DIS: Proto: Controlled, Regular Inflation

[Aris Merchant]

Title: Controlled, Regular Inflation
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s):


Amend Rule 2487, "Shiny Supply Level", by appending the following to the end
of the rule:

  No more than once per quarter since the third quarter of 2017, the Secretary
  CAN Print Money, causing the following procedure to be carried out:

  1. This rule to amends itself, increasing the Supply Level by 250.
  [Add other steps here, if anyone has any suggestions. Quarterly taxes are
  one possibility.]

If it is an instant before the quarter ends or the floating value goes below 10
shinies, and e is otherwise able to Print Money, the Secretary SHALL Print
Money.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Gaelan Steele]

wrapping*

> On Oct 8, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> indenting

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Gaelan Steele]

For the record, I’ve been re-wrapping rules as I touch them. Looking at the 
ruleset now, however, I’m not sure if I’ve been indenting to the right width…

By the way: does anybody know of a markdown-aware automatic line wrapper? I’ve 
been using a combination of manual wrapping for lists and such and sublime’s 
wrap command, and it is quite time-consuming.

Gaelan

> On Oct 8, 2017, at 9:56 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> 7920*  Gaelan, Aris  1.0  The Lint Screen v2   Gaelan  1 sh.
>> AGAINST.  Not a fan, and I'm not voting for this when the biggest "error"
>> continues to be breaking a 20+ year indentation format by the Rulekeepor.
> 
> I really meant to put a smiley on the end of that Gaelan.  Came out sounding
> annoyed, not *too* bothered just pulling your leg a little
> 
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:45 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >   "If a person would otherwise win the game, but e, within the last
> month, broke
> >   the rules to do so, or another person, within the last month, broke
> the rules
> >   to help em win, with eir advance knowledge, and this fact is publicly
> >   announced within a week, the win is retroactively invalidated.
>
> Can we put Win by Paradox back?  Because I've thought of a way to do it if
> this is adopted.


Write the rule and I'll put it in my proposal, assuming it seems
reasonable.

-Aris

>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 7920*  Gaelan, Aris  1.0  The Lint Screen v2   Gaelan  1 sh.
> AGAINST.  Not a fan, and I'm not voting for this when the biggest "error"
> continues to be breaking a 20+ year indentation format by the Rulekeepor.

I really meant to put a smiley on the end of that Gaelan.  Came out sounding
annoyed, not *too* bothered just pulling your leg a little

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>   "If a person would otherwise win the game, but e, within the last month, 
> broke
>   the rules to do so, or another person, within the last month, broke the 
> rules
>   to help em win, with eir advance knowledge, and this fact is publicly
>   announced within a week, the win is retroactively invalidated.

Can we put Win by Paradox back?  Because I've thought of a way to do it if
this is adopted.

DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

[Aris Merchant]

Title: Crime Improvements v2
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors:


Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any rules
created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
have been removed before this proposal's resolution.

Amend Rule 2449, "Winning the Game", by appending

  "If a person would otherwise win the game, but e, within the last month, broke
  the rules to do so, or another person, within the last month, broke the rules
  to help em win, with eir advance knowledge, and this fact is publicly
  announced within a week, the win is retroactively invalidated.

as a new paragraph at the end of the rule.

Amend Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", by appending ", CRIME" after "PROHIBITED".

Create a new power 2.0 rule entitled "Being an Accessory", with the following
text:

  A person SHALL NOT deliberately, by eir explicit, positive, and restricted
  action aid, abet, or induce the violation of the rules by another person; when
  e does so, e commits the Class-3 Crime of Being an Accessory. A person never
  is never an accessory if e is the only one participating in the violation.

[The Class-3 bit means it's generally fairly minor, and may become more useful
when we reenact a more thorough criminal system.]

[Credit to 18 U.S.C. §2 for some of that phrasing. Yes, I know I'm conflating
aiding and abetting with conspiracy, but the difference is unimportant for our
purposes.]

DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v3

[Aris Merchant]

Title: Conditionals and Determinacy v3
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s):

Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Determinacy", with the
following text:

  A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement
  affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate (the substrate), or the
  permissibility or possibility of any action affecting such a part or aspect,
  dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual structure
  (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the substrate
  (inverse "to be conditional upon").

  A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
  inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
  unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an unreasonable
  effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is inextricable if
  its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player SHOULD NOT
  use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.

  If a restricted value, or the value of a conditional, or a value otherwise
  required to determine the outcome of a restricted action, CANNOT be reasonably
  determined (without circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
  available, or if it alternates instantaneously and indefinitely between
  values, then the value is considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is
  determinate.

  If an action would, as part of its effect, make a restricted value
  indeterminate, it is void and without effect unless it is explicitly permitted
  to do so by a rule; this restriction should be interpreted in accordance
  with existing precedent, and this rule defers to judicial discretion and
  game custom.

Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditional Announcements", with the following
text:

  A player SHALL NOT deliberately make an action taken by announcement
  conditional on an inextricable condition, and any such conditional is
  INVALID, and its substrate void and without effect; these restrictions should
  be interpreted in accordance with existing precedent, and this rule defers to
  judicial discretion and game custom.

  Extricable conditionals do not necessarily fail; however, they must be
  reasonably resolvable given complete knowledge of the gamestate at the time
  the message takes effect. This knowledge CAN require interpretation of data
  in non-trivial ways (e.g. interpretation requiring CFJs), but such
  interpretation must be achievable without absurd effort. No by-announcement
  conditional may ever be conditional upon information which cannot be deduced
  from the knowable gamestate at the time the message takes effect, nor can
  such conditionals ever change the time the message takes effect.

  Loops are generally viable, subject to the above restrictions. However,
  long loops used abusively may fail, at the discretion of a judge; the
  presumption is in favor of the loop being successful.

  This rule is intended as a codification and clarification of existing
  precedent. It does not attempt to overrule existing precedents, but only to
  make explicit the principles by which its subject matter is to be understood.

Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Action Rationality", with the following text:

  An irrational action is one that is either deliberately and
malisoally hidden from view
  inside a larger message (e.g. a report) or contains excessive repetitions
  or complex loops that make the message unreasonably hard to comprehend or
  respond to; all other actions are rational.

