Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 11, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> As is my custom, I pledge as follows:
>>> 
>>> * If there is exactly one winning bid, and if that bid includes a blurb 
>>> describing the region of Dawsbergen, of at least 70 words,
>>> I will include that blurb in at least one future Surveyor’s report if it is 
>>> possible for me to do so. I will pay the lesser of 10%
>>> of the winning bid, rounded up, or 50 Shinies, to the player who made the 
>>> bid, i immediately after resolving the auction.
>> 
>> I have an outstanding intent to withdraw this pledge. However, I’ll hold off 
>> for a day or so to give people a chance to evaluate
>> my wording change and my actions in this message. I _believe_ I reworded my 
>> pledge a bit relative to last month to avoid being
>> obligated to pay players who do not submit blurbs; G.’s bid did not include 
>> a blurb, so I believe I did not pledge to pay em any
>> amount of shinies.
> 
> I had actually written a blurb, but then purposefully didn't submit it 
> because I didn't want
> to put you on the hook.  So FWIW I also believe that.

Send it my way and I’ll put it in the report anyways. I’ll even throw you the 5 
sh. it would have earned.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

[Owen Jacobson]

On Oct 12, 2017, at 5:57 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>The player who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely
>fashion, cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner
>by announcement,
>by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or
>by causing the winning Organization to pay Agora the amount of the
>bid.

This is starting to turn into a catchphrase, but: Oh, hell.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

[Cuddle Beam]

oh man I missed the October auction

gg kill me lol

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> It helps converge game states in simple ways.  Let's say you try to do X.
> Someone CFJs that you said it wrong for a dumb technical reason.  So
> you want to make sure X gets done in the mean time.  If you just say
> "I do X" with whatever technical thing corrected, then depending on the
> CFJ outcome, it would be uncertain whether you have done X once or
> twice (which might have knock on consequences if the thing is a Shiny
> transfer or something).  By being able to say, "if my first attempt failed,
>   I do x" is used all the time to converge game state to x having been done
> once. So it's handy.
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 21:50 Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
> >   I oppose (not that it does anything). I rather like my judgement.
> BTW, as I understand it, SHALL but CANNOT has
> >   generally held to be impossible, except where the situation is
> somehow the fault of the player under the SHALL.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> >
> > On a not-really-related note, do we actually need conditional actions
> for anything? Most of our conditionals amount to "If I
> > can do X, I do so." Could we just ban them outright?
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

[Kerim Aydin]

It helps converge game states in simple ways.  Let's say you try to do X.  
Someone CFJs that you said it wrong for a dumb technical reason.  So
you want to make sure X gets done in the mean time.  If you just say 
"I do X" with whatever technical thing corrected, then depending on the 
CFJ outcome, it would be uncertain whether you have done X once or
twice (which might have knock on consequences if the thing is a Shiny
transfer or something).  By being able to say, "if my first attempt failed,
  I do x" is used all the time to converge game state to x having been done 
once. So it's handy.

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 21:50 Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
>   I oppose (not that it does anything). I rather like my judgement. BTW, 
> as I understand it, SHALL but CANNOT has
>   generally held to be impossible, except where the situation is somehow 
> the fault of the player under the SHALL.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> 
> On a not-really-related note, do we actually need conditional actions for 
> anything? Most of our conditionals amount to "If I
> can do X, I do so." Could we just ban them outright? 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

[Alexis Hunt]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 21:50 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I oppose (not that it does anything). I rather like my judgement. BTW, as
> I understand it, SHALL but CANNOT has generally held to be impossible,
> except where the situation is somehow the fault of the player under the
> SHALL.
>
> -Aris
>

On a not-really-related note, do we actually need conditional actions for
anything? Most of our conditionals amount to "If I can do X, I do so."
Could we just ban them outright?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:44 PM Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 18:32 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>> After 3557 I suggested that, whatever the rules imply now, we should put
>> this in directly and legislatively (and an informal poll suggested that
>> the preference was *for* the implication).  A couple MMI changes have been
>> proposed by others but I think they all had a couple bugs and got voted
>> down, I'll try my hand on solid fix proposal by tomorrow...
>>
>
> I was led astray since the reconsidered judgment of 3557 had not been
> entered on the CFJ database; G. already raised the arguments that I was
> going to raise (I noted, however, that 2120's actual judgment doesn't
> suffer from the flaws G. pointed out recently; the caller's arguments were
> what was flawed I think). After reading Aris's second judgment, I think it
> is flaws. "It is therefore likely that if the gamemakes it possible for a
> person to do something, it makes it possible for them
> to do it via the Fora. Where there is a SHALL without a means, it implies
> "and CAN by announcement"." This is a significant reading into the rules,
> far broader than CFJ 1765 was, which was about interpreting a particular
> rule. Moreover, it raises questions of precedence: if a high-level rule
> requires something, but a low-level rule forbids it, what is the result?
> Does the high-level rule requiring something necessarily override the
> lower-level rule forbidding it?
>
> Moreover, the judgement states that CAN implies CAN by announcement. This
> is a logical consequence of (SHALL => CAN by announcement), but directly
> contradictory to precedent of CFJ 3425. As Murphy indicated in the
> arguments, this was far from the first time it was called. There is no
> reason to disrupt this precedent. Given that CAN is not sufficient to imply
> CAN by announcement, imputing that meaning to SHALL would be quite
> something else altogether. Moreover, it would cause difficulty with rules,
> such as the one regarding auctions, which intend specifically to require a
> player to do something which may or may not be impossible. It would mean
> that SHALL but CANNOT would be almost impossible to construct except
> through precedence conflicts.
>
> Since there is, surprisingly, no time limit for creating a Moot, I intend,
> with 2 support, to enter the judgment of CFJ 3557 into Moot.
>
> I oppose (not that it does anything). I rather like my judgement. BTW, as
I understand it, SHALL but CANNOT has generally held to be impossible,
except where the situation is somehow the fault of the player under the
SHALL.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Spending shinies

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:40 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Where does it say that a transfer recipient defaults to agora?  By
> my reading that would fail for being ambiguous.


I mean that spending might be a particular kind of transferring that
defaults to Agora. It would probably make more sense have it just be to
Agora. I was thinking that if a contract says "A can do B by transferring
10 shinies to this contract" and A says "I do B by spending 10 shinies" it
should work. Now that I think about it, I should add that idea to my
proposal somehow.


> Also, my recent frustrations is several folks (not just you) have been
> working on Big Ideas so we've deferred making minor fixes like that,
> But the Big Ideas have been delayed and we've muddled on.  so
> breaking it out would be great.
>
> (On that note, why the heck did repealing organizations stall out?)


They're not doing much harm, and it will be slightly easier to replace them
with contracts if they still exist. I don't think that was the reason
though...

-Aris


> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:23 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >   > Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined?
> >
> >   No, we had a discussion of that last month, when I brought it
> >   up.
> >
> >   There was a pseudo-conclusion that spent couldn't be a
> >   synonym for paid, because paid requires specifying the
> >   recipient.  So the idea is that one common way to use
> >   "Spent" is as a synonym for "used up" so therefore it means
> >   "Destroyed" and the assets rule says that attempts to
> >   destroy indestructible currencies instead transfers it to
> >   Agora (by the Assets rule) so it all works out.  There was no
> >   CFJ, this was just discussion.
> >
> >
> > There are two sensible interpretations. In one case it would mean
> transferring, defaulting to transferring to Agora. In the
> > other it would mean destroying it, which in this case would mean
> transferring to Agora. Despite the second being my idea, I
> > actually prefer the first one. It doesn't matter though, because as soon
> as you narrow it down to those two possibilities the
> > outcome is the same. There's a fix to this in section 3 of my contracts
> proposal. Given the high demand, I'll probably split
> > that part off into a separate proposal this week (haven't been using my
> AP).
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Spending shinies

[Kerim Aydin]

Where does it say that a transfer recipient defaults to agora?  By
my reading that would fail for being ambiguous.

Also, my recent frustrations is several folks (not just you) have been
working on Big Ideas so we've deferred making minor fixes like that,
But the Big Ideas have been delayed and we've muddled on.  so 
breaking it out would be great.

(On that note, why the heck did repealing organizations stall out?)

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:23 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>   > Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined?
> 
>   No, we had a discussion of that last month, when I brought it
>   up.
> 
>   There was a pseudo-conclusion that spent couldn't be a
>   synonym for paid, because paid requires specifying the
>   recipient.  So the idea is that one common way to use
>   "Spent" is as a synonym for "used up" so therefore it means
>   "Destroyed" and the assets rule says that attempts to
>   destroy indestructible currencies instead transfers it to
>   Agora (by the Assets rule) so it all works out.  There was no
>   CFJ, this was just discussion.
> 
> 
> There are two sensible interpretations. In one case it would mean 
> transferring, defaulting to transferring to Agora. In the
> other it would mean destroying it, which in this case would mean transferring 
> to Agora. Despite the second being my idea, I
> actually prefer the first one. It doesn't matter though, because as soon as 
> you narrow it down to those two possibilities the
> outcome is the same. There's a fix to this in section 3 of my contracts 
> proposal. Given the high demand, I'll probably split
> that part off into a separate proposal this week (haven't been using my AP).
> 
> -Aris
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Spending shinies

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:23 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined?
>
> No, we had a discussion of that last month, when I brought it
> up.
>
> There was a pseudo-conclusion that spent couldn't be a
> synonym for paid, because paid requires specifying the
> recipient.  So the idea is that one common way to use
> "Spent" is as a synonym for "used up" so therefore it means
> "Destroyed" and the assets rule says that attempts to
> destroy indestructible currencies instead transfers it to
> Agora (by the Assets rule) so it all works out.  There was no
> CFJ, this was just discussion.


There are two sensible interpretations. In one case it would mean
transferring, defaulting to transferring to Agora. In the other it would
mean destroying it, which in this case would mean transferring to Agora.
Despite the second being my idea, I actually prefer the first one. It
doesn't matter though, because as soon as you narrow it down to those two
possibilities the outcome is the same. There's a fix to this in section 3
of my contracts proposal. Given the high demand, I'll probably split that
part off into a separate proposal this week (haven't been using my AP).

