
> Wed,  4 Oct 2017 01:49:02  Agora paid o 5 sh.
> Wed,  4 Oct 2017 04:27:27  V.J Rada destroyed a stamp (V.J Rada) for 27 sh.
> Wed,  4 Oct 2017 04:27:27  V.J Rada paid the Community Chest 13 sh.
> Wed,  4 Oct 2017 04:50:06  G. destroyed a stamp for 27 sh.
> Wed,  4 Oct 2017 19:18:13  Agora paid G. 5 sh.
> Wed,  4 Oct 2017 19:44:15  Agora paid Alexis 7 sh.
> Thu,  5 Oct 2017 01:07:32  P.S.S.[1] destroyed a stamp for 27 sh.
> Thu,  5 Oct 2017 01:47:41  o paid 天火狐 2 sh.
> Thu,  5 Oct 2017 01:47:41  o paid G. 2 sh.
> Thu,  5 Oct 2017 05:11:29  Agora paid o 5 sh.
>
> [1] In full, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus"
>
>
> Personal Lockouts: None
>
> Global Lockout: No
>
>
> Floating Value: 33
>
> Floating Derived Values:
>
> NameFormula Value
> -
> Pend Cost   1/20 * FV   2
> CFJ Cost1/20 * FV   2
> Authorship Reward   1/40 * FV   1
> Pend Reward 1/40 * FV   1
> CFJ Reward  1/20 * FV   2
> Stamp Value 1/5 * FV7
>
>
> Balances:
>
>   33 Shinies  Agora
>   16 Shinies  Community Chest
>1 Shinies  Organization
>1 ShiniesASaAA
>  950 Shinies  Player
>   51 ShiniesATMunn
>   57 ShiniesAlexis
>   32 ShiniesAris
>   65 ShiniesCuddleBeam
>   65 ShiniesG.
>4 ShiniesGaelan
>   50 ShiniesIenpw III
>   50 ShiniesK
>   50 ShiniesMurphy
>  120 ShiniesPublius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   50 ShiniesQuazie
>   20 ShiniesTrigon
>   55 ShiniesV.J Rada
>   50 Shiniesbayushi
>   17 Shiniesnichdel
>  107 Shinieso
>   50 Shiniesomd
>   57 Shinies天火狐
>
>
> Stamps:
>
> Made By  Owned By Qty
> -
> ais523   Agira  2
> grok Agora  1
> oAgora  1
> Aris Aris   1
> Gaelan   Gaelan 1
> Quazie   Quazie 1
> nichdel  nichdel2
> oo  1
> 天火狐天火狐  2
>
>
> Budgets:
>
> Player ACU  ASaAA  蘭亭社 Expenditure
> 
> nichdel50  50
> Murphy  50 50
> omd 

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

[Owen Jacobson]

> 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.

Is this two transactions, or one?

If it’s two transactions, then the attempt to pay Alexis failed - due to 
fallout from CFJ 3561, Gaelan did not actually have at least 40 sh. at that 
time.

If it’s one transaction, then both failed.

I’m going to account for it as two, since paying players this way is not part 
of some rules-defined compound action (and since Alexis subsequently claimed a 
welcome package anyways), but I’d be open to a CFJ if people feel strongly that 
this is the wrong resolution.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Idea: Regulations Impovement

[VJ Rada]

Title: Regulations for all
Author: VJ Rada
AI: 1
Create a power 1 rule called "Office Regulations" with the text
{{The holder of an office may promulgate regulations regarding the
performance of actions tracked by eir office or the performance of the
office's duties. These regulations are power 0.1, are INEFFECTIVE if
they are an abuse of power, and may be repealed by subsequent holders
of that office or by anyone with three support}}.

An issue with Regs: The rule for Regs says Regs are normally the power
of the rule authorizing them. However, Regs is only power 1.0 so
anything authorising Regs must be less than that.

---From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:07 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> If I have a stamp, depending on the gamestate, I destroy a stamp, gaining 27 
> shinies.

According to my records, after the resolution of CFJ 3561, you did have a stamp.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:20 AM Aris Merchant 
 wrote:

> CoE: I think I bought a stamp a few weeks ago when everything was cheap.

You did, on Sept. 5th.

2017-09-04 ! Aris created a stamp
Agora   4 Shinies
Player:Aris-4 Shinies
Player:Aris:Stamps:Aris 1 Stamps
Stamps:Aris-1 Stamps

That stamp is missing from the report because I had believed it to have been 
subsequently destroyed on Sept 7th.

2017-09-07 ! Gaelan destroyed all Stamps
   Player:Aris-1 Aris_Stamps=  0 
Aris_Stamps
   Stamps:Aris 1 Aris_Stamps=  0 
Aris_Stamps

However, PSS’ judgement on CFJ 3561 affects that. I’ll accept this CFJ formally 
in a moment, once I’m sure I’ve corrected for that change.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 12:27 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> how do i have so many? I had 63 last week, spent a lot, and don't
> remember a big payday.


It appears that I accidentally counted this transaction

On Sep 26, 2017, at 12:53 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> I have like 62 I think? I give Agora 20 shinies.

against Aris’ balance, not yours. Good catch.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: CFJ 361 judged TRUE (Was: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3561 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus)

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 2, 2017, at 6:42 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> TTttPF
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 6:41 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I find CFJ 3561 TRUE. I concur with the caller's arguments that while he was 
>> allowed to destroy the stamps, he was not capable of destroying the stamps.