  A player SHALL not take an irrational by announcement action, and any such
  actions fail.

Amend Rule 1023, "Common Definitions", by removing the third item of the
top level list, and renumbering appropriately.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

[Kerim Aydin]

oh I read "as PM" as "for PM" carry on.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> This is my vote for ADoP. I voted for myself as PM, and only once.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > You only have one vote anyway:
> >The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting  strength is
> >increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than a elections of
> >the Prime Minister.
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> I retract any votes for ADoP and vote Alexis.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:27 VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I have two ballots as PM. I cast one ballot of {Alexis, VJ Rada} and
> >> >> one ballot of {VJ Rada, Alexis}
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >> >> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:20 VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> For PM I vote myself. For ADoP I vote Alexis x 1 and myself x 1.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > NttPF. Also I think the ordering of your ADoP vote might be slightly
> >> >> > ambiguous?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The voting rules only allow for one ballot per voter (Rule 683). Each 
> >> > ballot
> >> > has a strength equal to its voters' strength (Rule 955), but the voter 
> >> > can't
> >> > move it around.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

[VJ Rada]

This is my vote for ADoP. I voted for myself as PM, and only once.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> You only have one vote anyway:
>The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting  strength is
>increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than a elections of
>the Prime Minister.
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> I retract any votes for ADoP and vote Alexis.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:27 VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I have two ballots as PM. I cast one ballot of {Alexis, VJ Rada} and
>> >> one ballot of {VJ Rada, Alexis}
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:20 VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For PM I vote myself. For ADoP I vote Alexis x 1 and myself x 1.
>> >> >
>> >> > NttPF. Also I think the ordering of your ADoP vote might be slightly
>> >> > ambiguous?
>> >
>> >
>> > The voting rules only allow for one ballot per voter (Rule 683). Each 
>> > ballot
>> > has a strength equal to its voters' strength (Rule 955), but the voter 
>> > can't
>> > move it around.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

[Kerim Aydin]

You only have one vote anyway:
   The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting  strength is
   increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than a elections of
   the Prime Minister.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I retract any votes for ADoP and vote Alexis.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:27 VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>
> >> I have two ballots as PM. I cast one ballot of {Alexis, VJ Rada} and
> >> one ballot of {VJ Rada, Alexis}
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:20 VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> For PM I vote myself. For ADoP I vote Alexis x 1 and myself x 1.
> >> >
> >> > NttPF. Also I think the ordering of your ADoP vote might be slightly
> >> > ambiguous?
> >
> >
> > The voting rules only allow for one ballot per voter (Rule 683). Each ballot
> > has a strength equal to its voters' strength (Rule 955), but the voter can't
> > move it around.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Gaelan Steele]

You didn’t vote on lint screen, but did vote on two proposals still in the pool.

> On Oct 8, 2017, at 9:10 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Silly season: FORx2
> No Lockout: FORx2
> What is a rulekeepor: AGAINSTx2
> Infinite Money Fix: FORx2
> Election Campaigns: FORx2
> Cheer up v7: AGAINSTx2. Along with Organisations, Estates, Comestibles
> and Regulations, this would add another mechanic making the rules just
> slightly longer than they need to be but is never used.
> SFDVP: PRESENT x2, no idea what this fixes sorry. wasn't paying attention.
> Pro Pace: PRESENT x2. cannot bring myself to care about this debate
> even slightly
> Banking: AGAINST x2: Yeah this isn't getting used.
> Vacant Dep. Fix: FOR x2
> Passive Income: FORx2
> Slower Promotion: AGAINST x2
> Guarenteed Stampage: FOR x2
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
>> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
>> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
>> quorum is 5.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
>> also a valid vote).
>> 
>> 
>> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend fee
>> ---
>> 7908*  G.1.0  Silly season G.  OP [1]
>> 7909*  G.1.2  No Lockout   G.  OP [1]
>> 7910*  G.1.0  What is a rulekeepor G.  OP [1]
>> 7911*  V.J. Rada 1.0  Infinite Money Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
>> 7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP [2]
>> 7913*  ATMunn1.0  Cheer Up v7? ATMunn  1 AP
>> 7914*  o 1.0  SFDVP [3]o   1 AP
>> 7915*  CuddleBeam1.0  Terrifying Proposals Reward  CuddleBeam  1 AP
>> 7916*  Aris, o, G.   1.0  Pro Pace v2  Aris1 AP
>> 7917*  P.S.S. [4], o 3.0  Banking  P.S.S. [4]  1 sh.
>> 7918*  P.S.S. [4]3.0  Vacant Deputisation Fix  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
>> 7919*  P.S.S. [4]2.0  YSUIII. [5]  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
>> 7920*  Gaelan, Aris  1.0  The Lint Screen v2   Gaelan  1 sh.
>> 7921*  o, G. 2.0  Passive Income   o   1 AP
>> 
>> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
>> 
>> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
>> ---
>> pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
>> pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
>> 
>> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
>> 
>> [1] Official Proposal, inherently pending
>> [2] There is some debate over whether this was actually pended twice, each
>> attempt consuming 1 AP. This value is therefore provisional.
>> [3] Stamp Floating Derived Value Patch
>> [4] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> [5] You SHALL, unless it is ILLEGAL.
>> 
>> In order to reduce confusion, the shiny pend price is being removed from this
>> report. A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating Value
>> in shines (see the Secretary's report).
>> 
>> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
>> 
>> //
>> ID: 7908
>> Title: Silly season
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>> Author: G.
>> Co-authors:
>> Official Proposal
>> 
>> 
>> Re-enact Rule 1650 (Silliness) with the following text:
>> 
>>  Each Nomic Week a Player is designated the Silly Person.  The Silly Person
>>  SHALL in that week, by announcement (1) designate another player, who has 
>> not
>>  been the Silly Person in the past two weeks, to be the next week's Silly
>>  Person; (2) submit a Silly Proposal.  If there is ever no Silly Person or 
>> the
>>  Silly Person is not a player, then the next week's Silly Person is the first
>>  player that any player publicly designates to be the next week's Silly 
>> Person.
>> 
>>  A Silly Proposal is a Proposal whose sole contents are one of
>>  the following:
>>i) A limerick.
>>   ii) A rhymed poem no longer than fourteen lines. (No free
>>   verse!)
>>  iii) A joke of no more than a hundred words.
>>   iv) A truly hideous pun.
>> 
>>  The first Silly Proposal submitted by the week's Silly Person is an Official
>>  Proposal.
>> 
>> 
>> [I want to reward the Silly Person a shiny, but we have that dumb limit that
>> rewards can only be defined in R2445, and the Fearmongor rule may not allow 
>> me
>> to include other rules in the proposal].
>> 
>> [For Rulekeepor, given history of Rule 1650:
>> History: Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1650 by Proposal 2673, 26 September 1996
>> History: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1650 by Proposal 3688
>> (Repeal-O-Matic), 21 February 1998
>> ]
>> 
>> //