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Spending shinies

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined?

No, we had a discussion of that last month, when I brought it
up.

There was a pseudo-conclusion that spent couldn't be a
synonym for paid, because paid requires specifying the
recipient.  So the idea is that one common way to use 
"Spent" is as a synonym for "used up" so therefore it means
"Destroyed" and the assets rule says that attempts to
destroy indestructible currencies instead transfers it to
Agora (by the Assets rule) so it all works out.  There was no
CFJ, this was just discussion.

Still, brittle - I started a proposal today to define "fees" better
and may propose tomorrow but feel free (the awkward part is
rewriting AP which are unique).

DIS: Spending shinies

[Alexis Hunt]

Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined?

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

[ATMunn .]

My bad. Apparently this is actually possible as of very recently, so
recently in fact that the rulekeepor has not updated the online ruleset
yet. That makes this completely redundant.
I retract the proposal "Pledge Withdrawal."

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:28 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:

> Earlier I posted a message saying that I intended to withdraw a pledge
> since it was no longer possible for me to break it. I then realized that I
> don't think it says anywhere in the rules that you can do that. This
> proposal is to fix that. (Also the pend cost is super cheap right now so I
> really want to take advantage of that)
>
> I create the following proposal:
>
> Name: Pledge Withdrawal
> Author: ATMunn
> AI: 1.7
>
> Amend rule 2450 by adding the following text at the end:
> {
> If, at any time, a player owns a pledge which is impossible for em to
> break, e CAN withdraw that pledge without objection and with 24 hours
> notice.
> }
>
> [If there's a problem with this, or if I missed something in the rules,
> please let me know before I pend it. If nobody says anything, I'll pend it
> when I get up tomorrow. I was debating whether or not to add the "with 24
> hours notice," as I don't really understand the full implications of that.]
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

[ATMunn .]

Oh, okay, I see. Well, there goes my second attempt at taking advantage of
the cheap pend price. :P

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:41 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> This is actually a version of the rules so new our H. Rulekeepor
> hasn't written it yet :)
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:39 AM, ATMunn . 
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 20:31 Alex Smith 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:28 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
> >>> > Amend rule 2450 by adding the following text at the end:
> >>> > {
> >>> > If, at any time, a player owns a pledge which is impossible for em to
> >>> > break, e CAN withdraw that pledge without objection and with 24 hours
> >>> > notice.
> >>> > }
> >>>
> >>> We used to allow the Notary to do this unilaterally (without any sort
> >>> of dependent action). It lead to some fun counterscams (it's surprising
> >>> how often someone would create a contract as part of a scam and forget
> >>> to put at least one obligation in it).
> >
> > Heh, sounds fun.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On another subject, note that I think this requires waiting for 4 days
> >>> for objections, the way it's worded (not 100% sure on that). You
> >>> probably didn't mean that. You might want to define "withdraw", too
> >>> (although the natural-language meaning probably works).
> >
> > Hm, you're probably right. How exactly might I do that?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ais523
> >>
> >>
> >> Rule 2450 already provides for withdrawal without objection.
> >
> > ...It doesn't? Rule 2450 reads:
> >>
> >>   A player SHALL NOT break eir own publicly-made pledges.
> >>
> >>   A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete
> >> it
> >>   in a timely manner after it becomes possible to do so. A pledge
> may
> >> be
> >>   considered broken at the moment the pledger engages in conduct
> >>   proscribed by that pledge.
> >
> > Am I missing something or are you remembering an older version of the
> rules?
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

[VJ Rada]

This is actually a version of the rules so new our H. Rulekeepor
hasn't written it yet :)

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:39 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 20:31 Alex Smith  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:28 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
>>> > Amend rule 2450 by adding the following text at the end:
>>> > {
>>> > If, at any time, a player owns a pledge which is impossible for em to
>>> > break, e CAN withdraw that pledge without objection and with 24 hours
>>> > notice.
>>> > }
>>>
>>> We used to allow the Notary to do this unilaterally (without any sort
>>> of dependent action). It lead to some fun counterscams (it's surprising
>>> how often someone would create a contract as part of a scam and forget
>>> to put at least one obligation in it).
>
> Heh, sounds fun.
>>>
>>>
>>> On another subject, note that I think this requires waiting for 4 days
>>> for objections, the way it's worded (not 100% sure on that). You
>>> probably didn't mean that. You might want to define "withdraw", too
>>> (although the natural-language meaning probably works).
>
> Hm, you're probably right. How exactly might I do that?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523
>>
>>
>> Rule 2450 already provides for withdrawal without objection.
>
> ...It doesn't? Rule 2450 reads:
>>
>>   A player SHALL NOT break eir own publicly-made pledges.
>>
>>   A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete
>> it
>>   in a timely manner after it becomes possible to do so. A pledge may
>> be
>>   considered broken at the moment the pledger engages in conduct
>>   proscribed by that pledge.
>
> Am I missing something or are you remembering an older version of the rules?



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

[VJ Rada]

Yeah, the pledge rule as written in the ruleset does not, but the
proposal that made pledges an asset ("make your home shine) also made
pledges withdrawable, and it passed a few days ago

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 20:31 Alex Smith  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:28 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
>> > Amend rule 2450 by adding the following text at the end:
>> > {
>> > If, at any time, a player owns a pledge which is impossible for em to
>> > break, e CAN withdraw that pledge without objection and with 24 hours
>> > notice.
>> > }
>>
>> We used to allow the Notary to do this unilaterally (without any sort
>> of dependent action). It lead to some fun counterscams (it's surprising
>> how often someone would create a contract as part of a scam and forget
>> to put at least one obligation in it).
>>
>> On another subject, note that I think this requires waiting for 4 days
>> for objections, the way it's worded (not 100% sure on that). You
>> probably didn't mean that. You might want to define "withdraw", too
>> (although the natural-language meaning probably works).
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>
>
> Rule 2450 already provides for withdrawal without objection.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

[ATMunn .]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 20:31 Alex Smith  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:28 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
>> > Amend rule 2450 by adding the following text at the end:
>> > {
>> > If, at any time, a player owns a pledge which is impossible for em to
>> > break, e CAN withdraw that pledge without objection and with 24 hours
>> > notice.
>> > }
>>
>> We used to allow the Notary to do this unilaterally (without any sort
>> of dependent action). It lead to some fun counterscams (it's surprising
>> how often someone would create a contract as part of a scam and forget
>> to put at least one obligation in it).
>>
> Heh, sounds fun.

>
>> On another subject, note that I think this requires waiting for 4 days
>> for objections, the way it's worded (not 100% sure on that). You
>> probably didn't mean that. You might want to define "withdraw", too
>> (although the natural-language meaning probably works).
>>
> Hm, you're probably right. How exactly might I do that?

>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
> Rule 2450 already provides for withdrawal without objection.
>
...It doesn't? Rule 2450 reads:

>   A player SHALL NOT break eir own publicly-made pledges.
>
>   A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete it
>   in a timely manner after it becomes possible to do so. A pledge may be
>   considered broken at the moment the pledger engages in conduct
>   proscribed by that pledge.
>
> Am I missing something or are you remembering an older version of the
rules?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

[Alexis Hunt]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 20:31 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:28 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
> > Amend rule 2450 by adding the following text at the end:
> > {
> > If, at any time, a player owns a pledge which is impossible for em to
> > break, e CAN withdraw that pledge without objection and with 24 hours
> > notice.
> > }
>
> We used to allow the Notary to do this unilaterally (without any sort
> of dependent action). It lead to some fun counterscams (it's surprising
> how often someone would create a contract as part of a scam and forget
> to put at least one obligation in it).
>
> On another subject, note that I think this requires waiting for 4 days
> for objections, the way it's worded (not 100% sure on that). You
> probably didn't mean that. You might want to define "withdraw", too
> (although the natural-language meaning probably works).
>
> --
> ais523
>

Rule 2450 already provides for withdrawal without objection.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:28 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
> Amend rule 2450 by adding the following text at the end:
> {
> If, at any time, a player owns a pledge which is impossible for em to
> break, e CAN withdraw that pledge without objection and with 24 hours
> notice.
> }

We used to allow the Notary to do this unilaterally (without any sort
of dependent action). It lead to some fun counterscams (it's surprising
how often someone would create a contract as part of a scam and forget
to put at least one obligation in it).

On another subject, note that I think this requires waiting for 4 days
for objections, the way it's worded (not 100% sure on that). You
probably didn't mean that. You might want to define "withdraw", too
(although the natural-language meaning probably works).

-- 
ais523

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[ATMunn .]

I had no idea that website existed. That would have been useful as a new
player (although by now I know pretty much all of them)

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:04 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something
> >> like “understandable to an average English speaker.” This lets us
> >> avoid grammar-nazi arguments about if something counts as
> >> English(TM). (grammar issues, funner, deja vu)
> >
> > I'd argue that statements like TIYAEOTISIDTIDFTHPAFALT aren't
> > understandable to an average English speaker, but nonetheless used to
> > be understandable to the majority of Agorans.
>
> Pardon? I'd heard ATEOISIDTIDWHPAFALT
> (http://zenith.homelinux.net/agora_acronyms.php) but not this one,
> although they're clearly realated.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

[Kerim Aydin]

After 3557 I suggested that, whatever the rules imply now, we should put
this in directly and legislatively (and an informal poll suggested that
the preference was *for* the implication).  A couple MMI changes have been
proposed by others but I think they all had a couple bugs and got voted
down, I'll try my hand on solid fix proposal by tomorrow...

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Yeah G. has already made that argument vociferously, and several
> times. Right now as the CFJs stand, it's good law and recently
> re-affirmed (also with regards to MAY). But you're quite right that
> the precedential underpinnings are shaky.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> > I'm digging into the precedent of the SHALL implies CAN by announcement
> > (e.g. CFJ 3557), and I think it arose by taking various judgments out of
> > place. I'll post a more detailed analysis later.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

[VJ Rada]

Yeah G. has already made that argument vociferously, and several
times. Right now as the CFJs stand, it's good law and recently
re-affirmed (also with regards to MAY). But you're quite right that
the precedential underpinnings are shaky.