In the process of sorting this out, I found that I had incorrectly noted that 
stamps had been destroyed when eir owner deregistered on two occasions. As 
such, there are more stamps in Agora’s possession than the reports presently 
account for. Since I’m revising the report anyways, I plan to resurrect them - 
since there’s no way to access Agora’s stamps, I don’t think it matters, but it 
makes the accounting a bit easier going forward.

I’ve made changes to my process for deregistrations to avoid this in the future.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

[Gaelan Steele]

Who did that?

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Dec 31, 2016, at 7:00 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> 
>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>> 
>>> "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self-ratifying 
>>> claim that the message was sent at the indicated time.”
>> 
>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:55 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> 
>>> Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to display 
>>> anomalous Date: headers.
>> 
>> For example, this message's Date: header claims that it was sent on Jan 1st, 
>> 2017.
> 
> There’s also a message in the agora-business archive bearing
> 
> Date: some time near the end of July
> 
> This doesn’t appear to be a forgery, but it would be complicated to ratify 
> such a date.
> 
> -o
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 21:52 Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:35 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> >
> > Nevermind, I think I had sent that when I didn't understand pf and
> such. Your report is just fine. I retract my CoE (if that's possible, idk
> if it is)
>
> It’s not. However, I could deny this CoE, though, and common convention is
> to deny a CoE if the claimant wants to withdraw it or no longer believes
> the error is present. Given the other two CoEs raised about the report, I’m
> going to publish a revision anyways, so it’s a moot point.
>
> It might be worth an experimental proposal to add withdrawal of CoEs, if
> you want. It’s a surprisingly interesting problem: a CoE stops a report
> from self-ratifying, but does withdrawing a CoE cause it to self-ratify on
> the original schedule? A new schedule? Never?
>
> -o
>

I believe that rule 2201 both makes clear you must explicitly deny the
claims, and explains what happens vis-a-vis self-ratification.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:35 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> 
> Nevermind, I think I had sent that when I didn't understand pf and such. 
> Your report is just fine. I retract my CoE (if that's possible, idk if it is)

It’s not. However, I could deny this CoE, though, and common convention is to 
deny a CoE if the claimant wants to withdraw it or no longer believes the error 
is present. Given the other two CoEs raised about the report, I’m going to 
publish a revision anyways, so it’s a moot point.

It might be worth an experimental proposal to add withdrawal of CoEs, if you 
want. It’s a surprisingly interesting problem: a CoE stops a report from 
self-ratifying, but does withdrawing a CoE cause it to self-ratify on the 
original schedule? A new schedule? Never?

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Dec 31, 2016, at 7:00 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> 
>> "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self-ratifying 
>> claim that the message was sent at the indicated time.”
> 
> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:55 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
>> Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to display 
>> anomalous Date: headers.
> 
> For example, this message's Date: header claims that it was sent on Jan 1st, 
> 2017.

There’s also a message in the agora-business archive bearing

Date: some time near the end of July

This doesn’t appear to be a forgery, but it would be complicated to ratify such 
a date.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: CFJ 361 judged TRUE (Was: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3561 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I don't believe this effects the idea of ratifying the purchase of shinies, but 
I do believe it does effect his action.

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



> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:21 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 6:42 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> TTttPF
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 6:41 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I find CFJ 3561 TRUE. I concur with the caller's arguments that while he 
>>> was allowed to destroy the stamps, he was not capable of destroying the 
>>> stamps.
>>> 
>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> Note that this has fairly far-reaching effects. I’ll account for it on next 
> week’s Secretary’s report, and note that the stamps info on this week’s 
> report is provisional. I don’t have the brainpower to correctly update the 
> record at this time.
> 
> -o
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

[Ørjan Johansen]

Actually my point (2) was my greater worry, not rules.  It implies that 
your ratification may be utterly meaningless for the purpose you made it 
for - it creates an agency with a legally tweaked age but changes nothing 
in the past that depended on whether it existed on that date.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


I ratify this:


{{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"}}


Don't worry about it affecting rules, it doesn't.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:

On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 09:24 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

[snip]

As others have mentioned, this kind of ratification has problems. The
system is designed to ratify _old documents_ with _simulated
retroactivity_ - not a _new_ document containing _retroactive claims_. I
see at least two issues:

(1) The impossibility of rule changes, that others have mentioned.
(2) It is really not obvious what
  "the gamestate is modified to what it would be
   if, at the time the ratified document was published, the
   gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified
   document as true and accurate as possible"
 means - what is a minimal change _at the time of publishing_ in
 order to achieve a retroactive claim _much earlier_?

In your case, the minimality in (2) might plausibly mean that it simply
changes "now" the state of the agency itself - but _none_ of the
intermediate side effects on other game state that are your real reason
for wanting to save it.


(2) has already been found to be a genuine issue that can prevent
ratifications working (and was the cause of a minor crisis in the
past); proposal 6930 (2 January 2011) was the fix proposal. Reading
posts from that time is likely to have relevant discussion. (I can't
find a relevant CFJ; that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't
one, of course, as searching old CFJs can be hard.)