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921 [+ CoE]

[Gaelan Steele]

> On Oct 8, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum is 5.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
> also a valid vote).
> 
> 
> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend fee
> ---
> 7908*  G.1.0  Silly season G.  OP [1]

FOR. Bonus points to G for giving me the history for reenaction—that’s really 
nice.

> 7909*  G.1.2  No Lockout   G.  OP [1]

PRESENT. Organizations are going away soon, but given the choice I’d rather 
repeal them at once.

> 7910*  G.1.0  What is a rulekeepor G.  OP [1]

AGAINST; this is probably bad for my job security.

> 7911*  V.J. Rada 1.0  Infinite Money Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.

FOR

> 7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP [2]

FOR

> 7913*  ATMunn1.0  Cheer Up v7? ATMunn  1 AP

FOR

> 7914*  o 1.0  SFDVP [3]o   1 AP

FOR

> 7915*  CuddleBeam1.0  Terrifying Proposals Reward  CuddleBeam  1 AP

PRESENT.  CoE this was by CB, not o (correct here, but not below).

> 7916*  Aris, o, G.   1.0  Pro Pace v2  Aris1 AP

FIVE
(Fine, FOUR (Fine, FOR))

> 7917*  P.S.S. [4], o 3.0  Banking  P.S.S. [4]  1 sh.

PRESENT, this is a really cool idea but kind of seems like an “organizations 
lite.” I’d prefer a mechanism to designate one of {orgs, agencies, contracts} 
as banks.

> 7918*  P.S.S. [4]3.0  Vacant Deputisation Fix  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP

FOR

> 7919*  P.S.S. [4]2.0  YSUIII. [5]  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP

AGAINST. Allows circumventing any requirements to pay shines by temporarily 
depositing them somewhere else (this would be really easy with platonic 
pledges, but I could see it occurring in other cases).

> 7920*  Gaelan, Aris  1.0  The Lint Screen v2   Gaelan  1 sh.

FOR

> 7921*  o, G. 2.0  Passive Income   o   1 AP

Not terribly interesting mechanically, but a good idea. FOR.

> 
> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
> 
> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
> ---
> pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
> pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
> 
> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
> 
> [1] Official Proposal, inherently pending
> [2] There is some debate over whether this was actually pended twice, each
> attempt consuming 1 AP. This value is therefore provisional.
> [3] Stamp Floating Derived Value Patch
> [4] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [5] You SHALL, unless it is ILLEGAL.
> 
> In order to reduce confusion, the shiny pend price is being removed from this
> report. A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating Value
> in shines (see the Secretary's report).
> 
> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
> 
> //
> ID: 7908
> Title: Silly season
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
> Official Proposal
> 
> 
> Re-enact Rule 1650 (Silliness) with the following text:
> 
>  Each Nomic Week a Player is designated the Silly Person.  The Silly Person
>  SHALL in that week, by announcement (1) designate another player, who has not
>  been the Silly Person in the past two weeks, to be the next week's Silly
>  Person; (2) submit a Silly Proposal.  If there is ever no Silly Person or the
>  Silly Person is not a player, then the next week's Silly Person is the first
>  player that any player publicly designates to be the next week's Silly 
> Person.
> 
>  A Silly Proposal is a Proposal whose sole contents are one of
>  the following:
>i) A limerick.
>   ii) A rhymed poem no longer than fourteen lines. (No free
>   verse!)
>  iii) A joke of no more than a hundred words.
>   iv) A truly hideous pun.
> 
>  The first Silly Proposal submitted by the week's Silly Person is an Official
>  Proposal.
> 
> 
> [I want to reward the Silly Person a shiny, but we have that dumb limit that
> rewards can only be defined in R2445, and the Fearmongor rule may not allow me
> to include other rules in the proposal].
> 
> [For Rulekeepor, given history of Rule 1650:
> History: Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1650 by Proposal 2673, 26 September 1996
> History: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1650 by Proposal 3688
> (Repeal-O-Matic), 21 February 1998
> ]
> 
> //
> ID: 7909
> Title: No Lockout
> Adoption index: 1.2
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
> Official Proposal
> 

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I'm not sure why
> G. didn't intiate for ADoP, the nexus of all this "misrule". I
> initiate an election for ADoP.

Honestly this latest not-big-deal mistake just reminded me that I'd
meant to do this as soon as I won and became speaker (the circumstances
sparking the Victory Election having been your attempted appointment
of CuddleBeam to Speaker).

DIS: Re: BUS: Finger pointing

[Aris Merchant]

Given that it was only a few hours late, I think a green card would appropriate.