On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> I'm digging into the precedent of the SHALL implies CAN by announcement
> (e.g. CFJ 3557), and I think it arose by taking various judgments out of
> place. I'll post a more detailed analysis later.
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 18:22 Josh T  wrote:
>>
>> Good job on noticing the extra comma there.
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>> On 12 October 2017 at 17:57, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Since we're on the subject of bad grammar, I might as well take care of
>>> this -
>>>  ain't getting any fresher.]
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> > This auction ended at Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:30:33 -0400, with the
>>> > following bids:
>>> >
>>> > * o, 1 sh., for emself.
>>> > * o, 80 sh., for emself. (Incuded a blurb.)
>>> > * G., 1,010 sh. for emself.
>>>
>>>
>>> I transfer the Estate of Dawsbergen to myself.
>>>
>>>
>>> I pledge that, if the below CFJ is found TRUE and survives the
>>> Reconsideration/Moot
>>> time frame, I will transfer 41 Shinies to Agora as unofficial payment for
>>> this (and
>>> no other purpose).  [41 shinies was the max bid I'd decided on last week,
>>> before I
>>> went and re-read the auction rule].
>>>
>>>
>>> I shiny-CFJ on the following statement, barring o:
>>>
>>>   G. owns the Estate of Dawsbergen.
>>>
>>>
>>> ARGUMENTS
>>>
>>> Regard the following hypothetical Rules clause:
>>>
>>> A player CAN do X by A, by B, or by C.
>>>
>>> I think there's only one reasonably clear interpretation of this clause,
>>> that the player has three independent methods for doing X, either by A,
>>> by B or by C.  The grammatical clues for this construct are the
>>> repetition of the term "by", and the "or" which (by clear grammatical
>>> rules) distributes over the list to "A or B or C."  It's pretty darn
>>> clear, and really the only sensible reading.
>>>
>>> Compare this directly with the language of R2491, with line breaks
>>> inserted for emphasis:
>>>
>>> The player who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely
>>> fashion, cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner
>>> by announcement,
>>> by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or
>>> by causing the winning Organization to pay Agora the amount of the
>>> bid.
>>>
>>> Exactly the same as the hypothetical example.  So I have simply opted
>>> for the first method (by announcement) for making the transfer, instead
>>> of the other methods ("by paying").
>>>
>>> That's my whole argument.  It's an argument, and it's mine.  But I've
>>> anticipated some counterarguments for your convenience:
>>>
>>> Q:  But don't you have to pay by announcement?  I thought that was the
>>> point of recent rules changes!  So the 'by announcement' shouldn't be
>>> separated from 'by paying Agora' because otherwise 'paying Agora'
>>> doesn't work?
>>>
>>> A:  "paying" is already a by-announcement action by R2166 (Assets).
>>> Moreover, CFJ 3557 recently found that the CAN and SHALL imply 'by
>>> announcement', so that implication should map onto all three methods in
>>> terms of announcing the reason for the payment.
>>>
>>> Q:  But other rules have this compound!  What about this:
>>>   Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending"
>>>   by announcement by: b) spending the current Pend Cost in shinies
>>> and this:
>>>   b) by announcement, and spending the current CFJ Cost in shinies,
>>>
>>> A:  None of those examples have an "or", real or implied.  And
>>> "spending" *isn't* a 'by announcement' action on its own, so it needs
>>> the support and the strongly-implied 'and'.
>>>
>>> Q:  But can't we read '...by A, by B, or by C' as 'by A and either
>>> (by B or by C)'?
>>>
>>> A:  That's a really poor inference from the grammar, and substituting
>>> a weakly-implied "and" for a strongly-implied 'or' is a complete
>>> reversal of meaning, not a minor grammatical quirk.
>>>
>>> Q:  But the *intent* of the rule is clearly...
>>>
>>> A:  This is Agora - text of the rules, dude.
>>>
>>>
>>> EVIDENCE
>>>
>>> Rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions")
>>> [Note:  the most recent SLR/FLR has this rule incorrectly-written due to
>>> a copy/past error.  I've taken this text from Proposal 7888.]
>>>
>>>
>>>  At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate,
>>>  the Surveyor CAN, by announcement, and SHALL in a timely
>>>  fashion, put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction.
>>>  Each auction ends seven days after it begins.
>>>
>>>  During an auction, any player CAN bid a number of Shinies on
>>>  eir own behalf, by announcement, or on behalf of any
>>>  Organization for which such a bid 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

[Alexis Hunt]

I'm digging into the precedent of the SHALL implies CAN by announcement
(e.g. CFJ 3557), and I think it arose by taking various judgments out of
place. I'll post a more detailed analysis later.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 18:22 Josh T  wrote:

> Good job on noticing the extra comma there.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 12 October 2017 at 17:57, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> [Since we're on the subject of bad grammar, I might as well take care of
>> this -
>>  ain't getting any fresher.]
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> > This auction ended at Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:30:33 -0400, with the
>> following bids:
>> >
>> > * o, 1 sh., for emself.
>> > * o, 80 sh., for emself. (Incuded a blurb.)
>> > * G., 1,010 sh. for emself.
>>
>>
>> I transfer the Estate of Dawsbergen to myself.
>>
>>
>> I pledge that, if the below CFJ is found TRUE and survives the
>> Reconsideration/Moot
>> time frame, I will transfer 41 Shinies to Agora as unofficial payment for
>> this (and
>> no other purpose).  [41 shinies was the max bid I'd decided on last week,
>> before I
>> went and re-read the auction rule].
>>
>>
>> I shiny-CFJ on the following statement, barring o:
>>
>>   G. owns the Estate of Dawsbergen.
>>
>>
>> ARGUMENTS
>>
>> Regard the following hypothetical Rules clause:
>>
>> A player CAN do X by A, by B, or by C.
>>
>> I think there's only one reasonably clear interpretation of this clause,
>> that the player has three independent methods for doing X, either by A,
>> by B or by C.  The grammatical clues for this construct are the
>> repetition of the term "by", and the "or" which (by clear grammatical
>> rules) distributes over the list to "A or B or C."  It's pretty darn
>> clear, and really the only sensible reading.
>>
>> Compare this directly with the language of R2491, with line breaks
>> inserted for emphasis:
>>
>> The player who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely
>> fashion, cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner
>> by announcement,
>> by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or
>> by causing the winning Organization to pay Agora the amount of the
>> bid.
>>
>> Exactly the same as the hypothetical example.  So I have simply opted
>> for the first method (by announcement) for making the transfer, instead
>> of the other methods ("by paying").
>>
>> That's my whole argument.  It's an argument, and it's mine.  But I've
>> anticipated some counterarguments for your convenience:
>>
>> Q:  But don't you have to pay by announcement?  I thought that was the
>> point of recent rules changes!  So the 'by announcement' shouldn't be
>> separated from 'by paying Agora' because otherwise 'paying Agora'
>> doesn't work?
>>
>> A:  "paying" is already a by-announcement action by R2166 (Assets).
>> Moreover, CFJ 3557 recently found that the CAN and SHALL imply 'by
>> announcement', so that implication should map onto all three methods in
>> terms of announcing the reason for the payment.
>>
>> Q:  But other rules have this compound!  What about this:
>>   Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending"
>>   by announcement by: b) spending the current Pend Cost in shinies
>> and this:
>>   b) by announcement, and spending the current CFJ Cost in shinies,
>>
>> A:  None of those examples have an "or", real or implied.  And
>> "spending" *isn't* a 'by announcement' action on its own, so it needs
>> the support and the strongly-implied 'and'.
>>
>> Q:  But can't we read '...by A, by B, or by C' as 'by A and either
>> (by B or by C)'?
>>
>> A:  That's a really poor inference from the grammar, and substituting
>> a weakly-implied "and" for a strongly-implied 'or' is a complete
>> reversal of meaning, not a minor grammatical quirk.
>>
>> Q:  But the *intent* of the rule is clearly...
>>
>> A:  This is Agora - text of the rules, dude.
>>
>>
>> EVIDENCE
>>
>> Rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions")
>> [Note:  the most recent SLR/FLR has this rule incorrectly-written due to
>> a copy/past error.  I've taken this text from Proposal 7888.]
>>
>>
>>  At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate,
>>  the Surveyor CAN, by announcement, and SHALL in a timely
>>  fashion, put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction.
>>  Each auction ends seven days after it begins.
>>
>>  During an auction, any player CAN bid a number of Shinies on
>>  eir own behalf, by announcement, or on behalf of any
>>  Organization for which such a bid is Appropriate, by
>>  announcement, provided the bid is higher than any
>>  previously-placed bid in the same auction.
>>
>>  If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
>>  then that player or Organization wins the auction. The player
>>  who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion,
>>  cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner by
>>  announcement, by paying 

DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

[Josh T]

Good job on noticing the extra comma there.