--
ais523




--

From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 14:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I wasn't thinking implications beyond clearing up some ongoing
> confusion, which titles are more/less indicative of "bias"?

IIRC we changed the name explicitly to suggest that the new office
didn't work like the old one. So the relevant fact here would be
whether it matches an old office name or not.

> It *does* seem to imply that the database updating and the case
> assignment are merged, though if I drop the official Office again
> I'll keep the database up to date under whatever title is unused
> (unless the officeholder doesn't want me to).
> 
> To be clear, I am being somewhat biased in judicial assignments
> though I'm still avoiding clear conflicts of interest (my biases are
> mainly e.g. if it's an "economic" case, assigning people who are
> generally seem to be following the economy more).

I'm not sure I'd consider that a bias. Trying to assign cases to
appropriate judges is the opposite of bias, in a way. (Bias would be
assigning cases to /inappropriate/ judges to gain an advantage.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Proto (reclaiming old titles)
> > 
> >  Replace all instances of Arbitor with Clerk of the Courts (in some 
> > places,
> >  using the abbreviation CotC).
> > 
> >  Alternate:  Use Justiciar (another previsouly-used judicial position)
> 
> Does this mean that the Arbitor/CotC isn't supposed to be biased any
> more?
> 
> (Interestingly, the position has generally been played, and the general
> expectation on its holder has been, to treat it fairly even though the
> position was expressly not intended to be unbiased when created, and
> the rule defining it says as much.)

I wasn't thinking implications beyond clearing up some ongoing confusion,
which titles are more/less indicative of "bias"?

It *does* seem to imply that the database updating and the case assignment
are merged, though if I drop the official Office again I'll keep the
database up to date under whatever title is unused (unless the officeholder
doesn't want me to).

To be clear, I am being somewhat biased in judicial assignments though I'm
still avoiding clear conflicts of interest (my biases are mainly e.g. if it's
an "economic" case, assigning people who are generally seem to be following
the economy more).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 14:07 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Proto (reclaiming old titles)
> 
>  Replace all instances of Arbitor with Clerk of the Courts (in some 
> places,
>  using the abbreviation CotC).
> 
>  Alternate:  Use Justiciar (another previsouly-used judicial position)

Does this mean that the Arbitor/CotC isn't supposed to be biased any
more?

(Interestingly, the position has generally been played, and the general
expectation on its holder has been, to treat it fairly even though the
position was expressly not intended to be unbiased when created, and
the rule defining it says as much.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: 
> As G. submitted, grok voted "Endorse Aris" on Proposal 7899 and Aris voted 
> "Endorse the Arbitor". At all relevant times, G. was the Assessor and this
> is not in dispute.

As a side-note, several people (including me a few times) keep confusing
Arbitor with Assessor.  Here, it was done within a single paragraph.

Proto (reclaiming old titles)

 Replace all instances of Arbitor with Clerk of the Courts (in some places,
 using the abbreviation CotC).

 Alternate:  Use Justiciar (another previsouly-used judicial position)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: the real reward

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:04 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>   > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 18:12 Kerim Aydin  
> wrote:
>   >       I award myself a Transparent Ribbon.
>   >
>   >       (Ultraviolet, Platinum, Orange, Cyan, Blue).
>   >
>   >
>   > Unfortunately, I think this fails. Rule 2438 states:
>   >
>   >       Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on
>   >       which no valid votes were AGAINST, its proposer earns an Orange
>   >       Ribbon. 
>   >
>   > AGAINST is, however, always a valid vote on an Agoran decision to 
> adopt a proposal.
>   >
>   > I would be amenable to including a Transparent ribbon award in a fix 
> proposal, however.
> 
>   Sorry, but that's an absolutely absurd reading.  The verb "cast" is 
> clearly
>   and strongly implied there.
> 
>   There *were* no valid votes of AGAINST.  There were valid *options* of 
> against.
> 
> 
> Rule 955 does not define "valid option", it defines "valid vote"; Rule 217 
> implies that
> definitions in rules of equal or higher power *do* override common-sense 
> definitions. 
> As a result, the correct definition in rule 2438 is as defined by rule 955. 
> Note also 
> that 955 is very clear to distinguish between a 'ballot' and a 'vote' in a 
> way that some
> other rules do not; it seems to me to be the prescription of what the terms 
> mean.

Well ok, I'll walk back that it's an "absolutely absurd" reading, but I think,
looking at R955, it can still be read sensibly as "no options cast with valid
votes of AGAINST".

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:12 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> In writing a fix, it's worth noting that this breakage has been
> particularly noted
> in Instant Runoff elections, where people have been voting with ordered
> lists like
> (Endorse G., ais523, Alexis).  Given that "Endorse G." might be a list in
> itself,
> this has been very muddy in interpretation so needs fixing.
>

I wasn't aware of that; I'll attempt to fix.