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> I Point a Finger at Aris for failing to distribute proposals last week.
>
> -Alexis

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:27 VJ Rada  wrote:

> I have two ballots as PM. I cast one ballot of {Alexis, VJ Rada} and
> one ballot of {VJ Rada, Alexis}
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:20 VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>
> >> For PM I vote myself. For ADoP I vote Alexis x 1 and myself x 1.
> >
> > NttPF. Also I think the ordering of your ADoP vote might be slightly
> > ambiguous?
>

The voting rules only allow for one ballot per voter (Rule 683). Each
ballot has a strength equal to its voters' strength (Rule 955), but the
voter can't move it around.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

[VJ Rada]

Hey, did the CFJ on Quazie being the Superintendent ever get resolved?
This might be relevant if, say, Murphy becomes PM.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:18 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> Hey, if you're commending me for one thing as ADoP, I've been very
>> very good about initiating and resolving elections. I'm not sure why
>> G. didn't intiate for ADoP, the nexus of all this "misrule". I
>> initiate an election for ADoP. I initiate the Agoran decisions for the
>> determination of the new ADoP and Prime Minister. The quorum is 3.0,
>> the vote collector is the ADoP (I will remain in office to count this,
>> obviously). It's instant-runoff.
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>
> For the election for Prime Minister, I vote: [myself, Murphy, o, 天火狐,
> Gaelan, Aris]. (I will make a campaign statement later, if desired).
>
> For the election for ADoP, I vote conditionally as follows. If the proposal
> Campaign Proposals has been distributed and, if the voting period for its
> adoption were ended now and the quorum on that decision were 0, it would be
> adopted, then I vote {myself, 天火狐, Gaelan, Quazie]. Otherwise, if any
> player's current valid ballot includes themselves, I endorse the first such
> player to have submitted a ballot on this decision. Otherwise, I vote for
> the empty list.
>
> -Alexis



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:20 VJ Rada  wrote:

> For PM I vote myself. For ADoP I vote Alexis x 1 and myself x 1.
>
NttPF. Also I think the ordering of your ADoP vote might be slightly
ambiguous?

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

[VJ Rada]

For PM I vote myself. For ADoP I vote Alexis x 1 and myself x 1.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:18 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Hey, if you're commending me for one thing as ADoP, I've been very
> very good about initiating and resolving elections. I'm not sure why
> G. didn't intiate for ADoP, the nexus of all this "misrule". I
> initiate an election for ADoP. I initiate the Agoran decisions for the
> determination of the new ADoP and Prime Minister. The quorum is 3.0,
> the vote collector is the ADoP (I will remain in office to count this,
> obviously). It's instant-runoff.
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[VJ Rada]

I forgot you also disputed the orange ribbon.

I retract any and all CFJs and call using Shinies a CFJ with the
following statement.
"G. was the speaker from September 28, 2017 to October 2 2017"



On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 22:13 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> If I can do so, I give that payment to charity.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> > Shinies CFJ: G. has a transparent ribbon.
>> >
>> > If you want to assign CFJs to me, call them lmao.
>
>
> This is an awful CFJ, since it also requires answering the question about
> interpretation of conditional votes AND about the interpretation of the
> Orange Ribbon text.
>
> Also, you cannot donate things to the community chest retroactively, so
> don't bother.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[ATMunn .]

Oh, okay. That makes sense.

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm preparing my report. The Promotor has the power to remove
> proposals that have existed without being pended for 14 days. Creating
> a proposal is free, but pending one costs shinies or AP. So basically
> it's just maintenance, to make sure the proposal doesn't hang around
> forever.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:44 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> > Why exactly did you remove this? Was it discussed that it should be
> removed?
> >
> > I don't have a problem with this being removed, I don't really care, I
> just
> > don't entirely understand why this was removed.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Aris Merchant
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> As Promtor, I remove this proposal from the proposal pool.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >> > Here's my take on a basic income. Note that it's a form of guaranteed,
> >> > rather than universal, income in the sense that it only brings you up
> >> > to an appropriate level.
> >> >
> >> > I submit the following proposal:
> >> >
> >> > title: Basic Income
> >> > ai: 2
> >> > author: nichdel
> >> > co-authors:
> >> >
> >> > Repeal R2500 "Action Points"
> >> >
> >> > Amend R2445 "How to Pend a Proposal" to read in full:
> >> >
> >> >Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by
> >> >proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or
> >> >"not pending" (default).
> >> >
> >> >Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending"
> by
> >> >announcement by spending the current Pend Cost in shinies.
> >> >
> >> > Amend R991 "Calls for Judgement" by removing point "a)" in the first
> >> > list and changing points "b)" and "c)" to "a)" and "b)" respectively.
> >> >
> >> > Amend R2497 "Floating Value" by adding to the end of the list of
> >> > Floating Derived Values:
> >> >
> >> >* Income Floor: 1/10th the Floating Value, rounded up.
> >> >
> >> > Amend R2499 "Welcome Packages" to read in full:
> >> >
> >> >Within an Agoran Week after a person registers, any player CAN and
> >> >MAY cause Agora to pay the new player the Income Floor in shinies
> by
> >> >announcement.
> >> >
> >> > Create a new Power 1 rule titled "Basic Income" with the following
> text:
> >> >
> >> >Within an Agoran Week after the first Secretary Weekly Report is
> >> >published in an Agoran Month, any player CAN and MAY cause Agora,
> >> >by announcement to pay em the Income Floor minus eir Balance at
> time
> >> >of the Weekly Report's publication if e has less than the Income
> >> >Floor in shinies and has 0 stamps.
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:38 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>   > A related (but different) case was the one where I was listed as an 
> officer in the
>   > IADoP's (as it then was, IIRC) report as holding an office, but not 
> in the Registrar's
>   > report. Since officeholding is restricted to players, it was held 
> that the IADoP
>   > report ratifying made me a player in addition to the officeholder.
> 
>   Just FYI, CFJ 3455 overruled this for cases where there's no evidence 
> of consent
>   for being a player (dunno if that was the situation with yours).
> 
> 
> Ah, I wasn't aware of that. That's specific to a safety clause in the rules, 
> however, 
> and not a general property of ratification. It wasn't the case in my instance 
> anyhow; 
> it was the Registrar, not the IADoP, who made the error.

Oh excellent, 3455 directly mentions that in your situation ratification would 
work so
didn't overrule it at all.

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

[Aris Merchant]

I'm preparing my report. The Promotor has the power to remove
proposals that have existed without being pended for 14 days. Creating
a proposal is free, but pending one costs shinies or AP. So basically
it's just maintenance, to make sure the proposal doesn't hang around
forever.