天火狐

On 12 October 2017 at 17:57, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> [Since we're on the subject of bad grammar, I might as well take care of
> this -
>  ain't getting any fresher.]
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > This auction ended at Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:30:33 -0400, with the
> following bids:
> >
> > * o, 1 sh., for emself.
> > * o, 80 sh., for emself. (Incuded a blurb.)
> > * G., 1,010 sh. for emself.
>
>
> I transfer the Estate of Dawsbergen to myself.
>
>
> I pledge that, if the below CFJ is found TRUE and survives the
> Reconsideration/Moot
> time frame, I will transfer 41 Shinies to Agora as unofficial payment for
> this (and
> no other purpose).  [41 shinies was the max bid I'd decided on last week,
> before I
> went and re-read the auction rule].
>
>
> I shiny-CFJ on the following statement, barring o:
>
>   G. owns the Estate of Dawsbergen.
>
>
> ARGUMENTS
>
> Regard the following hypothetical Rules clause:
>
> A player CAN do X by A, by B, or by C.
>
> I think there's only one reasonably clear interpretation of this clause,
> that the player has three independent methods for doing X, either by A,
> by B or by C.  The grammatical clues for this construct are the
> repetition of the term "by", and the "or" which (by clear grammatical
> rules) distributes over the list to "A or B or C."  It's pretty darn
> clear, and really the only sensible reading.
>
> Compare this directly with the language of R2491, with line breaks
> inserted for emphasis:
>
> The player who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely
> fashion, cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner
> by announcement,
> by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or
> by causing the winning Organization to pay Agora the amount of the
> bid.
>
> Exactly the same as the hypothetical example.  So I have simply opted
> for the first method (by announcement) for making the transfer, instead
> of the other methods ("by paying").
>
> That's my whole argument.  It's an argument, and it's mine.  But I've
> anticipated some counterarguments for your convenience:
>
> Q:  But don't you have to pay by announcement?  I thought that was the
> point of recent rules changes!  So the 'by announcement' shouldn't be
> separated from 'by paying Agora' because otherwise 'paying Agora'
> doesn't work?
>
> A:  "paying" is already a by-announcement action by R2166 (Assets).
> Moreover, CFJ 3557 recently found that the CAN and SHALL imply 'by
> announcement', so that implication should map onto all three methods in
> terms of announcing the reason for the payment.
>
> Q:  But other rules have this compound!  What about this:
>   Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending"
>   by announcement by: b) spending the current Pend Cost in shinies
> and this:
>   b) by announcement, and spending the current CFJ Cost in shinies,
>
> A:  None of those examples have an "or", real or implied.  And
> "spending" *isn't* a 'by announcement' action on its own, so it needs
> the support and the strongly-implied 'and'.
>
> Q:  But can't we read '...by A, by B, or by C' as 'by A and either
> (by B or by C)'?
>
> A:  That's a really poor inference from the grammar, and substituting
> a weakly-implied "and" for a strongly-implied 'or' is a complete
> reversal of meaning, not a minor grammatical quirk.
>
> Q:  But the *intent* of the rule is clearly...
>
> A:  This is Agora - text of the rules, dude.
>
>
> EVIDENCE
>
> Rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions")
> [Note:  the most recent SLR/FLR has this rule incorrectly-written due to
> a copy/past error.  I've taken this text from Proposal 7888.]
>
>
>  At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate,
>  the Surveyor CAN, by announcement, and SHALL in a timely
>  fashion, put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction.
>  Each auction ends seven days after it begins.
>
>  During an auction, any player CAN bid a number of Shinies on
>  eir own behalf, by announcement, or on behalf of any
>  Organization for which such a bid is Appropriate, by
>  announcement, provided the bid is higher than any
>  previously-placed bid in the same auction.
>
>  If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
>  then that player or Organization wins the auction. The player
>  who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion,
>  cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner by
>  announcement, by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or by
>  causing the winning Organization to pay Agora the amount of the
>  bid.
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

[VJ Rada]

Yes, I think you're absolutely right on this. The "VJ Rada called 3
elections" CFJ judged a couple of months ago by omd also interpreted
very similar text in the same way that G. here does.

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> [Since we're on the subject of bad grammar, I might as well take care of this 
> -
>  ain't getting any fresher.]
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> This auction ended at Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:30:33 -0400, with the following 
>> bids:
>>
>> * o, 1 sh., for emself.
>> * o, 80 sh., for emself. (Incuded a blurb.)
>> * G., 1,010 sh. for emself.
>
>
> I transfer the Estate of Dawsbergen to myself.
>
>
> I pledge that, if the below CFJ is found TRUE and survives the 
> Reconsideration/Moot
> time frame, I will transfer 41 Shinies to Agora as unofficial payment for 
> this (and
> no other purpose).  [41 shinies was the max bid I'd decided on last week, 
> before I
> went and re-read the auction rule].
>
>
> I shiny-CFJ on the following statement, barring o:
>
>   G. owns the Estate of Dawsbergen.
>
>
> ARGUMENTS
>
> Regard the following hypothetical Rules clause:
>
> A player CAN do X by A, by B, or by C.
>
> I think there's only one reasonably clear interpretation of this clause,
> that the player has three independent methods for doing X, either by A,
> by B or by C.  The grammatical clues for this construct are the
> repetition of the term "by", and the "or" which (by clear grammatical
> rules) distributes over the list to "A or B or C."  It's pretty darn
> clear, and really the only sensible reading.
>
> Compare this directly with the language of R2491, with line breaks
> inserted for emphasis:
>
> The player who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely
> fashion, cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner
> by announcement,
> by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or
> by causing the winning Organization to pay Agora the amount of the
> bid.
>
> Exactly the same as the hypothetical example.  So I have simply opted
> for the first method (by announcement) for making the transfer, instead
> of the other methods ("by paying").
>
> That's my whole argument.  It's an argument, and it's mine.  But I've
> anticipated some counterarguments for your convenience:
>
> Q:  But don't you have to pay by announcement?  I thought that was the
> point of recent rules changes!  So the 'by announcement' shouldn't be
> separated from 'by paying Agora' because otherwise 'paying Agora'
> doesn't work?
>
> A:  "paying" is already a by-announcement action by R2166 (Assets).
> Moreover, CFJ 3557 recently found that the CAN and SHALL imply 'by
> announcement', so that implication should map onto all three methods in
> terms of announcing the reason for the payment.
>
> Q:  But other rules have this compound!  What about this:
>   Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending"
>   by announcement by: b) spending the current Pend Cost in shinies
> and this:
>   b) by announcement, and spending the current CFJ Cost in shinies,
>
> A:  None of those examples have an "or", real or implied.  And
> "spending" *isn't* a 'by announcement' action on its own, so it needs
> the support and the strongly-implied 'and'.
>
> Q:  But can't we read '...by A, by B, or by C' as 'by A and either
> (by B or by C)'?
>
> A:  That's a really poor inference from the grammar, and substituting
> a weakly-implied "and" for a strongly-implied 'or' is a complete
> reversal of meaning, not a minor grammatical quirk.
>
> Q:  But the *intent* of the rule is clearly...
>
> A:  This is Agora - text of the rules, dude.
>
>
> EVIDENCE
>
> Rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions")
> [Note:  the most recent SLR/FLR has this rule incorrectly-written due to
> a copy/past error.  I've taken this text from Proposal 7888.]
>
>
>  At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate,
>  the Surveyor CAN, by announcement, and SHALL in a timely
>  fashion, put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction.
>  Each auction ends seven days after it begins.
>
>  During an auction, any player CAN bid a number of Shinies on
>  eir own behalf, by announcement, or on behalf of any
>  Organization for which such a bid is Appropriate, by
>  announcement, provided the bid is higher than any
>  previously-placed bid in the same auction.
>
>  If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
>  then that player or Organization wins the auction. The player
>  who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion,
>  cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner by
>  announcement, by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or by
>  causing the winning Organization to pay Agora the amount of the
>  bid.
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I agree that Agora should be language-agnostic for the most part.


On 10/12/2017 09:47 AM, Josh T wrote:
I object to this for hopefully obvious reasons, given my history with 
playing with language.


天火狐

On 12 October 2017 at 09:34, ATMunn . > wrote:


Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
Author: ATMunn
AI: 1

Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
{
A language is a set of symbols, sounds and rules used to
communicate information.
The official language that should be used in all Agoran fora is
Spivak.

The Spivak language is defined as being nearly identical to
English except for the following:
* The pronouns "he," "she," and "they" have been replaced with "e"
* The pronouns "him," "her," and "them" have been replaced with "em"
* The adjectives "his," "her," and "their" have been replaced with
"eir"
* The pronouns "his," "hers," and "theirs" have been replaced with
"eirs"
* The pronouns "himself," "herself," and "themself" have been
replaced with "emself"
}

Let me know what you think. I've had this idea for a little while
now, as a way to make it clear for new players why we use these
abnormal pronouns; and now seems like a great time as the pend
cost is only 1 shiny, so I might as well take advantage of that
while I can.

DIS: Re: BUS: Creating and Revoking Agencies

[Alexis Hunt]

Note that this intent fails as it doesn't specify the resulting powers.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 16:10 VJ Rada  wrote:

> OscarMeyr that amendment doesn't work, it's not a power. You COULD
> create the power to make pledges.
>
> I intend to amend ORP to remove the text "to Alexis" if it exists.
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 15:50 Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >>
> >> I intend, with 24 hours Notice, to amend ORP by appending , creating a
> >> resulting powers of:
> >>
> >> {{{
> >>
> >> IMMUTABLE POWERS
> >> Agents of this agency have the power to intend to amend and to amend
> >> this agency on behalf of VJ Rada. These amendments may not give anyone
> >> the power to deregister VJ Rada, and they may not alter any text in
> >> the Immutable Powers section of this agency, without VJ Rada's
> >> explicit consent (acting as himself, from the email address
> >> vijar...@gmail.com).
> >> MUTABLE POWERS
> >> 1. Resign from any office. 2. Object to, or support, or withdraw any
> >> objection to or support for, any notice of intent. 3. Cast or withdraw
> any
> >> vote on any Agoran decision. 4. Transfer shinies to Alexis. 5. Pend
> >> proposals, at a cost of either shinies or AP.
> >> }}}
> >>
> >> -Alexis
> >
> >
> > Hmm, I did this wrong. On behalf of VJ Rada (via ORP), I intend, with 24
> > hours Notice, to amend ORP by appending " 1. Resign from any office. 2.
> > Object to, or support, or withdraw any objection to or support for, any
> > notice of intent. 3. Cast or withdraw any vote on any Agoran decision. 4.
> > Transfer shinies to Alexis. 5. Pend proposals, at a cost of either
> shinies
> > or AP. 6. Intend to create or revoke an agency, and create or revoke an
> > agency.", resulting in the powers being as follows:
> > {{{
> > IMMUTABLE POWERS===Agents of this agency have the power to intend to
> > amend and to amend this agency on behalf of VJ Rada. These amendments may
> > not give anyone the power to deregister VJ Rada, and they may not alter
> any
> > text in the Immutable Powers section of this agency, without VJ Rada's
> > explicit consent (acting as himself, from the email address
> > vijar...@gmail.com).
> > MUTABLE POWERS
> > 1. Resign from any office. 2. Object to, or support, or withdraw any
> > objection to or support for, any notice of intent. 3. Cast or withdraw
> any
> > vote on any Agoran decision. 4. Transfer shinies to Alexis. 5. Pend
> > proposals, at a cost of either shinies or AP. 6. Intend to create or
> revoke
> > an agency, and create or revoke an agency.
> > }}}
> >
> > -Alexis
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Resolving Elections (Tailor FAILED QUORUM, Assessor PSS)

[VJ Rada]

Sorry I did a rather thorough search of the archives at that time,
don't know how I missed it.