The other big question in the fix is whether to figure out a way to ratify
> past
> endorsement-based trust tokens (hard to do since they're not tracked).
>

I am not sure if the self-ratification of a decision is enough for those.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:01 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>   Oh, crud.  Conditional votes broken entirely?  Maybe.
> 
>   For history, R2127 used to say in part:
>          The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified
>          if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified
>          condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity
>          or paradox, from information published within the voting period.
> 
>   This "clearly identified" was a direct and specific callback to "clearly
>   identified" in R683:
>           4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
>              the voting method.
> 
>   At some point "clearly identified" changed to "clearly specified" so
>   the link is much weaker (or broken, as Alexis suggests).  Does this
>   history of direct reference, later weakened, call for Reconsideration?
> 
>   -G.
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's what I ended up at. I think the actual issue here is the shift 
> from 
> "valid options" to "valid votes", and the tightening over time of the 
> language in 
> 683. I will try to propose a fix tonight that hopefully the Promotor can 
> include
> in this week's distribution.

In writing a fix, it's worth noting that this breakage has been particularly 
noted
in Instant Runoff elections, where people have been voting with ordered lists 
like
(Endorse G., ais523, Alexis).  Given that "Endorse G." might be a list in 
itself,
this has been very muddy in interpretation so needs fixing.

The other big question in the fix is whether to figure out a way to ratify past
endorsement-based trust tokens (hard to do since they're not tracked).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: the real reward

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:04 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 18:12 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >   I award myself a Transparent Ribbon.
> >
> >   (Ultraviolet, Platinum, Orange, Cyan, Blue).
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, I think this fails. Rule 2438 states:
> >
> >   Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on
> >   which no valid votes were AGAINST, its proposer earns an Orange
> >   Ribbon.
> >
> > AGAINST is, however, always a valid vote on an Agoran decision to adopt
> a proposal.
> >
> > I would be amenable to including a Transparent ribbon award in a fix
> proposal, however.
>
> Sorry, but that's an absolutely absurd reading.  The verb "cast" is clearly
> and strongly implied there.
>
> There *were* no valid votes of AGAINST.  There were valid *options* of
> against.
>

Rule 955 does not define "valid option", it defines "valid vote"; Rule 217
implies that definitions in rules of equal or higher power *do* override
common-sense definitions. As a result, the correct definition in rule 2438
is as defined by rule 955. Note also that 955 is very clear to distinguish
between a 'ballot' and a 'vote' in a way that some other rules do not; it
seems to me to be the prescription of what the terms mean.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:01 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> Oh, crud.  Conditional votes broken entirely?  Maybe.
>
> For history, R2127 used to say in part:
>The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified
>if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified
>condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity
>or paradox, from information published within the voting period.
>
> This "clearly identified" was a direct and specific callback to "clearly
> identified" in R683:
> 4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
>the voting method.
>
> At some point "clearly identified" changed to "clearly specified" so
> the link is much weaker (or broken, as Alexis suggests).  Does this
> history of direct reference, later weakened, call for Reconsideration?
>
> -G.
>

Yeah, that's what I ended up at. I think the actual issue here is the shift
from "valid options" to "valid votes", and the tightening over time of the
language in 683. I will try to propose a fix tonight that hopefully the
Promotor can include in this week's distribution.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: the real reward

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 18:12 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>   I award myself a Transparent Ribbon.
> 
>   (Ultraviolet, Platinum, Orange, Cyan, Blue).
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I think this fails. Rule 2438 states:
> 
>   Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on
>   which no valid votes were AGAINST, its proposer earns an Orange
>   Ribbon. 
> 
> AGAINST is, however, always a valid vote on an Agoran decision to adopt a 
> proposal.
> 
> I would be amenable to including a Transparent ribbon award in a fix 
> proposal, however.

Sorry, but that's an absolutely absurd reading.  The verb "cast" is clearly
and strongly implied there.

There *were* no valid votes of AGAINST.  There were valid *options* of against.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> How does this line up with conditional votes? Rule 2127 defines:
> 
>   If a vote on an Agoran decision is submitted conditionally (e.g.
>   "FOR if  is true, otherwise AGAINST"), then the selected
>   option is evaluated based on the value of the condition(s) at
>   the end of the voting period, and, rules to the contrary
>   notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the value
>   of the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting
>   period.  If the option cannot be clearly identified, a vote of
>   PRESENT is cast.
> 
>   Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to
>   conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most
>   common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that
>   decision.
> 
> This presents some difficulty, as Rule 2127 does not actually expand the 
> definition 
> of a valid vote provided in Rule 955. As a result, a conditional vote cannot 
> be 
> considered to be a valid vote at the time that it is cast, although Rule 2127
> indicates that it is evaluated to one at the end of the voting period.

Oh, crud.  Conditional votes broken entirely?  Maybe.

For history, R2127 used to say in part:
   The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified
   if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified
   condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity
   or paradox, from information published within the voting period.

This "clearly identified" was a direct and specific callback to "clearly
identified" in R683:
4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
   the voting method.

At some point "clearly identified" changed to "clearly specified" so
the link is much weaker (or broken, as Alexis suggests).  Does this
history of direct reference, later weakened, call for Reconsideration?

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: the real reward

[Alexis Hunt]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 18:12 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> I award myself a Transparent Ribbon.
>
> (Ultraviolet, Platinum, Orange, Cyan, Blue).
>

Unfortunately, I think this fails. Rule 2438 states:

  Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on
  which no valid votes were AGAINST, its proposer earns an Orange
  Ribbon.

AGAINST is, however, always a valid vote on an Agoran decision to
adopt a proposal.

I would be amenable to including a Transparent ribbon award in a fix
proposal, however.