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:44 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> Why exactly did you remove this? Was it discussed that it should be removed?
>
> I don't have a problem with this being removed, I don't really care, I just
> don't entirely understand why this was removed.
>
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> As Promtor, I remove this proposal from the proposal pool.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>> > Here's my take on a basic income. Note that it's a form of guaranteed,
>> > rather than universal, income in the sense that it only brings you up
>> > to an appropriate level.
>> >
>> > I submit the following proposal:
>> >
>> > title: Basic Income
>> > ai: 2
>> > author: nichdel
>> > co-authors:
>> >
>> > Repeal R2500 "Action Points"
>> >
>> > Amend R2445 "How to Pend a Proposal" to read in full:
>> >
>> >Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by
>> >proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or
>> >"not pending" (default).
>> >
>> >Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" by
>> >announcement by spending the current Pend Cost in shinies.
>> >
>> > Amend R991 "Calls for Judgement" by removing point "a)" in the first
>> > list and changing points "b)" and "c)" to "a)" and "b)" respectively.
>> >
>> > Amend R2497 "Floating Value" by adding to the end of the list of
>> > Floating Derived Values:
>> >
>> >* Income Floor: 1/10th the Floating Value, rounded up.
>> >
>> > Amend R2499 "Welcome Packages" to read in full:
>> >
>> >Within an Agoran Week after a person registers, any player CAN and
>> >MAY cause Agora to pay the new player the Income Floor in shinies by
>> >announcement.
>> >
>> > Create a new Power 1 rule titled "Basic Income" with the following text:
>> >
>> >Within an Agoran Week after the first Secretary Weekly Report is
>> >published in an Agoran Month, any player CAN and MAY cause Agora,
>> >by announcement to pay em the Income Floor minus eir Balance at time
>> >of the Weekly Report's publication if e has less than the Income
>> >Floor in shinies and has 0 stamps.
>> >
>> >
>
>

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

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:44 ATMunn .  wrote:

> Why exactly did you remove this? Was it discussed that it should be
> removed?
>
> I don't have a problem with this being removed, I don't really care, I
> just don't entirely understand why this was removed.
>

Regular cleanup: The Promotor  CAN
 remove a proposal
 from the Proposal
 Pool by announcement if it is
not pending  and has been added
to the Pool more than 14 days 
ago.

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

[ATMunn .]

Why exactly did you remove this? Was it discussed that it should be removed?

I don't have a problem with this being removed, I don't really care, I just
don't entirely understand why this was removed.

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As Promtor, I remove this proposal from the proposal pool.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> > Here's my take on a basic income. Note that it's a form of guaranteed,
> > rather than universal, income in the sense that it only brings you up
> > to an appropriate level.
> >
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > title: Basic Income
> > ai: 2
> > author: nichdel
> > co-authors:
> >
> > Repeal R2500 "Action Points"
> >
> > Amend R2445 "How to Pend a Proposal" to read in full:
> >
> >Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by
> >proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or
> >"not pending" (default).
> >
> >Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" by
> >announcement by spending the current Pend Cost in shinies.
> >
> > Amend R991 "Calls for Judgement" by removing point "a)" in the first
> > list and changing points "b)" and "c)" to "a)" and "b)" respectively.
> >
> > Amend R2497 "Floating Value" by adding to the end of the list of
> > Floating Derived Values:
> >
> >* Income Floor: 1/10th the Floating Value, rounded up.
> >
> > Amend R2499 "Welcome Packages" to read in full:
> >
> >Within an Agoran Week after a person registers, any player CAN and
> >MAY cause Agora to pay the new player the Income Floor in shinies by
> >announcement.
> >
> > Create a new Power 1 rule titled "Basic Income" with the following text:
> >
> >Within an Agoran Week after the first Secretary Weekly Report is
> >published in an Agoran Month, any player CAN and MAY cause Agora,
> >by announcement to pay em the Income Floor minus eir Balance at time
> >of the Weekly Report's publication if e has less than the Income
> >Floor in shinies and has 0 stamps.
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> A related (but different) case was the one where I was listed as an officer 
> in the
> IADoP's (as it then was, IIRC) report as holding an office, but not in the 
> Registrar's 
> report. Since officeholding is restricted to players, it was held that the 
> IADoP 
> report ratifying made me a player in addition to the officeholder.

Just FYI, CFJ 3455 overruled this for cases where there's no evidence of consent
for being a player (dunno if that was the situation with yours).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 00:33 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:26 Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> > The minimal gamestate change required to make Quazie the speaker is
> > that Quazie is now the speaker. We're changing the present, not the
> > past. Notably, we're not changing /why/ Quazie is the speaker; that's
> > arguably not part of the gamestate, and even if it is, the minimal
> > change is to not change it at all (so Quazie would now be the speaker
> > for no reason). If other parts of the gamestate (such as whether a
> > Speaker appointment is required) aren't explicitly included in the
> > ratification, they don't change.
> 
> While I agree with the overall sentiment, I quibble on the details. Other
> parts of the gamestate can be included indirectly, because the gamestate
> changes 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. "
> 
> The procedure for ratification is, in effect, as follows:
> 1. Create a hypothetical copy of the game state at the time that the
> document was published.
> 2. Minimally modify that copy so that it is correct.
> 3. Replay everything that has happened since then.
> 4. Set the current gamestate to the result.

You're right here, of course. I realised my post was misleading (I was
thinking about step 2, not the whole process) and was going to post a
clarification, but yours is better.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:26 Alex Smith  wrote:

> The minimal gamestate change required to make Quazie the speaker is
> that Quazie is now the speaker. We're changing the present, not the
> past. Notably, we're not changing /why/ Quazie is the speaker; that's
> arguably not part of the gamestate, and even if it is, the minimal
> change is to not change it at all (so Quazie would now be the speaker
> for no reason). If other parts of the gamestate (such as whether a
> Speaker appointment is required) aren't explicitly included in the
> ratification, they don't change.
>

While I agree with the overall sentiment, I quibble on the details. Other
parts of the gamestate can be included indirectly, because the gamestate
changes 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. "

The procedure for ratification is, in effect, as follows:
1. Create a hypothetical copy of the game state at the time that the
document was published.
2. Minimally modify that copy so that it is correct.
3. Replay everything that has happened since then.
4. Set the current gamestate to the result.