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> COE, on 5 oct I voted present for tailor and (pss, g) for assessor.  -G.
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> I resolve the Agoran decisions for the determination of the Tailor and
>> Assessor. The quorum was 8.0, the valid options were the players (and
>> PRESENT), and I, the ADoP, am the vote collector.
>>
>>
>> ===Tailor===
>> Unfortunately, we were one short of a Quorum. FAILED QUORUM is the
>> resolution, with seven votes. Alexis remains Tailor.
>> -
>> Alexis: Alexis
>> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
>> (NOTE: I strongly remember Quazie changing eir vote here, but a search
>> of the archives reveals no emails by Quazie remotely dealing with this
>> issue. I'd like it if somebody could remember if this happened because
>> that may resolve the Assessor election differently.]
>> Trigon: Alexis
>> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
>> o: Alexis
>> V.J. Rada: Alexis
>> ATMunn: PRESENT
>>
>> ===Assessor===
>> Gaelan has one first-preference vote. There are two players with two
>> first-preference votes each, G. and PSS. Eliminating Gaelan gives PSS
>> an extra vote, which allows em to win the election, with three votes
>> to G's two. PSS gains the position of Assessor.
>> 
>> Alexis: G.
>> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
>> Resolved as: PRESENT
>> Trigon: Endorse G.
>> Resolved as: PRESENT
>> PSS: {PSS, G}
>> o.: PSS
>> VJ Rada: G
>> Gaelan: I conditionally vote: {Gaelan, PSS} followed by {all
>> players nichdel votes for, in the order in which e votes for them, excluding
>> Gaelan and PSS}
>> Resolved as: {Gaelan, PSS}
>> ATMunn: PRESENT
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Creating and Revoking Agencies

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 19:50 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I intend, with 24 hours Notice, to amend ORP by appending "1. Resign from
> any office. 2. Object to, or support, or withdraw any objection to or
> support for, any notice of intent. 3. Cast or withdraw any vote on any
> Agoran decision. 4. Transfer shinies to Alexis. 5. Pend proposals, at a
> cost of either shinies or AP.", creating a resulting powers of:

This Agency is going to get very, very spammy if scammed correctly by
everyone involved.

-- 
ais523

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Aris Merchant]

A SHALL NOT on registering, under any circumstances, is probably a bad
idea. I'd tend to just go with the official language thing instead.

-Aris

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> How about this: “Public messages must be communicated using a form of 
> communication that can be interpreted by all players without unreasonable 
> effort. People SHALL NOT register if they are not capable in communicating in 
> such a fashion, or understanding communications understood by other players.”
>
> Could use some ironing out, but I think it’s a good start.
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Oct 12, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, the interesting thing to me is that we don't codify (in the Rules)
>> that English is our official language.  We used to say that a person was
>> someone who was generally "capable of communicating by email in English
>> (including via a translation service)", but that's as close as we got.
>> In fact, IIRC we, at least once, specifically voted down an attempt to
>> make English the official language.
>>
>> Now we're governed by the precedents of "if most/all of the players
>> understand a communication with reasonable effort, it works" while
>> acknowledging that, because of history, that pretty much limits us to
>> English.  But if we suddenly realized we all have a second language in
>> common, we could use that.
>>
>> So if we "codify" Spivak, it's two different things to say "we're calling
>> Spivak a language and codifying it, thereby codifying English with Spivak
>> pronouns as our official language" versus codifying "if you happen to be
>> using English, as we mostly do, please use the Spivak version."
>>
>> This becomes the difference between saying "That Japanese had a perfectly
>> clear and unambiguous translation using Google, therefore we allow it by
>> precedent" and saying "sorry, that wasn't in English, and (Spivak) English
>> is the official language, it doesn't matter how clear the translation is".
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>> If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something like
>>> “understandable to an average English speaker.” This lets us avoid 
>>> grammar-nazi
>>> arguments about if something counts as English(TM). (grammar issues, 
>>> funner, deja vu)
>>>
>>> Gaelan
>>>
 On Oct 12, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 07:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather
> (by Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in
> English".

 I'd argue that an English-like language which uses Spivak pronouns (and
 a few other changes) is indeed a language which we habitually use at
 Agora. Whether is actually has a name is less certain, but Spivak is as
 good a name as any.

 If we're codifying this in the rules, I'd recommend defining the
 language itself (whatever we call it), stating that players should not
 perform actions that would cause rules to be created or amended to be
 written in other languages, and recommending (in a non-binding way)
 that the language is used for other communication. (I can see a good
 argument for using a consistent language for the ruleset; messing
 around with language in other contexts is probably not something we
 should ban though.)

 --
 ais523
>>>
>

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Gaelan Steele]

How about this: “Public messages must be communicated using a form of 
communication that can be interpreted by all players without unreasonable 
effort. People SHALL NOT register if they are not capable in communicating in 
such a fashion, or understanding communications understood by other players.”

Could use some ironing out, but I think it’s a good start.

Gaelan

> On Oct 12, 2017, at 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the interesting thing to me is that we don't codify (in the Rules)
> that English is our official language.  We used to say that a person was 
> someone who was generally "capable of communicating by email in English
> (including via a translation service)", but that's as close as we got.
> In fact, IIRC we, at least once, specifically voted down an attempt to
> make English the official language.
> 
> Now we're governed by the precedents of "if most/all of the players
> understand a communication with reasonable effort, it works" while 
> acknowledging that, because of history, that pretty much limits us to
> English.  But if we suddenly realized we all have a second language in
> common, we could use that.
> 
> So if we "codify" Spivak, it's two different things to say "we're calling
> Spivak a language and codifying it, thereby codifying English with Spivak
> pronouns as our official language" versus codifying "if you happen to be
> using English, as we mostly do, please use the Spivak version."
> 
> This becomes the difference between saying "That Japanese had a perfectly
> clear and unambiguous translation using Google, therefore we allow it by
> precedent" and saying "sorry, that wasn't in English, and (Spivak) English
> is the official language, it doesn't matter how clear the translation is".
> 
> 
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something like 
>> “understandable to an average English speaker.” This lets us avoid 
>> grammar-nazi 
>> arguments about if something counts as English(TM). (grammar issues, funner, 
>> deja vu)
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Oct 12, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>>> 
 On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 07:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather
 (by Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in
 English".
>>> 
>>> I'd argue that an English-like language which uses Spivak pronouns (and
>>> a few other changes) is indeed a language which we habitually use at
>>> Agora. Whether is actually has a name is less certain, but Spivak is as
>>> good a name as any.
>>> 
>>> If we're codifying this in the rules, I'd recommend defining the
>>> language itself (whatever we call it), stating that players should not
>>> perform actions that would cause rules to be created or amended to be
>>> written in other languages, and recommending (in a non-binding way)
>>> that the language is used for other communication. (I can see a good
>>> argument for using a consistent language for the ruleset; messing
>>> around with language in other contexts is probably not something we
>>> should ban though.)
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> ais523
>> 

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:04 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something
> >> like “understandable to an average English speaker.” This lets us
> >> avoid grammar-nazi arguments about if something counts as
> >> English(TM). (grammar issues, funner, deja vu)
> >
> > I'd argue that statements like TIYAEOTISIDTIDFTHPAFALT aren't
> > understandable to an average English speaker, but nonetheless used to
> > be understandable to the majority of Agorans.
> 
> Pardon? I'd heard ATEOISIDTIDWHPAFALT
> (http://zenith.homelinux.net/agora_acronyms.php) but not this one,
> although they're clearly realated.
> 
> -Aris
>

"This Is Yet Another Example Of The I Say I Did, Therefore I Did
Fallacy That Has Plagued Agora For A Long Time."

But I personally don't recognize any of these until I pick out the
"ISID", then I might be able to reconstruct from memory.

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alexis Hunt]

This is yet another example of the I say I do therefore I do fallacy that
has plagued Agora for a long time, unless I mistake myself.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 14:26 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:04 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something
> >> like “understandable to an average English speaker.” This lets us
> >> avoid grammar-nazi arguments about if something counts as
> >> English(TM). (grammar issues, funner, deja vu)
> >
> > I'd argue that statements like TIYAEOTISIDTIDFTHPAFALT aren't
> > understandable to an average English speaker, but nonetheless used to
> > be understandable to the majority of Agorans.
>
> Pardon? I'd heard ATEOISIDTIDWHPAFALT
> (http://zenith.homelinux.net/agora_acronyms.php) but not this one,
> although they're clearly realated.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:04 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something
>> like “understandable to an average English speaker.” This lets us
>> avoid grammar-nazi arguments about if something counts as
>> English(TM). (grammar issues, funner, deja vu)
>
> I'd argue that statements like TIYAEOTISIDTIDFTHPAFALT aren't
> understandable to an average English speaker, but nonetheless used to
> be understandable to the majority of Agorans.

Pardon? I'd heard ATEOISIDTIDWHPAFALT
(http://zenith.homelinux.net/agora_acronyms.php) but not this one,
although they're clearly realated.

-Aris

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Kerim Aydin]

Well, the interesting thing to me is that we don't codify (in the Rules)
that English is our official language.  We used to say that a person was 
someone who was generally "capable of communicating by email in English
(including via a translation service)", but that's as close as we got.
In fact, IIRC we, at least once, specifically voted down an attempt to
make English the official language.

Now we're governed by the precedents of "if most/all of the players
understand a communication with reasonable effort, it works" while 
acknowledging that, because of history, that pretty much limits us to
English.  But if we suddenly realized we all have a second language in
common, we could use that.

So if we "codify" Spivak, it's two different things to say "we're calling
Spivak a language and codifying it, thereby codifying English with Spivak
pronouns as our official language" versus codifying "if you happen to be
using English, as we mostly do, please use the Spivak version."