-Alexis

DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Aris Merchant]

CoE: I think I bought a stamp a few weeks ago when everything was cheap.

-Aris

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:35 PM Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> As Secretary, I flip the Floating Value to 132.
>
> Secretary's Weekly Report
>
> Date of this report: Wed,  3 Oct 2017
> Date of last report: Tue, 26 Sep 2017
>
> Recent events (all times UTC):
>
> Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:22:23  Agora paid o 15 sh.
> Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:22:23  Agora paid K 50 sh.
> Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:27:39  CuddleBeam destroyed a CuddleBeam stamp
> Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:27:39  Agora paid CuddleBeam 23 sh.
> Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:27:39  CuddleBeam paid Agora 68 sh.
> Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:31:02  CuddleBeam paid Agora 1 sh.
> Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:31:02  Agora paid CuddleBeam 50 sh.
> Tue, 12 Sep 2017 17:30:50  Agora paid nichdel 5 sh.
> Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:56:58  Agora paid o 6 sh.
> Wed, 13 Sep 2017 04:08:34  CuddleBeam paid o 2 sh.
> Wed, 13 Sep 2017 18:59:18  Agora paid 天火狐 5 sh.
> Wed, 13 Sep 2017 19:03:40  Aris paid 天火狐 5 sh.
> Thu, 14 Sep 2017 22:14:17  o paid 天火狐 2 sh.
> Fri, 15 Sep 2017 21:52:11  Veggiekeks and babelien deregistered
> - previous report -
> Wed, 20 Sep 2017 06:11:50  Agora paid o 15 sh.
> Wed, 20 Sep 2017 06:16:18  Agora paid V.J Rada 50 sh.
> Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:02:57  Agora paid 天火狐 5 sh.
> Thu, 21 Sep 2017 19:32:10  Quazie paid ATMunn 1 sh.
> Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:36:08  o paid 天火狐 2 sh.
> Fri, 22 Sep 2017 14:01:12  Agora paid ATMunn 50 sh.
> Sun, 24 Sep 2017 02:23:32  Agora paid V.J Rada 5 sh.
> Sun, 24 Sep 2017 21:02:28  Agora paid P.S.S.[1] 5 sh.
> - time of last report -
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 03:49:30  V.J Rada paid Agora 1 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 03:59:47  o destroyed Agoran Betting Market
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 04:41:59  Aris paid Agora 16 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 04:53:22  V.J Rada paid Agora 20 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 05:01:59  o paid Agora 44 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 06:26:11  Gaelan paid Agora 23 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:54:41  P.S.S.[1] paid Agora 13 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:15:12  V.J Rada created a stamp for 1 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:27:23  grok created a stamp for 1 sh.
> Tue, 26 Sep 2017 22:18:15  G. paid Agora 14 sh.
> Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:13:46  Gaelan paid Trigon 20 sh.
> Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:13:46  Gaelan paid Alexis 20 sh.
> Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:05:28  Agora paid Alexis 50 sh.
> Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:35:50  grok transferred a stamp (grok) to Agora
> Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:38:43  grok deregistered
> Thu, 28 Sep 2017 01:41:09  o paid Agora 1 sh.
> Fri, 29 Sep 2017 00:45:06  V.J Rada paid Agora 1 sh.
> Fri, 29 Sep 2017 00:45:06  Agora paid the Community Chest 1 sh.
> Fri, 29 Sep 2017 00:54:47  G. paid Gaelan 4 sh.
> Sat, 30 Sep 2017 12:39:18  Agora paid V.J Rada 5 sh.
> Sat, 30 Sep 2017 12:39:18  V.J Rada paid Agora 2 sh.
> Sat, 30 Sep 2017 12:39:18  V.J Rada paid the Community Chest 2 sh.
> Sun,  1 Oct 2017 14:57:04  P.S.S.[1] paid Agora 1 sh.
> Mon,  2 Oct 2017 00:08:16  Gaelan paid Agora 1 sh.
> Mon,  2 Oct 2017 01:19:38  Gaelan paid Agora 1 sh.
> Tue,  3 Oct 2017 21:29:09  Agora paid G. 5 sh.
> Tue,  3 Oct 2017 21:29:09  G. paid nichdel 5 sh.
>
> [1] In full, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus"
>
>
> Personal Lockouts: None
>
> Global Lockout: No
>
>
> Floating Value: 132
>
> Floating Derived Values:
>
> NameFormula Value
> -
> Pend Cost   1/20 * FV   7
> CFJ Cost1/20 * FV   7
> Authorship Reward   1/40 * FV   4
> Pend Reward 1/40 * FV   4
> CFJ Reward  1/20 * FV   7
> Stamp Value 1/5 * FV   27
>
>
> Balances:
>
>  132 Shinies  Agora
>3 Shinies  Community Chest
>1 Shinies  Organization
>1 ShiniesASaAA
>  864 Shinies  Player
>   51 ShiniesATMunn
>   70 ShiniesAlexis
>   12 ShiniesAris
>   65 ShiniesCuddleBeam
>   26 ShiniesG.
>8 ShiniesGaelan
>   50 ShiniesIenpw III
>   50 ShiniesK
>   50 ShiniesMurphy
>   93 ShiniesPublius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   50 ShiniesQuazie
>   20 ShiniesTrigon
>   61 ShiniesV.J Rada
>   50 Shiniesbayushi
>   17 Shiniesnichdel
>   86 Shinieso
>   50 Shiniesomd
>   55 Shinies天火狐
>
>
> Stamps:
>
> The following table is provisional, and may not reflect a recent CFJ.
>
> Made By  Owned By Qty
> -
> CuddleBeam   CuddleBeam 1
> G.   G. 1
> Gaelan   Gaelan 1
> grok Agora  1
> Quazie   Quazie 1
> V.J Rada V.J Rada   1
> 天火狐天火狐  1
>
>
> Budgets:
>
> Player ABM  ACU  ASaAA  蘭亭社 Expenditure
> -
> nichdel 50  50
> Murphy   50 50
> omd  20   