The ability for knock-on effects like this to happen is absolutely vital
for ratification to work correctly. For instance, suppose a report is
published saying that I owned a Stamp, but it is incorrect and I don't
actually have one; at the time I also had no shinies. I purport to cash the
Stamp in. Nobody notices, because the report said I have one. I proceed to
spend the shinies that I got to call a CFJ. This also fails, because I
don't have the shinies. But when the report ratifies, all those actions are
effectively performed at once. This is really important because
ratification, *especially* self-ratification, is to avoid mistakes arising
out of continuing under false assumptions. If these downstream effects
weren't permitted, the end state here would be that I had a Stamp, but
since the cashing was invalid, so would be the CFJ. Ratification ensures
that the CFJ does in fact get called (albeit by the rules, rather than by
me, and later than originally purported).

Ratification does not, as Alex says, change history. The change is only
applied to the present, not the past. As a result, in this case it does not
create conditions that allow a new appointment of a Speaker.

(We used to have a rule that any ratification needed to list the
> specific part of the gamestate it was meant to affect, but removed
> that, probably because people weren't doing it properly. Some vestiges
> of this are still in the rules.)
>
> People need to stop assuming that ratification changes the past. It
> doesn't, period. It changes the present.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-10-08 at 20:17 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
> > On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > > > Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
> > > > speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?
> > >
> > > My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the
> > > ratified report I was Speaker and used some speaker powers.  I'd
> > > say the minimal change is just that the switch got flipped to
> > > Quazie magically upon the date of the report.  But who knows maybe
> > > you're right.
> > > 
> > This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical discussion
> > of what constitutes the minimal change.
> 
> The minimal gamestate change required to make Quazie the speaker is
> that Quazie is now the speaker. We're changing the present, not the
> past. Notably, we're not changing /why/ Quazie is the speaker; that's
> arguably not part of the gamestate, and even if it is, the minimal
> change is to not change it at all (so Quazie would now be the speaker
> for no reason). If other parts of the gamestate (such as whether a
> Speaker appointment is required) aren't explicitly included in the
> ratification, they don't change.
> 
> (We used to have a rule that any ratification needed to list the
> specific part of the gamestate it was meant to affect, but removed
> that, probably because people weren't doing it properly. Some vestiges
> of this are still in the rules.)
> 
> People need to stop assuming that ratification changes the past. It
> doesn't, period. It changes the present.

Well, it changes things to be accurate as of the date of the report, which
was last week (otherwise self-ratification would be constantly over-writing
the following week of activity).

It's not clear to me at all whether that would wipe out anything I've done
as speaker since then (in practical terms nothing, so genuinely minimal
in this case).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-10-08 at 20:17 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > > Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
> > > speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?
> >
> > My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the
> > ratified report I was Speaker and used some speaker powers.  I'd
> > say the minimal change is just that the switch got flipped to
> > Quazie magically upon the date of the report.  But who knows maybe
> > you're right.
> > 
> This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical discussion
> of what constitutes the minimal change.

The minimal gamestate change required to make Quazie the speaker is
that Quazie is now the speaker. We're changing the present, not the
past. Notably, we're not changing /why/ Quazie is the speaker; that's
arguably not part of the gamestate, and even if it is, the minimal
change is to not change it at all (so Quazie would now be the speaker
for no reason). If other parts of the gamestate (such as whether a
Speaker appointment is required) aren't explicitly included in the
ratification, they don't change.

(We used to have a rule that any ratification needed to list the
specific part of the gamestate it was meant to affect, but removed
that, probably because people weren't doing it properly. Some vestiges
of this are still in the rules.)

People need to stop assuming that ratification changes the past. It
doesn't, period. It changes the present.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Alexis Hunt]

I think it would revoke G.'s Transparent Ribbon (if indeed it was awarded);
if the report had been true and correct, then G.'s attempt to award emself
the ribbon would have failed. As a result, the gamestate now would not have
a Transparent Ribbon.

Ratification generally can (and should, for good reasons) have such
knock-on effects. A related (but different) case was the one where I was
listed as an officer in the IADoP's (as it then was, IIRC) report as
holding an office, but not in the Registrar's report. Since officeholding
is restricted to players, it was held that the IADoP report ratifying made
me a player in addition to the officeholder.

The "minimal change" language is intended to prevent players from arguing
that some other unrelated change is made (e.g. the corrective gamestate
change also including unrelated changes such as transferring all of Agora's
stamps to me). Other ways that it can fail are adding "inconsistencies
between the rules and the game state", such as setting a switch to
nonexistent value, "no such modification is possible", which I think can
only occur if the ratification change would be overruled by a higher rule,;
and "multiple such modifications would be equally appropriate", which I
think would avoid ruling out a ratification such as "There is one player
who owns exactly 73 shinies", without specifying the player, so that any
one player having their numbers of shinies changed would make the
ratification correct.

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:17 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical discussion of
> what constitutes the minimal change.
>
>
> On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the ratified
> report I was
> > Speaker and used some speaker powers.  I'd say the minimal change
> > is just that the switch got flipped to Quazie magically upon the date of
> > the report.  But who knows maybe you're right.
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
> >> speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right
> now.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>  My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being effective
>  as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker.
> 
>  I appoint G. speaker.
> 
>  --
>   From V.J. Rada
> 
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>  From V.J. Rada
> >>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I would be happy to call a CFJ, but I am unsure of how to effectively 
word it.

On 10/08/2017 08:19 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
This is what CFJs are for. If the judge can't figure it out, then it 
didn't work.


-Aris

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:18 PM VJ Rada > wrote:


Well hey if we can't discern the minimal change then it didn't work at
all, right?

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
> This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical
discussion of what
> constitutes the minimal change.
>
>
>
> On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>> My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the
ratified
>> report I was
>> Speaker and used some speaker powers.  I'd say the minimal change
>> is just that the switch got flipped to Quazie magically upon
the date of
>> the report.  But who knows maybe you're right.
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
>>> speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin
>
>>> wrote:


 I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist
right now.

 On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being
effective
> as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker.
>
> I appoint G. speaker.
>
> --
>  From V.J. Rada
>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>  From V.J. Rada
>>>
>



--
From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

 It seems in the past we ignored what the minimal possible change was 
and just assumed it didn't change the gamestate until the ratification. 
This is clean, but it leaves problems, like what we are running into now.