This becomes the difference between saying "That Japanese had a perfectly
clear and unambiguous translation using Google, therefore we allow it by
precedent" and saying "sorry, that wasn't in English, and (Spivak) English
is the official language, it doesn't matter how clear the translation is".


On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something like 
> “understandable to an average English speaker.” This lets us avoid 
> grammar-nazi 
> arguments about if something counts as English(TM). (grammar issues, funner, 
> deja vu)
> 
> Gaelan
> 
> > On Oct 12, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> > 
> >> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 07:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather
> >> (by Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in
> >> English".
> > 
> > I'd argue that an English-like language which uses Spivak pronouns (and
> > a few other changes) is indeed a language which we habitually use at
> > Agora. Whether is actually has a name is less certain, but Spivak is as
> > good a name as any.
> > 
> > If we're codifying this in the rules, I'd recommend defining the
> > language itself (whatever we call it), stating that players should not
> > perform actions that would cause rules to be created or amended to be
> > written in other languages, and recommending (in a non-binding way)
> > that the language is used for other communication. (I can see a good
> > argument for using a consistent language for the ruleset; messing
> > around with language in other contexts is probably not something we
> > should ban though.)
> > 
> > -- 
> > ais523
>

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:04 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something
> like “understandable to an average English speaker.” This lets us
> avoid grammar-nazi arguments about if something counts as
> English(TM). (grammar issues, funner, deja vu)

I'd argue that statements like TIYAEOTISIDTIDFTHPAFALT aren't
understandable to an average English speaker, but nonetheless used to
be understandable to the majority of Agorans.

Last time it came up, many of the players hadn't seen it before but
some of them were very close to figuring it out. As we've had an almost
total playerlist turnover since, I'm curious as to who'd be able to
interpret it correctly nowadays.

Another example is TTttPF, but that's used much more often and I think
most Agorans are familiar with it.

(Note that such a statement is distinct from a word such as
nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk,
which although it's been frequently used at Agora, in fact often enough
that it's typically just abbreviated to "nkep", still doesn't have any
widely agreed upon meaning; it's normally used as a metasyntactic
variable for a word for which some people know the meaning of, and
others don't, i.e. the whole point of it is that you might not know
what it means, and when it /does/ mean something it hasn't had a
consistent meaning.)

-- 
ais523

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Gaelan Steele]

If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something like 
“understandable to an average English speaker.” This lets us avoid grammar-nazi 
arguments about if something counts as English(TM). (grammar issues, funner, 
deja vu)

Gaelan

> On Oct 12, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 07:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather
>> (by Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in
>> English".
> 
> I'd argue that an English-like language which uses Spivak pronouns (and
> a few other changes) is indeed a language which we habitually use at
> Agora. Whether is actually has a name is less certain, but Spivak is as
> good a name as any.
> 
> If we're codifying this in the rules, I'd recommend defining the
> language itself (whatever we call it), stating that players should not
> perform actions that would cause rules to be created or amended to be
> written in other languages, and recommending (in a non-binding way)
> that the language is used for other communication. (I can see a good
> argument for using a consistent language for the ruleset; messing
> around with language in other contexts is probably not something we
> should ban though.)
> 
> -- 
> ais523

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alexis Hunt]

I miss the PNP. Also the President, that was fun.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 13:49 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:41 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > You appear to be arguing for the e vs it distinction to be used to
> > distinguish between persons, as defined by R869 and everything else. By
> > this definition, Agora, not being capable of ideation on its own, does
> not
> > count as a person.
>
> The definition of "person" was somewhat different for many years. What
> we currently call a "person" used to be a "first-class person". We had
> "second-class persons" too, which were basically legal constructs which
> we treated as though they were persons; for example, some contracts
> used to be persons (and the text of the contract would specify how e
> was capable of performing actions). They had several restrictions on
> them, such as not having any voting power unless someone else donated
> them voting power.
>
> That all got removed in a mass repeal some time ago, though, and we
> decided to go back to having first-class persons as the only sort of
> person. Arguably this was for the best, given some of the shenanigans
> that second-class persons got up to.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:41 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> You appear to be arguing for the e vs it distinction to be used to
> distinguish between persons, as defined by R869 and everything else. By
> this definition, Agora, not being capable of ideation on its own, does not
> count as a person.

The definition of "person" was somewhat different for many years. What
we currently call a "person" used to be a "first-class person". We had
"second-class persons" too, which were basically legal constructs which
we treated as though they were persons; for example, some contracts
used to be persons (and the text of the contract would specify how e
was capable of performing actions). They had several restrictions on
them, such as not having any voting power unless someone else donated
them voting power.

That all got removed in a mass repeal some time ago, though, and we
decided to go back to having first-class persons as the only sort of
person. Arguably this was for the best, given some of the shenanigans
that second-class persons got up to.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Reuben Staley]

You appear to be arguing for the e vs it distinction to be used to
distinguish between persons, as defined by R869 and everything else. By
this definition, Agora, not being capable of ideation on its own, does not
count as a person.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:21 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > This proto is definitely technically superior to the first one, but it
> has
> > > contradictions. One option is to replace "personal" with "third
> person",
> > > since "personal pronoun" refers to all three persons of pronoun.
> >
> > I just realised we have to be very careful in defining this: "e"
> > replaces "it" in addition to "he" and "she", at least in cases where we
> > want to treat something like (say) a rule as a though e were a person,
> > but doesn't replace the typical plural meaning of "they" (it does
> > replace singular "they").
> >
> > At present, we'd probably use "e" for the game of Agora as a whole,
> > given that e's the main holder of Shinies. However, after months/years
> > of not having any second-class persons, I think that pronoun usage fell
> > somewhat by the wayside. Maybe we should bring it back.
>
> Hmm, I personally use e only for people and prefer to keep the e versus it
> distinction for non-persons (including using 'it' for Agora), though I
> admit that's a personal preference based on our Agoran traditions of
> personhood.  (In particular, thinking along the lines of CFJ 1895) and
> the fundamental importance of "natural persons" as originating causal
> agents).
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Reuben Staley]

Good points.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:21 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > This proto is definitely technically superior to the first one, but it
> has
> > contradictions. One option is to replace "personal" with "third person",
> > since "personal pronoun" refers to all three persons of pronoun.
>
> I just realised we have to be very careful in defining this: "e"
> replaces "it" in addition to "he" and "she", at least in cases where we
> want to treat something like (say) a rule as a though e were a person,
> but doesn't replace the typical plural meaning of "they" (it does
> replace singular "they").
>

This could be sidestepped by replacing "singular personal pronouns" with
"singular third-person personal pronouns." This specifies that it's only
the pronouns that are used to describe a singular person, not the ones used
to describe multiple person or singular non-persons.


> At present, we'd probably use "e" for the game of Agora as a whole,
> given that e's the main holder of Shinies.


That depends on if you treat Agora as a person or as an institution.


> However, after months/years
> of not having any second-class persons, I think that pronoun usage fell
> somewhat by the wayside. Maybe we should bring it back.


Interesting idea. I am not opposed to it.

--
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:21 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > This proto is definitely technically superior to the first one, but it has
> > contradictions. One option is to replace "personal" with "third person",
> > since "personal pronoun" refers to all three persons of pronoun.
> 
> I just realised we have to be very careful in defining this: "e"
> replaces "it" in addition to "he" and "she", at least in cases where we
> want to treat something like (say) a rule as a though e were a person,
> but doesn't replace the typical plural meaning of "they" (it does
> replace singular "they").
> 
> At present, we'd probably use "e" for the game of Agora as a whole,
> given that e's the main holder of Shinies. However, after months/years
> of not having any second-class persons, I think that pronoun usage fell
> somewhat by the wayside. Maybe we should bring it back.

Hmm, I personally use e only for people and prefer to keep the e versus it
distinction for non-persons (including using 'it' for Agora), though I
admit that's a personal preference based on our Agoran traditions of
personhood.  (In particular, thinking along the lines of CFJ 1895) and
the fundamental importance of "natural persons" as originating causal 
agents).

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[ATMunn .]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> A power-1 rule can only amend rules with power at most 1.
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 12:57 ATMunn .  wrote:
>
>> New proto:
>>
>> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
>> Author: ATMunn
>> Co-Author(s): Alexis
>> AI: 1
>>
>> Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
>> {
>> A language is a set of symbols, sounds, and rules used to communicate
>> information.
>> The official language of Agora that SHOULD, under most circumstances, be
>> used in all Agoran fora is English, with Spivak pronouns.
>>
>> Any player CAN, without objection, cause this rule to amend a rule to
>> replace to replace singular personal pronouns (e.g.
>> "he/him/his/his/himself",
>> "she/her/her/hers/herself", or singular "they/them/their/theirs/themself")
>> with corresponding Spivak pronouns ("e/em/eir/eirs/emself").
>> }
>>
>> I think this looks a lot better. if there's anything else that should be
>> changed, then let me know. If not, I'll post and pend this by tonight.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:34 AM, ATMunn . 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
>>> Author: ATMunn
>>> AI: 1
>>>
>>> Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
>>> {
>>> A language is a set of symbols, sounds and rules used to communicate
>>> information.
>>> The official language that should be used in all Agoran fora is Spivak.
>>>
>>> The Spivak language is defined as being nearly identical to English
>>> except for the following:
>>> * The pronouns "he," "she," and "they" have been replaced with "e"
>>> * The pronouns "him," "her," and "them" have been replaced with "em"
>>> * The adjectives "his," "her," and "their" have been replaced with "eir"
>>> * The pronouns "his," "hers," and "theirs" have been replaced with "eirs"
>>> * The pronouns "himself," "herself," and "themself" have been replaced
>>> with "emself"
>>> }
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think. I've had this idea for a little while now,
>>> as a way to make it clear for new players why we use these abnormal
>>> pronouns; and now seems like a great time as the pend cost is only 1 shiny,
>>> so I might as well take advantage of that while I can.
>>>
>>
>> Hm, that's a problem. I don't really want to make it AI 3 though. I'm
starting to think that maybe I should just give up on this and let a more
experienced player do it, or just not do it at all.
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 07:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather
> > (by Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in
> > English".
>
> I'd argue that an English-like language which uses Spivak pronouns (and
> a few other changes) is indeed a language which we habitually use at
> Agora. Whether is actually has a name is less certain, but Spivak is as
> good a name as any.
>
> If we're codifying this in the rules, I'd recommend defining the
> language itself (whatever we call it), stating that players should not
> perform actions that would cause rules to be created or amended to be
> written in other languages, and recommending (in a non-binding way)
> that the language is used for other communication. (I can see a good
> argument for using a consistent language for the ruleset; messing
> around with language in other contexts is probably not something we
> should ban though.)
>
> --
> ais523
>
Yeah, that's probably a good idea, although it might take me a little while
to figure out how to implement it.
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:21 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > This proto is definitely technically superior to the first one, but it
> has
> > contradictions. One option is to replace "personal" with "third person",
> > since "personal pronoun" refers to all three persons of pronoun.
>
> I just realised we have to be very careful in defining this: "e"
> replaces "it" in addition to "he" and "she", at least in cases where we
> want to treat something like (say) a rule as a though e were a person,
> but doesn't replace the typical plural meaning of "they" (it does
> replace singular "they").
>
> At present, we'd probably use "e" for the game of Agora as a whole,
> given that e's the main holder of Shinies. However, after months/years
> of not having any second-class persons, I think that pronoun usage fell
> somewhat by the wayside. Maybe we should bring it back.
>
> --
> ais523
>
Regarding the personal/third person thing, I'm not that familiar with the
names of groups of pronouns in English. I was just copying from what Alexis
mentioned.
Regarding "e" being used as a replacement to "it" as well, I was wondering
if that might be an issue. Again, I might just abandon this and/or leave it
up to the more experienced players.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidered judgment on CFJ 3569