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Gaelan Steele]

Yeah, I just put out an intent to kill the agency. :)

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 7:14 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 01:13 Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so 
>> that the HLR works better.
> 
> Opposed to this. 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 01:13 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so
> that the HLR works better.
>

Opposed to this.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[ATMunn .]

CoE: A while back I paid Agora 17 shinies, in response to a request someone
made for everyone to give 1/3 of their shinies to Agora. I don't see this
in the report.
(Or, did I send that to the wrong forum?)

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > I destroy my stamp, getting 27 shinies. I transfer 13 shinies to the
> > Community Chest.
>
> Ooh, thanks for the reminder.  I destroy my stamp, getting 27 shinies.
> -G.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

[Kerim Aydin]

That doesn't do it.  Agency and agency actions are defined by the rules.  Saying
this excludes a specific instance of an agency is like saying "since the rules 
don't define
the exact amount of shinies in your possession, shiny transfers aren't entirely
defined by the rules."

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I have the “action defined entirely by the rules” clause in there for exactly 
> this reason.
> Gaelan
> 
>   On Oct 4, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Agency:
> Director: Conspirator 1
> Agent: Conspirator 2
> Text: If Agora has more than 10,000 shinies, the power to transfer 1 shiny 
> from Conspirator 1 to Conspirator 2.
> 
> -Aris   
> 
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:59 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   Remember that intent can be posted before conditions are true, and
>   last 14 days.  If I post staggered intents (first ones before this is 
> adopted),
>   then any time the economy goes low I can get a win instantly.
> 
>   On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>   > Fair enough. I’ll put out a revised version once I give everyone else 
> a chance to give feedback.
>   >
>   >       On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
>   >
>   > I'd just make it With Notice. Seems fair to give people some more 
> time to attempt a fix.
>   >
>   > -Aris
>   >
>   > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:52 PM VJ Rada  wrote:
>   >       Yup, the speaker can stop the amendment or creation of any 
> agency.
>   >       Quazie could have stopped me much easier.
>   >
>   >       On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Gaelan Steele 
>  wrote:
>   >       > Wait, the speaker can object to Notice? I’m not sure how I 
> feel about that.
>   >       >
>   >       > On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:41 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>  wrote:
>   >       >
>   >       >
>   >       >
>   >       > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>   >       >
>   >       > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:44 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>   >       >
>   >       > I create this proposal and pend it with AP:
>   >       >
>   >       > ---
>   >       > Name: Another Economy Fix Attempt
>   >       > Author: Gaelan
>   >       > AI: 1.0
>   >       >
>   >       > Create a power-1 rule titled "Keep it up" with the following 
> text:
>   >       > ===
>   >       > If an action defined entirely by the rules that would 
> otherwise be
>   >       > POSSIBLE for a player to perform is IMPOSSIBLE due to Agora 
> having a
>   >       > low shiny balance, that player may win the game with 2 Days 
> Notice.
>   >       > Upon doing so, half of all player's shiny balances (rounded 
> down) are
>   >       > transferred to Agora.
>   >       > ===
>   >       > ---
>   >       >
>   >       >
>   >       > I don't think 2 Days Notice is a real sort of dependent action
>   >       > (although it might be ruled to work anyway via 
> natural-language
>   >       > definitions).
>   >       >
>   >       >
>   >       > With T notice where t is time is defined in R1728.
>   >       > In other news, I use my magic speaker objection to object to 
> your
>   >       > intent to win.
>   >       >
>   >       >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >       --
>   >       From V.J. Rada
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 23:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Yup.  It only pauses it for 48 hours though, so in current context
> > useless unless I keep renewing it, and it's been around a while.
> 
> Is it even possible to object to the same intent twice? Rule 2124 used
> to use "objector" which is precisely defined, and still does in most
> cases. However, the new Speaker clause uses "objected" which isn't
> precisely defined, and the addition of a time limit makes it unclear
> exactly how it works. (Note that whatever objecting is, it definitely
> /isn't/ an action by announcement; it might or might not be related to
> posting an objection, which also isn't an action by announcement, but
> we normally treat an "I object" announcement as being an objection.)