On 10/08/2017 08:19 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
This is what CFJs are for. If the judge can't figure it out, then it 
didn't work.


-Aris

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:18 PM VJ Rada > wrote:


Well hey if we can't discern the minimal change then it didn't work at
all, right?

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> wrote:
> This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical
discussion of what
> constitutes the minimal change.
>
>
>
> On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>> My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the
ratified
>> report I was
>> Speaker and used some speaker powers.  I'd say the minimal change
>> is just that the switch got flipped to Quazie magically upon
the date of
>> the report.  But who knows maybe you're right.
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
>>> speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin
>
>>> wrote:


 I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist
right now.

 On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being
effective
> as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker.
>
> I appoint G. speaker.
>
> --
>  From V.J. Rada
>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>  From V.J. Rada
>>>
>



--
From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[VJ Rada]

I think G's right in how it has been treated in the past. But we can
just self-ratify my current report, which lists G.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:18 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Well hey if we can't discern the minimal change then it didn't work at
> all, right?
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical discussion of what
>> constitutes the minimal change.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the ratified
>>> report I was
>>> Speaker and used some speaker powers.  I'd say the minimal change
>>> is just that the switch got flipped to Quazie magically upon the date of
>>> the report.  But who knows maybe you're right.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

 Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
 speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?

 On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin 
 wrote:
>
>
> I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right now.
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>> My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being effective
>> as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker.
>>
>> I appoint G. speaker.
>>
>> --
>>  From V.J. Rada
>>


 --
  From V.J. Rada

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



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Aris Merchant]

This is what CFJs are for. If the judge can't figure it out, then it didn't
work.

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:18 PM VJ Rada  wrote:

> Well hey if we can't discern the minimal change then it didn't work at
> all, right?
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
> > This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical discussion of
> what
> > constitutes the minimal change.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the ratified
> >> report I was
> >> Speaker and used some speaker powers.  I'd say the minimal change
> >> is just that the switch got flipped to Quazie magically upon the date of
> >> the report.  But who knows maybe you're right.
> >>
> >> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
> >>> speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> >>> wrote:
> 
> 
>  I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right
> now.
> 
>  On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >
> > My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being effective
> > as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker.
> >
> > I appoint G. speaker.
> >
> > --
> >  From V.J. Rada
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>  From V.J. Rada
> >>>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[VJ Rada]

Well hey if we can't discern the minimal change then it didn't work at
all, right?

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical discussion of what
> constitutes the minimal change.
>
>
>
> On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>> My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the ratified
>> report I was
>> Speaker and used some speaker powers.  I'd say the minimal change
>> is just that the switch got flipped to Quazie magically upon the date of
>> the report.  But who knows maybe you're right.
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>>
>>> Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
>>> speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>>> wrote:


 I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right now.

 On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
> My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being effective
> as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker.
>
> I appoint G. speaker.
>
> --
>  From V.J. Rada
>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>  From V.J. Rada
>>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical discussion of 
what constitutes the minimal change.



On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the ratified report 
I was
Speaker and used some speaker powers.  I'd say the minimal change
is just that the switch got flipped to Quazie magically upon the date of
the report.  But who knows maybe you're right.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:


I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right now.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being effective
as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker.

I appoint G. speaker.

--
 From V.J. Rada




--
 From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Kerim Aydin]

My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the ratified report 
I was
Speaker and used some speaker powers.  I'd say the minimal change 
is just that the switch got flipped to Quazie magically upon the date of
the report.  But who knows maybe you're right.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
> speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?
> 
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right now.
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being effective
> >> as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker.
> >>
> >> I appoint G. speaker.
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[VJ Rada]

No, it isn't.

If we let my current ADoP report self-ratify though, it will be fixed.
Or Quazie you could resign from speaker allowing me to appoint G.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:12 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
> speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right now.
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being effective
>>> as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker.
>>>
>>> I appoint G. speaker.
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[VJ Rada]

Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right now.
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being effective
>> as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker.
>>
>> I appoint G. speaker.
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Kerim Aydin]

I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right now.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being effective
> as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker.
> 
> I appoint G. speaker.
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3566 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I believe this was discussed recently and will turn it back up before 
resolving any motion to reconsider.



On 10/08/2017 06:58 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
I intend, with two support, to file a Motion to Reconsider on this 
case because the judge's arguments fail to address a significant 
portion of the judgment.


In particular, it seems to me rather strange that a Card issuance can 
simultaneously be INEFFECTIVE and ILLEGAL, because the Card issuance 
either did not happen (is INEFFECTIVE) or did happen, but contravened 
the rules (is ILLEGAL).


While it's possible for the rules to make a failed attempt to perform 
an action, I see no such language in Rule 2426. So the lack of 
discussion on the INEFFECTIVE aspect of the case seems fatal to the 
judgement.


On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 18:21 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
> wrote:


ILLEGAL and INEFFECTIVE. I was just being explicit about the ILLEGAL.


On 10/08/2017 05:45 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> Illegal or ineffective? They are different, especially in the
card rules,
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > wrote:
>> I find CFJ 3566 TRUE. The issued card was not appropriate
because no action
>> was taken. Due to its inappropriateness, it was ILLEGAL as a
violation of
>> Rule 2426. However, I believe given the nature of the lateness
of the
>> report, a serious card was warranted and I recommend that it be
issued. I
>> would also like to specify that the Caller's Argument that his
argument is
>> supported by game custom should not be taken into account in
future card
>> issuances because card issuances are not bound by game custom.
>>
>>
>> On 10/01/2017 01:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>
>>> I number the below case and sign it as indicated.  -G.
>>>
>>>
>>> ==  CFJ 3566
==
>>>
>>>         The Pink Slip below issued is both INEFFECTIVE and
ILLEGAL.
>>>
>>>

>>>
>>> Caller:                       V.J. Rada
>>>
>>> Judge:                        Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>>
>>>

>>>
>>> History:
>>>
>>> Called by V.J. Rada:          27 Sep 2017
>>>
>>>

>>>
>>> Caller's Evidence:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Owen Jacobson
> wrote:
 As it happens, I have just enough cards left to deal with
both this and
 Alexis’ finger before I run out for the week, and now that
the proposal
 fixing the “or” in Vigilante Justice has been assessed,
finger-pointing
 actually somewhat works again. Hooray!