[Alexis Hunt]

I'll publish a revised version taking into account ais523's arguments
(which thankfully do not affect the conclusion) and correcting
typographical errors.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 13:32 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > I submit the following thesis, entitled "On Conditional Votes and Trust
> Tokens":
>
> This was a very nice judgement.  Thank you for taking the time.
>
> In terms of "coordinating peer-review" for the thesis, I'll put this copy
> up
> for thesis voting after 4 days have passed for comments.  Let me know if
> any
> comments would lead you to revise, or if you want a thesis-version slightly
> different than the CFJ version, or if any major objections come up (I read
> it
> fairly carefully and none from me).
>
> Looks like you already have a B.N. and I'm guessing this isn't quite
> Master's
> level, so Associates?  (if you didn't have a B.N. I'd say it was about B.N
> level).
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidered judgment on CFJ 3569

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I submit the following thesis, entitled "On Conditional Votes and Trust 
> Tokens":

This was a very nice judgement.  Thank you for taking the time.

In terms of "coordinating peer-review" for the thesis, I'll put this copy up
for thesis voting after 4 days have passed for comments.  Let me know if any
comments would lead you to revise, or if you want a thesis-version slightly
different than the CFJ version, or if any major objections come up (I read it 
fairly carefully and none from me).

Looks like you already have a B.N. and I'm guessing this isn't quite Master's
level, so Associates?  (if you didn't have a B.N. I'd say it was about B.N 
level).

-G.

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alexis Hunt]

If my memory serves, "e" was used to refer to persons, but not to
non-person entities that may have person-like characteristics. The Lost and
Found Department, for instance, was never referred to with "e" in my memory.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 13:27 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:21 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > This proto is definitely technically superior to the first one, but it
> has
> > contradictions. One option is to replace "personal" with "third person",
> > since "personal pronoun" refers to all three persons of pronoun.
>
> I just realised we have to be very careful in defining this: "e"
> replaces "it" in addition to "he" and "she", at least in cases where we
> want to treat something like (say) a rule as a though e were a person,
> but doesn't replace the typical plural meaning of "they" (it does
> replace singular "they").
>
> At present, we'd probably use "e" for the game of Agora as a whole,
> given that e's the main holder of Shinies. However, after months/years
> of not having any second-class persons, I think that pronoun usage fell
> somewhat by the wayside. Maybe we should bring it back.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:21 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> This proto is definitely technically superior to the first one, but it has
> contradictions. One option is to replace "personal" with "third person",
> since "personal pronoun" refers to all three persons of pronoun.

I just realised we have to be very careful in defining this: "e"
replaces "it" in addition to "he" and "she", at least in cases where we
want to treat something like (say) a rule as a though e were a person,
but doesn't replace the typical plural meaning of "they" (it does
replace singular "they").

At present, we'd probably use "e" for the game of Agora as a whole,
given that e's the main holder of Shinies. However, after months/years
of not having any second-class persons, I think that pronoun usage fell
somewhat by the wayside. Maybe we should bring it back.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Reuben Staley]

This proto is definitely technically superior to the first one, but it has
contradictions. One option is to replace "personal" with "third person",
since "personal pronoun" refers to all three persons of pronoun.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:57 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:

> New proto:
>
> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s): Alexis
> AI: 1
>
> Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
> {
> A language is a set of symbols, sounds, and rules used to communicate
> information.
> The official language of Agora that SHOULD, under most circumstances, be
> used in all Agoran fora is English, with Spivak pronouns.
>
> Any player CAN, without objection, cause this rule to amend a rule to
> replace to replace singular personal pronouns (e.g.
> "he/him/his/his/himself",
> "she/her/her/hers/herself", or singular "they/them/their/theirs/themself")
> with corresponding Spivak pronouns ("e/em/eir/eirs/emself").
> }
>
> I think this looks a lot better. if there's anything else that should be
> changed, then let me know. If not, I'll post and pend this by tonight.
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:34 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>
>> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
>> Author: ATMunn
>> AI: 1
>>
>> Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
>> {
>> A language is a set of symbols, sounds and rules used to communicate
>> information.
>> The official language that should be used in all Agoran fora is Spivak.
>>
>> The Spivak language is defined as being nearly identical to English
>> except for the following:
>> * The pronouns "he," "she," and "they" have been replaced with "e"
>> * The pronouns "him," "her," and "them" have been replaced with "em"
>> * The adjectives "his," "her," and "their" have been replaced with "eir"
>> * The pronouns "his," "hers," and "theirs" have been replaced with "eirs"
>> * The pronouns "himself," "herself," and "themself" have been replaced
>> with "emself"
>> }
>>
>> Let me know what you think. I've had this idea for a little while now, as
>> a way to make it clear for new players why we use these abnormal pronouns;
>> and now seems like a great time as the pend cost is only 1 shiny, so I
>> might as well take advantage of that while I can.
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 07:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather
> (by Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in
> English".

I'd argue that an English-like language which uses Spivak pronouns (and
a few other changes) is indeed a language which we habitually use at
Agora. Whether is actually has a name is less certain, but Spivak is as
good a name as any.

If we're codifying this in the rules, I'd recommend defining the
language itself (whatever we call it), stating that players should not
perform actions that would cause rules to be created or amended to be
written in other languages, and recommending (in a non-binding way)
that the language is used for other communication. (I can see a good
argument for using a consistent language for the ruleset; messing
around with language in other contexts is probably not something we
should ban though.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alexis Hunt]

A power-1 rule can only amend rules with power at most 1.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 12:57 ATMunn .  wrote:

> New proto:
>
> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s): Alexis
> AI: 1
>
> Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
> {
> A language is a set of symbols, sounds, and rules used to communicate
> information.
> The official language of Agora that SHOULD, under most circumstances, be
> used in all Agoran fora is English, with Spivak pronouns.
>
> Any player CAN, without objection, cause this rule to amend a rule to
> replace to replace singular personal pronouns (e.g.
> "he/him/his/his/himself",
> "she/her/her/hers/herself", or singular "they/them/their/theirs/themself")
> with corresponding Spivak pronouns ("e/em/eir/eirs/emself").
> }
>
> I think this looks a lot better. if there's anything else that should be
> changed, then let me know. If not, I'll post and pend this by tonight.
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:34 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>
>> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
>> Author: ATMunn
>> AI: 1
>>
>> Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
>> {
>> A language is a set of symbols, sounds and rules used to communicate
>> information.
>> The official language that should be used in all Agoran fora is Spivak.
>>
>> The Spivak language is defined as being nearly identical to English
>> except for the following:
>> * The pronouns "he," "she," and "they" have been replaced with "e"
>> * The pronouns "him," "her," and "them" have been replaced with "em"
>> * The adjectives "his," "her," and "their" have been replaced with "eir"
>> * The pronouns "his," "hers," and "theirs" have been replaced with "eirs"
>> * The pronouns "himself," "herself," and "themself" have been replaced
>> with "emself"
>> }
>>
>> Let me know what you think. I've had this idea for a little while now, as
>> a way to make it clear for new players why we use these abnormal pronouns;
>> and now seems like a great time as the pend cost is only 1 shiny, so I
>> might as well take advantage of that while I can.
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[ATMunn .]

New proto:

Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
Author: ATMunn
Co-Author(s): Alexis
AI: 1

Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
{
A language is a set of symbols, sounds, and rules used to communicate
information.
The official language of Agora that SHOULD, under most circumstances, be
used in all Agoran fora is English, with Spivak pronouns.

Any player CAN, without objection, cause this rule to amend a rule to
replace to replace singular personal pronouns (e.g.
"he/him/his/his/himself",
"she/her/her/hers/herself", or singular "they/them/their/theirs/themself")
with corresponding Spivak pronouns ("e/em/eir/eirs/emself").
}

I think this looks a lot better. if there's anything else that should be
changed, then let me know. If not, I'll post and pend this by tonight.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:34 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:

> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
> Author: ATMunn
> AI: 1
>
> Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
> {
> A language is a set of symbols, sounds and rules used to communicate
> information.
> The official language that should be used in all Agoran fora is Spivak.
>
> The Spivak language is defined as being nearly identical to English except
> for the following:
> * The pronouns "he," "she," and "they" have been replaced with "e"
> * The pronouns "him," "her," and "them" have been replaced with "em"
> * The adjectives "his," "her," and "their" have been replaced with "eir"
> * The pronouns "his," "hers," and "theirs" have been replaced with "eirs"
> * The pronouns "himself," "herself," and "themself" have been replaced
> with "emself"
> }
>
> Let me know what you think. I've had this idea for a little while now, as
> a way to make it clear for new players why we use these abnormal pronouns;
> and now seems like a great time as the pend cost is only 1 shiny, so I
> might as well take advantage of that while I can.
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[ATMunn .]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Josh T  wrote:

> I object to this for hopefully obvious reasons, given my history with
> playing with language.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 12 October 2017 at 09:34, ATMunn .  wrote:
>
>> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
>> Author: ATMunn
>> AI: 1
>>
>> Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
>> {
>> A language is a set of symbols, sounds and rules used to communicate
>> information.
>> The official language that should be used in all Agoran fora is Spivak.
>>
>> The Spivak language is defined as being nearly identical to English
>> except for the following:
>> * The pronouns "he," "she," and "they" have been replaced with "e"
>> * The pronouns "him," "her," and "them" have been replaced with "em"
>> * The adjectives "his," "her," and "their" have been replaced with "eir"
>> * The pronouns "his," "hers," and "theirs" have been replaced with "eirs"
>> * The pronouns "himself," "herself," and "themself" have been replaced
>> with "emself"
>> }
>>
>> Let me know what you think. I've had this idea for a little while now, as
>> a way to make it clear for new players why we use these abnormal pronouns;
>> and now seems like a great time as the pend cost is only 1 shiny, so I
>> might as well take advantage of that while I can.
>>
>
> It wouldn't be mandatory.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 10:40 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather (by
>> Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in English".
>>
>
> I had been intending to bring back the old WO rule cleanup mechanism to
> fix minor typos and errors without a proposal; it would be easy enough to
> put a more explicit description of Spivak pronouns in there. Something like
>
> {{{
>  Any player CAN, Without Objection, cause this rule to amend a rule to
> correct
>  errors, or to replace singular personal pronouns (e.g.
>  "he/him/his/his/himself", "she/her/her/hers/herself", or singular
>  "they/them/their/theirs/themself") with corresponding Spivak pronouns
>  ("e/em/eir/eirs/emself").
> }}}
>
> (I should look up the previous wording of this rule, when we had it).
>
I like that way of doing it. Again, the whole intent with this was to make
it less confusing for new players. (and to take advantage of the cheap pend
price, since this was the only idea I really had)

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alexis Hunt]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 10:40 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather (by
> Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in English".
>

I had been intending to bring back the old WO rule cleanup mechanism to fix
minor typos and errors without a proposal; it would be easy enough to put a
more explicit description of Spivak pronouns in there. Something like

{{{
 Any player CAN, Without Objection, cause this rule to amend a rule to
correct
 errors, or to replace singular personal pronouns (e.g.
 "he/him/his/his/himself", "she/her/her/hers/herself", or singular
 "they/them/their/theirs/themself") with corresponding Spivak pronouns
 ("e/em/eir/eirs/emself").
}}}

(I should look up the previous wording of this rule, when we had it).

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Kerim Aydin]

Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather (by 
Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in English".

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
> Author: ATMunn
> AI: 1
> 
> Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
> {
> A language is a set of symbols, sounds and rules used to communicate 
> information.
> The official language that should be used in all Agoran fora is Spivak.
> 
> The Spivak language is defined as being nearly identical to English except 
> for the following:
> * The pronouns "he," "she," and "they" have been replaced with "e"
> * The pronouns "him," "her," and "them" have been replaced with "em"
> * The adjectives "his," "her," and "their" have been replaced with "eir"
> * The pronouns "his," "hers," and "theirs" have been replaced with "eirs"
> * The pronouns "himself," "herself," and "themself" have been replaced with 
> "emself"
> }
> 
> Let me know what you think. I've had this idea for a little while now, as a 
> way to make it clear for new players why we use
> these abnormal pronouns; and now seems like a great time as the pend cost is 
> only 1 shiny, so I might as well take advantage of
> that while I can.
> 
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Josh T]

I object to this for hopefully obvious reasons, given my history with
playing with language.

天火狐

On 12 October 2017 at 09:34, ATMunn .  wrote:

> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
> Author: ATMunn
> AI: 1
>
> Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
> {
> A language is a set of symbols, sounds and rules used to communicate
> information.
> The official language that should be used in all Agoran fora is Spivak.
>
> The Spivak language is defined as being nearly identical to English except
> for the following:
> * The pronouns "he," "she," and "they" have been replaced with "e"
> * The pronouns "him," "her," and "them" have been replaced with "em"
> * The adjectives "his," "her," and "their" have been replaced with "eir"
> * The pronouns "his," "hers," and "theirs" have been replaced with "eirs"
> * The pronouns "himself," "herself," and "themself" have been replaced
> with "emself"
> }
>
> Let me know what you think. I've had this idea for a little while now, as
> a way to make it clear for new players why we use these abnormal pronouns;
> and now seems like a great time as the pend cost is only 1 shiny, so I
> might as well take advantage of that while I can.
>

DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[ATMunn .]

Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
Author: ATMunn
AI: 1

Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
{
A language is a set of symbols, sounds and rules used to communicate
information.
The official language that should be used in all Agoran fora is Spivak.

The Spivak language is defined as being nearly identical to English except
for the following:
* The pronouns "he," "she," and "they" have been replaced with "e"
* The pronouns "him," "her," and "them" have been replaced with "em"
* The adjectives "his," "her," and "their" have been replaced with "eir"
* The pronouns "his," "hers," and "theirs" have been replaced with "eirs"
* The pronouns "himself," "herself," and "themself" have been replaced with
"emself"
}

Let me know what you think. I've had this idea for a little while now, as a
way to make it clear for new players why we use these abnormal pronouns;
and now seems like a great time as the pend cost is only 1 shiny, so I
might as well take advantage of that while I can.

Re: DIS: Re: ***UNCHECKED*** BUS: Proposal: Attempt at Making Regulations useful

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 17:31 +1100, VJ Rada wrote:
> There are some places we should have regulations though. For example:
> the referee should 100% be allowed to promulgate regulations around
> which cards are appropriate for what infractions.

Can't e simply determine Cards unilaterally as it is? E doesn't need to
make a rule-like-thing to guide eir own behaviour and then follow it, e
can just follow a policy emself. (Or pledge to follow it if e wants
something enforceable.)

If the Referee wanted to guide Cards that could be given by other
people, that might be more interesting, although an Agency would
probably be sufficient for that at the moment (i.e. the Card is awarded
"by the Referee" but another player is causing em to act).

Not everything needs to be in the Ruleset. It's long enough as it is.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: ***UNCHECKED*** BUS: Proposal: Attempt at Making Regulations useful

[Aris Merchant]

I generally agree with ais523. This proposal is terrifying. I know I
wrote Regulations, but I put several procedural safeguards in place to
make them pretty safe.  I made the default standard for regulations
"without 2 objections, or with Agoran consent" because this allows
officers a fair amount of control while making sure Agorans support
the regulations. "With 48 hours notice" barely even gives players time
to respond, let alone to stop it if they don't like it. I think Agoran
Consent (or without N objections where N is a small number) is the
bare minimum any regulation with force should require to prevent
abuse. Second, regulations are only available to specified officers
and only have specified effects. Imagine what would happen if the
Promotor or Assessor found an ambiguity they could use to stop all
proposals they didn't like. It happens a a lot (see the , but usually
judges resolve things is a way that makes sense. Regulations are also
only supposed to work "(only) insofar as the rule or rules that
authorized it permit it to have effect", limiting the damage from a
malevolent officer. This completely bypasses that limit on blast
radius by making an officer's authority apply to anything ambiguous,
which is a lot of things. Finally, power 3.2 is very high. The
regulations rule itself is only 3.1, and I recommend never passing a
rule authorizing regulations at a power higher than that, as it might
inadvertently override the regulations rule. 2.0 or lower is probably
a good idea. I suggested regulations as way to give officers _limited_
power. They were primarily to be used for a future minigame, at the
end of my Massive Reform Plan, and for tournament and the like. There
were also plans to maybe use of for banking, which would be relatively
innocuous. This is too broad, too soon, and too vulnerable to abuse.

-Aris

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 21:06 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> I’d add some “strong” security mechanism (some dependent action,
>> probably) instead of just the “reasonable” restriction (which would
>> require a CFJ while the game state becomes even more ambiguous due to
>> the maybe-existent regulation)
>
> I'd strongly fight this idea entirely at anything above power 2.9
> (possibly even to the extent of attempting to deregister-by-scam anyone
> who intended to use it, although I'm not currently aware of a scam that
> would work for the purpose). Letting a subjective determination of
> whether a ruling is reasonable creep into our most important rules
> strikes me as being a terrible idea. At power 3.2, it would have a
> stronger effect than ratification (meaning that we'd potentially have
> no way to ratify the regulation away).
>
> I think this is a bad idea even at power 1, but it'd be more of an
> experiment there. For what it's worth, I was opposed to the idea of
> regulations in the first place; I dislike rule-like concepts which have
> Power (either in their own right or because an actual rule gives them
> power), but aren't actually rules, because it runs a large risk of
> undermining the battle-tested conflict resolution and safety mechanisms
> that have been built up over a number of years of Agorans trying to
> break things. (I know I'm listed as a coauthor, but that's because I
> helped fix a bug which could have allowed for a trivial power-3.1
> dictatorship.) With the level of rules wording that's been around in
> the recent economic crisis, I'd not be at all confident that this sort
> of mechanism would have no loopholes; and I'd want a very high level of
> confidence that the rule worked correctly if it was meant to have that
> far-reaching an ability to control how Agora worked.
>
> Also, a general problem with all this is that it bypasses the security
> on rules changes (which exists for good reason) via giving a much less
> secure (and ambiguous!) method of reinterpreting a rule.
>
> For what it's worth, the fix to this sort of issue that's been used by
> other nomics is typically some sort of expedited proposal. I wouldn't
> be against giving officers a free pend on proposals that they claim are
> intended to fix ambiguities in rules that relate to their office (on
> the understanding that if other players disagree with the claim then
> they should vote down the proposal).
>
> --
> ais523