I think my recent judgement of 3567 implies that "objecting" as a natural 
speech act can be done multiple times, though only the first time labels you as
an "objector" (it makes the point that it's not a by-announcement action).
Same with announcing intent.  Though since it wasn't a direct question 
from the CFJ statement, 3567 is likely supporting but not final word
on this.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3568 assigned to o

[VJ Rada]

I would like to direct you to CFJ 3551 in which  you indirectly held
that "I COE this for no reason" was a valid CoE.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:16 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 1, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
 I CFJ (with AP): in the below-quoted message, V.J. Rada issued a claim of 
 error.
>>>
>>>
>>> This above CFJ statement is CFJ 3568.  I assign it to o.
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Caller's Arguments (from Discussion):
>>>
>>> VJ's message does not explain the scope and nature of the perceived
>>> error, as required by rule 2201 to make a claim of error.
>>>
>>> 
>>
>> I find this CFJ to be TRUE, following the caller’s arguments exactly. The 
>> alleged claim of error was
>>
>>> CoE this is bugging me.
>>
>> Sent in response to an attempt to collect a report award, and without any 
>> trivially obvious error in either the reward attempt or the report, this is 
>> insufficient for a claim of error.
>
> I file a Motion to Reconsider this judgement, and re-issue judgement as below:
>
> I find this CFJ to be FALSE, following the caller’s arguments exactly. The 
> alleged claim of error was
>
>> CoE this is bugging me.
>
> Sent in response to an attempt to collect a report award, and without any 
> trivially obvious error in either the reward attempt or the report, this is 
> insufficient for a claim of error.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

[Aris Merchant]

You're right, I'm tired. That would almost certainly work. It might not, in
the basis that transferring shinies is defined by the rules, but I think
that argument in unlikely to succeed.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:07 AM Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I have the “action defined entirely by the rules” clause in there for
> exactly this reason.
>
> Gaelan
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Agency:
> Director: Conspirator 1
> Agent: Conspirator 2
> Text: If Agora has more than 10,000 shinies, the power to transfer 1 shiny
> from Conspirator 1 to Conspirator 2.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:59 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Remember that intent can be posted before conditions are true, and
>> last 14 days.  If I post staggered intents (first ones before this is
>> adopted),
>> then any time the economy goes low I can get a win instantly.
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> > Fair enough. I’ll put out a revised version once I give everyone else a
>> chance to give feedback.
>> >
>> >   On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd just make it With Notice. Seems fair to give people some more time
>> to attempt a fix.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:52 PM VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >   Yup, the speaker can stop the amendment or creation of any agency.
>> >   Quazie could have stopped me much easier.
>> >
>> >   On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Gaelan Steele 
>> wrote:
>> >   > Wait, the speaker can object to Notice? I’m not sure how I feel
>> about that.
>> >   >
>> >   > On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <
>> ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >   >
>> >   >
>> >   >
>> >   > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> >   >
>> >   > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:44 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> >   >
>> >   > I create this proposal and pend it with AP:
>> >   >
>> >   > ---
>> >   > Name: Another Economy Fix Attempt
>> >   > Author: Gaelan
>> >   > AI: 1.0
>> >   >
>> >   > Create a power-1 rule titled "Keep it up" with the following
>> text:
>> >   > ===
>> >   > If an action defined entirely by the rules that would otherwise
>> be
>> >   > POSSIBLE for a player to perform is IMPOSSIBLE due to Agora
>> having a
>> >   > low shiny balance, that player may win the game with 2 Days
>> Notice.
>> >   > Upon doing so, half of all player's shiny balances (rounded
>> down) are
>> >   > transferred to Agora.
>> >   > ===
>> >   > ---
>> >   >
>> >   >
>> >   > I don't think 2 Days Notice is a real sort of dependent action
>> >   > (although it might be ruled to work anyway via natural-language
>> >   > definitions).
>> >   >
>> >   >
>> >   > With T notice where t is time is defined in R1728.
>> >   > In other news, I use my magic speaker objection to object to
>> your
>> >   > intent to win.
>> >   >
>> >   >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >   --
>> >   From V.J. Rada
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

[Gaelan Steele]

I have the “action defined entirely by the rules” clause in there for exactly 
this reason.

Gaelan

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Agency:
> Director: Conspirator 1
> Agent: Conspirator 2
> Text: If Agora has more than 10,000 shinies, the power to transfer 1 shiny 
> from Conspirator 1 to Conspirator 2.
> 
> -Aris   
> 
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:59 PM Kerim Aydin  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Remember that intent can be posted before conditions are true, and
> last 14 days.  If I post staggered intents (first ones before this is 
> adopted),
> then any time the economy goes low I can get a win instantly.
> 
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > Fair enough. I’ll put out a revised version once I give everyone else a 
> > chance to give feedback.
> >
> >   On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant 
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > I'd just make it With Notice. Seems fair to give people some more time to 
> > attempt a fix.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:52 PM VJ Rada  > > wrote:
> >   Yup, the speaker can stop the amendment or creation of any agency.
> >   Quazie could have stopped me much easier.
> >
> >   On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Gaelan Steele  > > wrote:
> >   > Wait, the speaker can object to Notice? I’m not sure how I feel 
> > about that.
> >   >
> >   > On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  > > wrote:
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> >   >
> >   > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:44 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >   >
> >   > I create this proposal and pend it with AP:
> >   >
> >   > ---
> >   > Name: Another Economy Fix Attempt
> >   > Author: Gaelan
> >   > AI: 1.0
> >   >
> >   > Create a power-1 rule titled "Keep it up" with the following text:
> >   > ===
> >   > If an action defined entirely by the rules that would otherwise be
> >   > POSSIBLE for a player to perform is IMPOSSIBLE due to Agora having a
> >   > low shiny balance, that player may win the game with 2 Days Notice.
> >   > Upon doing so, half of all player's shiny balances (rounded down) 
> > are
> >   > transferred to Agora.
> >   > ===
> >   > ---
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > I don't think 2 Days Notice is a real sort of dependent action
> >   > (although it might be ruled to work anyway via natural-language
> >   > definitions).
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > With T notice where t is time is defined in R1728.
> >   > In other news, I use my magic speaker objection to object to your
> >   > intent to win.
> >   >
> >   >
> >
> >
> >
> >   --
> >   From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
> >
> >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 23:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Yup.  It only pauses it for 48 hours though, so in current context
> useless unless I keep renewing it, and it's been around a while.

Is it even possible to object to the same intent twice? Rule 2124 used
to use "objector" which is precisely defined, and still does in most
cases. However, the new Speaker clause uses "objected" which isn't
precisely defined, and the addition of a time limit makes it unclear
exactly how it works. (Note that whatever objecting is, it definitely
/isn't/ an action by announcement; it might or might not be related to
posting an objection, which also isn't an action by announcement, but
we normally treat an "I object" announcement as being an objection.)

> But I've thought of about 3 ways to win using this, which I'll keep
> to myself since you've proposed this already (and combo of assessor
> and ability to speaker-delay others' notices means I have a pretty
> big advantage trying it).

This doesn't surprise me at all. As we learned from the whole Open It
Up situation, when a scam's this obvious, it's typically the Assessor
who ends up with it, and it would generally be better all round to just
not pass the proposal in the first place.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

[Aris Merchant]

Agency:
Director: Conspirator 1
Agent: Conspirator 2
Text: If Agora has more than 10,000 shinies, the power to transfer 1 shiny
from Conspirator 1 to Conspirator 2.

-Aris

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:59 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Remember that intent can be posted before conditions are true, and
> last 14 days.  If I post staggered intents (first ones before this is
> adopted),
> then any time the economy goes low I can get a win instantly.
>
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > Fair enough. I’ll put out a revised version once I give everyone else a
> chance to give feedback.
> >
> >   On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'd just make it With Notice. Seems fair to give people some more time
> to attempt a fix.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:52 PM VJ Rada  wrote:
> >   Yup, the speaker can stop the amendment or creation of any agency.
> >   Quazie could have stopped me much easier.
> >
> >   On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Gaelan Steele 
> wrote:
> >   > Wait, the speaker can object to Notice? I’m not sure how I feel
> about that.
> >   >
> >   > On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:41 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> >   >
> >   > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:44 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >   >
> >   > I create this proposal and pend it with AP:
> >   >
> >   > ---
> >   > Name: Another Economy Fix Attempt
> >   > Author: Gaelan
> >   > AI: 1.0
> >   >
> >   > Create a power-1 rule titled "Keep it up" with the following
> text:
> >   > ===
> >   > If an action defined entirely by the rules that would otherwise
> be
> >   > POSSIBLE for a player to perform is IMPOSSIBLE due to Agora
> having a
> >   > low shiny balance, that player may win the game with 2 Days
> Notice.
> >   > Upon doing so, half of all player's shiny balances (rounded
> down) are
> >   > transferred to Agora.
> >   > ===
> >   > ---
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > I don't think 2 Days Notice is a real sort of dependent action
> >   > (although it might be ruled to work anyway via natural-language
> >   > definitions).
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > With T notice where t is time is defined in R1728.
> >   > In other news, I use my magic speaker objection to object to your
> >   > intent to win.
> >   >
> >   >
> >
> >
> >
> >   --
> >   From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Another Economy Fix Attempt

[Kerim Aydin]

Remember that intent can be posted before conditions are true, and 
last 14 days.  If I post staggered intents (first ones before this is adopted),
then any time the economy goes low I can get a win instantly.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Fair enough. I’ll put out a revised version once I give everyone else a 
> chance to give feedback.
> 
>   On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'd just make it With Notice. Seems fair to give people some more time to 
> attempt a fix.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:52 PM VJ Rada  wrote:
>   Yup, the speaker can stop the amendment or creation of any agency.
>   Quazie could have stopped me much easier.
> 
>   On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>   > Wait, the speaker can object to Notice? I’m not sure how I feel about 
> that.
>   >
>   > On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  
> wrote:
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>   >
>   > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:44 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>   >
>   > I create this proposal and pend it with AP:
>   >
>   > ---
>   > Name: Another Economy Fix Attempt
>   > Author: Gaelan
>   > AI: 1.0
>   >
>   > Create a power-1 rule titled "Keep it up" with the following text:
>   > ===
>   > If an action defined entirely by the rules that would otherwise be
>   > POSSIBLE for a player to perform is IMPOSSIBLE due to Agora having a
>   > low shiny balance, that player may win the game with 2 Days Notice.
>   > Upon doing so, half of all player's shiny balances (rounded down) are
>   > transferred to Agora.
>   > ===
>   > ---
>   >
>   >
>   > I don't think 2 Days Notice is a real sort of dependent action
>   > (although it might be ruled to work anyway via natural-language
>   > definitions).
>   >
>   >
>   > With T notice where t is time is defined in R1728.
>   > In other news, I use my magic speaker objection to object to your
>   > intent to win.
>   >
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>   --
>   From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> 
>