 On Sep 26, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:

> This is absurd.  Was going to let it pass, but I point the
Finger at
> Nichdel
> for late Assessment of Decision to Adopt proposal 7876.
>
> I note, for the purposes of determining carding, that this
lateness had
> a
> direct and material impact on my own earnings as well as others.
 And on mine, which causes a minor conflict of interest.
However, no rule
 allows me to recuse myself, and this is not a finger-pointing
related the
 official duties or powers of the Referee, so the Arbitor
cannot take over.
 I’ll have to do my best.

 Proposal 7876 was distributed on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 01:19:41
UTC. As voting
 was not extended, voting ended at Mon, 18 Sep 2017 01:19:41
UTC, exactly 7d
 after distribution (rule 107, “Initiating Agoran Decisions").

 nichdel assessed it at Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:49:53 UTC. 8d, 18h
30m 12s
 elapsed from the close of voting to the proposal's
assessment. Rule 208
 (“Resolving Agoran Decisions”) states:

> The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN
resolve it by
> announcement, indicating the outcome. If it was required to
be initiated,
> then e SHALL resolve it in a timely fashion after the end of
the voting
> period.
 nichdel, as Assessor, was the vote collector for the Agoran
Decision to
 adopt proposal 7876. As more than seven days had elapsed
(rule 1023, “Common
 Definitions”), e did not do so in a timely fashion, and has
violated the
 above clause of rule 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3566 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

ILLEGAL and INEFFECTIVE. I was just being explicit about the ILLEGAL.


On 10/08/2017 05:45 PM, VJ Rada wrote:

Illegal or ineffective? They are different, especially in the card rules,

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:

I find CFJ 3566 TRUE. The issued card was not appropriate because no action
was taken. Due to its inappropriateness, it was ILLEGAL as a violation of
Rule 2426. However, I believe given the nature of the lateness of the
report, a serious card was warranted and I recommend that it be issued. I
would also like to specify that the Caller's Argument that his argument is
supported by game custom should not be taken into account in future card
issuances because card issuances are not bound by game custom.


On 10/01/2017 01:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


I number the below case and sign it as indicated.  -G.


==  CFJ 3566  ==

The Pink Slip below issued is both INEFFECTIVE and ILLEGAL.



Caller:   V.J. Rada

Judge:Publius Scribonius Scholasticus



History:

Called by V.J. Rada:  27 Sep 2017



Caller's Evidence:

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

As it happens, I have just enough cards left to deal with both this and
Alexis’ finger before I run out for the week, and now that the proposal
fixing the “or” in Vigilante Justice has been assessed, finger-pointing
actually somewhat works again. Hooray!

On Sep 26, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:


This is absurd.  Was going to let it pass, but I point the Finger at
Nichdel
for late Assessment of Decision to Adopt proposal 7876.

I note, for the purposes of determining carding, that this lateness had
a
direct and material impact on my own earnings as well as others.

And on mine, which causes a minor conflict of interest. However, no rule
allows me to recuse myself, and this is not a finger-pointing related the
official duties or powers of the Referee, so the Arbitor cannot take over.
I’ll have to do my best.

Proposal 7876 was distributed on Mon, 11 Sep 2017 01:19:41 UTC. As voting
was not extended, voting ended at Mon, 18 Sep 2017 01:19:41 UTC, exactly 7d
after distribution (rule 107, “Initiating Agoran Decisions").

nichdel assessed it at Tue, 26 Sep 2017 19:49:53 UTC. 8d, 18h 30m 12s
elapsed from the close of voting to the proposal's assessment. Rule 208
(“Resolving Agoran Decisions”) states:


The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by
announcement, indicating the outcome. If it was required to be initiated,
then e SHALL resolve it in a timely fashion after the end of the voting
period.

nichdel, as Assessor, was the vote collector for the Agoran Decision to
adopt proposal 7876. As more than seven days had elapsed (rule 1023, “Common
Definitions”), e did not do so in a timely fashion, and has violated the
above clause of rule 208.

G.’s allegation that the late assessment has a direct and material impact
on gameplay is compelling. Furthermore, beyond the effects G. identifies,
Assessment directly affects the adoption of rule changes, which are
fundamental to Agora. However, I believe a Yellow Card would be
inappropriate, and unduly punitive. Instead, I note that nichdel delayed
assessment for reasons e spelled out in a message to agora-discussion:

On Sep 20, 2017, at 4:07 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:


Due to a stressful trip coming up this weekend and the size of the
current batch of proposals, I'm unlikely to be able to assess until mid
next week. If there's interest, I could create an agency that allows
someone else to assess.

nichdel clearly delayed assessment for eir own gain, vis., to gain
additional time and attention to dedicate to a personal trip. As such, e has
abused the office of Assessor, and I hereby issue em a Pink Slip by summary
judgement.

On Sep 26, 2017, at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:


I note to the Referee, so e can feel informed and NOT believe that there
are
no rules violations this week, that Nichdel was similarly late on
proposals
7877-7898.

So noted.

-o


   

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3572 assigned to o

[VJ Rada]

I would like to specify that I did note take note of or understand
those messages. I also do not know of any way to decrypt such
messages, which distinguishes it from the "google translate:"
precedent.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Oct 8, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Pls stop calling all the CFJs VJ or I can't assign any to you :)
>>
>>
>> The below is CFJ 3572 I assign it to o.
>
> I haven’t dug at this yet, but I expect this to be a fairly straightforward 
> extension of CFJ 1460. I’ll give it a few days for gratuitous arguments 
> before I render judgement, though, because this is an interesting case.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3572 assigned to o

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 8, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Pls stop calling all the CFJs VJ or I can't assign any to you :)
> 
> 
> The below is CFJ 3572 I assign it to o.

I haven’t dug at this yet, but I expect this to be a fairly straightforward 
extension of CFJ 1460. I’ll give it a few days for gratuitous arguments before 
I render judgement, though, because this is an interesting case.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP