Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3613 TRUE

[VJ Rada]

balloons don't need to be awarded and are automatically conferred.

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> H. Clork, I believe I am owed several weeks back-balloons.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:44 PM Corona  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > I sh-CFJ "Aris has advised every politician in the row reduced echelon."
>>
>> I judge CFJ 3613 as TRUE. The caller's arguments are sound, and I have
>> gone through the relevant rules and found nothing contradicting that
>> interpretation. It goes without saying that rule 2536 should be fixed.
>>
>> ~Corona
>>
>> -
>> Caller's Arguments:
>>
>> > The rule "Taken Under Advisement" states that "A player CAN, by
>> > announcement, spend Favours in a Party to gain Influence over that
>> > Politican, depending on the Politician's Echelon". It does not state
>> > clearly that the party must be the same as that of the politician. It
>> > does say "that politician", but it is unclear what "that" means in
>> > this context, and there is certainly no textual basis for assuming
>> > that it means they must be of the same party. Further, the rule states
>> > that the process depends on "depend[s] on the Politician's Echelon",
>> > implying via expressio unius est exclusio alterius that it doesn't
>> > depend on anything else. In short, there is no textual basis for
>> > limiting the action to politicians of the same party as the favors. It
>> > would be reasonable to say that the action fails because its
>> > definition is ambiguous, but this is against the principle that the
>> > statements of the rules must be given effect, insofar as it is
>> > possible.
>>
>>
>> Caller's Evidence (Caller's actions preceding CFJ):
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > I spend 24 NPR favors to gain 16 influence over Mad Cap'n Tom. I advise
>> em.
>> >
>> > I spend 10 NPR favors to gain 10 influence over Politician
>> > McPoliticianface. I advise em.
>> >
>> > I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Mickey Joker. I advise
>> > em. I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Nick P. Ronald. I
>> > advise em.
>> >
>> >
>> > Now for the questionable stuff.
>> >
>> > For each upper echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 5
>> > NPR favors to gain 5 influence over em, then advise em.
>> >
>> > For each row echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 4 NPR
>> > favors to gain 6 influence over em, then advise em.
>> >
>> > For each row reduced politician, I spend 2 NPR favors to gain 4
>> > influence over em, then advise em.
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3613 TRUE

[Aris Merchant]

H. Clork, I believe I am owed several weeks back-balloons.

-Aris

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:44 PM Corona  wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I sh-CFJ "Aris has advised every politician in the row reduced echelon."
>
> I judge CFJ 3613 as TRUE. The caller's arguments are sound, and I have
> gone through the relevant rules and found nothing contradicting that
> interpretation. It goes without saying that rule 2536 should be fixed.
>
> ~Corona
>
> -
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> > The rule "Taken Under Advisement" states that "A player CAN, by
> > announcement, spend Favours in a Party to gain Influence over that
> > Politican, depending on the Politician's Echelon". It does not state
> > clearly that the party must be the same as that of the politician. It
> > does say "that politician", but it is unclear what "that" means in
> > this context, and there is certainly no textual basis for assuming
> > that it means they must be of the same party. Further, the rule states
> > that the process depends on "depend[s] on the Politician's Echelon",
> > implying via expressio unius est exclusio alterius that it doesn't
> > depend on anything else. In short, there is no textual basis for
> > limiting the action to politicians of the same party as the favors. It
> > would be reasonable to say that the action fails because its
> > definition is ambiguous, but this is against the principle that the
> > statements of the rules must be given effect, insofar as it is
> > possible.
>
>
> Caller's Evidence (Caller's actions preceding CFJ):
>
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I spend 24 NPR favors to gain 16 influence over Mad Cap'n Tom. I advise
> em.
> >
> > I spend 10 NPR favors to gain 10 influence over Politician
> > McPoliticianface. I advise em.
> >
> > I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Mickey Joker. I advise
> > em. I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Nick P. Ronald. I
> > advise em.
> >
> >
> > Now for the questionable stuff.
> >
> > For each upper echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 5
> > NPR favors to gain 5 influence over em, then advise em.
> >
> > For each row echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 4 NPR
> > favors to gain 6 influence over em, then advise em.
> >
> > For each row reduced politician, I spend 2 NPR favors to gain 4
> > influence over em, then advise em.
>

Re: DIS: conditionality

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I wouldn't. The conditional here is that the action stops when the
> > resulting Influence is higher than that of the next-highest player.
> > That isn't related to how many NPR favors Corona has, which is the only
> > cost for actually using the action.
> 
> Gotcha, that helps, thanks!

(and also makes me reflect that if this pending rule change passes,
there will be a lot of cfjs on exactly what it means to do something
"conditionally".  I think it may be a train wreck for actual game 
play, but at this point I'm kinda neutral on whether that would be
annoying or enlightening).

Re: DIS: conditionality

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-12-17 at 17:50 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > So you would allow Corona's recent action, quoted below?  Because in
> > terms of knowable facts it's no different than saying "all", is it?
> > 
> > > For every Politician (In case I run out partway: This is done in
> > > descending order by rank and then alphabetical order by names) I am
> > > not the Advisor of, I spend the lowest amount of NPR favors I can
> > > spend to have more Influence with em than any other player, to
> > > Influence em. I Advise every Politician.
> 
> I wouldn't. The conditional here is that the action stops when the
> resulting Influence is higher than that of the next-highest player.
> That isn't related to how many NPR favors Corona has, which is the only
> cost for actually using the action.

Gotcha, that helps, thanks!

Re: DIS: conditionality

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-12-17 at 17:50 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So you would allow Corona's recent action, quoted below?  Because in
> terms of knowable facts it's no different than saying "all", is it?
> 
> > For every Politician (In case I run out partway: This is done in
> > descending order by rank and then alphabetical order by names) I am
> > not the Advisor of, I spend the lowest amount of NPR favors I can
> > spend to have more Influence with em than any other player, to
> > Influence em. I Advise every Politician.

I wouldn't. The conditional here is that the action stops when the
resulting Influence is higher than that of the next-highest player.
That isn't related to how many NPR favors Corona has, which is the only
cost for actually using the action.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: conditionality

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-12-17 at 17:35 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Anyway, I've been musing this on and off this week, and wondering where
> > to draw the line defining "conditionally".  In particular, I'm thinking
> > about statements like "I transfer all my shinies to Alexis."  In
> > one sense, "all" is a well-specified set.  On the other hand, if I'm
> > uncertain how many shinies I've actually got, what I'm actually saying
> > is "If I have 1, I transfer 1, else if I have 2, I transfer 2" and
> > so forth.  In other words, it's conditional.  But that in part depends
> > on how uncertain people are about "all" which means determining if an
> > "all" statement is conditional means figuring out states of mind - not
> > so great.  
> 
> I don't see this as a conditional at all. It's equivalent to posting "I
> transfer 1 shiny to Alexis" 1000 or so times. Some of the actions there
> fail, but the only conditional is "I perform this action only if I CAN
> perform this action", which is implicit in every action ever.
> 
> Or to put it another way, I'm OK with people posting actions that might
> fail because they're impossible (especially if they explain the
> circumstances under which they fail), but not with posting actions that
>  might not happen due to some separate arbitrary condition that has
> nothing to do with the action's possibility.

So you would allow Corona's recent action, quoted below?  Because in
terms of knowable facts it's no different than saying "all", is it?

> For every Politician (In case I run out partway: This is done in
> descending order by rank and then alphabetical order by names) I am
> not the Advisor of, I spend the lowest amount of NPR favors I can
> spend to have more Influence with em than any other player, to
> Influence em. I Advise every Politician.

Re: DIS: conditionality

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-12-17 at 17:35 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Anyway, I've been musing this on and off this week, and wondering where
> to draw the line defining "conditionally".  In particular, I'm thinking
> about statements like "I transfer all my shinies to Alexis."  In
> one sense, "all" is a well-specified set.  On the other hand, if I'm
> uncertain how many shinies I've actually got, what I'm actually saying
> is "If I have 1, I transfer 1, else if I have 2, I transfer 2" and
> so forth.  In other words, it's conditional.  But that in part depends
> on how uncertain people are about "all" which means determining if an
> "all" statement is conditional means figuring out states of mind - not
> so great.  

I don't see this as a conditional at all. It's equivalent to posting "I
transfer 1 shiny to Alexis" 1000 or so times. Some of the actions there
fail, but the only conditional is "I perform this action only if I CAN
perform this action", which is implicit in every action ever.

Or to put it another way, I'm OK with people posting actions that might
fail because they're impossible (especially if they explain the
circumstances under which they fail), but not with posting actions that
 might not happen due to some separate arbitrary condition that has
nothing to do with the action's possibility.

-- 
ais523

DIS: conditionality

[Kerim Aydin]

[Hey Corona, I was midway through writing the below when I noticed your
earlier actions - so it was on my mind when you tried those, I didn't
mean to single you out as the only one who does it!]

Anyway, I've been musing this on and off this week, and wondering where
to draw the line defining "conditionally".  In particular, I'm thinking
about statements like "I transfer all my shinies to Alexis."  In
one sense, "all" is a well-specified set.  On the other hand, if I'm
uncertain how many shinies I've actually got, what I'm actually saying
is "If I have 1, I transfer 1, else if I have 2, I transfer 2" and
so forth.  In other words, it's conditional.  But that in part depends
on how uncertain people are about "all" which means determining if an
"all" statement is conditional means figuring out states of mind - not
so great.  

So thinking of statements that have caused problems, instead of banning
"conditional actions", I'd shift the burden of proof by inserting some
rules text like this:  

In order to clearly specify an action, all of the information
required to interpret the intended action must be contained in
the message or directly and specifically referenced in the message.

For this standard, you can use a conditional, IF you quote or cite all
the facts needed to figure out the conditional.  For example, "If I
haven't called a CFJ, I do so" would fail, but "If I didn't call a CFJ
in (linked or quoted message), I do so" would generally succeed.  
Under this standard "I transfer all shinies" would fail most of the
time, as would conditionals where the information wasn't immediately
available.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I'm not dead!

[Kerim Aydin]

It was actual gameplay.  At the same time zombies were adopted,
the standard for deregistering silent players switched from without
objection to with 3 Agoran consent.   There was a run on the bank
  just when zombie actions were nearing (due to stamps), and some
players in poor auction position, who didn't get funds, pushed through
the deregistrations rather than losing the auctions (with the aid of 
others who were ethically opposed to those people being zombies).

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Edward Murphy wrote:
> 
> > Having caught up on the Public Fora, I register.
> 
> Hi! Just a month too late to fail because you were still registered...
> 
> (Why _did_ all those people get deregistered just about when they could have
> been made zombies instead? Or is that broken too...)
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7994-7995

[ATMunn]

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-December/037600.html

On 12/17/2017 6:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



What's wrong with it, exactly?  It worked for several proposals AFAIK
no one claimed it wasn't working...

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, ATMunn wrote:

If you vote AGAINST, it would be nice if you instead proposed a fix proposal.
The rule is still quite broken.

On 12/17/2017 5:17 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 at 17:10 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


ID Author(s)AI   Title   Pender  Pend fee

---
7994*  ATMunn   1.0  Silliness, Begone!  ATMunn  1 AP


AGAINST


7995*  Alexis   3.0  Older Cleanliness   Alexis  1 AP


FOR

-Alexis

DIS: Re: BUS: I'm not dead!

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Edward Murphy wrote:


Having caught up on the Public Fora, I register.


Hi! Just a month too late to fail because you were still registered...

(Why _did_ all those people get deregistered just about when they could 
have been made zombies instead? Or is that broken too...)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3613 TRUE

[Corona]

I see. I will try to refrain from doing that in the future, then, and
I will not object if the Clork omits the results of this action in eir
report.

On 12/17/17, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Corona wrote:
>> For every Politician (In case I run out partway: This is done in
>> descending order by rank and then alphabetical order by names) I am
>> not the Advisor of, I spend the lowest amount of NPR favors I can
>> spend to have more Influence with em than any other player, to
>> Influence em. I Advise every Politician.
>
> This is *exactly* the sort of "conditional" that should absolutely fail.
> It's been commented on with your moves specifically before, I think.
> please don't expect others to do your homework.
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Some routine fix protos

[Kerim Aydin]

Hey, welcome back!!

It turns out the black card rule doesn't exist btw, it was judged to violate
R217 and thus was never enacted.

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Edward Murphy wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Pulling the Thread
> (AI = 3)
> 
> Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing the sentence starting "While a
> person qualifies for a type of Ribbon," with:
> 
>   While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon, any player CAN
>   award em that type of Ribbon by announcement, and SHOULD clearly
>   specify the qualifying event(s).
> 
> 
> Proto-Proposal: Ineligible Means Ineligible
> (AI = 2)
> 
> Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing "the Arbitor CAN
> assign any player" with "the Arbitor CAN assign any eligible player".
> 
> 
> Proto-Proposal: Call the Locksmith
> (AI = 2)
> 
> Amend Rule 2507 (Black Cards) by replacing the sentence starting "Any
> attempt to Slam the Door" with:
> 
>Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player, or on a
>   former player whose most recent deregistration took place without
>   eir consent, is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary
>   notwithstanding.
> 
> [In addition to the "player or person" mess, this also clarifies the
> situation of a person who has never been a player.]
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7994-7995

[Kerim Aydin]

What's wrong with it, exactly?  It worked for several proposals AFAIK
no one claimed it wasn't working...

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> If you vote AGAINST, it would be nice if you instead proposed a fix proposal.
> The rule is still quite broken.
> 
> On 12/17/2017 5:17 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 at 17:10 Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > ID Author(s)AI   Title   Pender  Pend fee
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > 7994*  ATMunn   1.0  Silliness, Begone!  ATMunn  1 AP
> > > 
> > AGAINST
> > 
> > > 7995*  Alexis   3.0  Older Cleanliness   Alexis  1 AP
> > > 
> > FOR
> > 
> > -Alexis
> > 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3613 TRUE

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017, Corona wrote:
> For every Politician (In case I run out partway: This is done in
> descending order by rank and then alphabetical order by names) I am
> not the Advisor of, I spend the lowest amount of NPR favors I can
> spend to have more Influence with em than any other player, to
> Influence em. I Advise every Politician.

This is *exactly* the sort of "conditional" that should absolutely fail.
It's been commented on with your moves specifically before, I think.
please don't expect others to do your homework.

DIS: Re: BUS: I'm not dead!

[ATMunn]

Welcome back!

On 12/17/2017 5:18 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:

Having caught up on the Public Fora, I register.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7994-7995

[ATMunn]

s/instead/also

On 12/17/2017 6:39 PM, ATMunn wrote:

If you vote AGAINST, it would be nice if you instead proposed a fix proposal. 
The rule is still quite broken.

On 12/17/2017 5:17 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 at 17:10 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


ID Author(s)    AI   Title   Pender  Pend fee
---
7994*  ATMunn   1.0  Silliness, Begone!  ATMunn  1 AP


AGAINST


7995*  Alexis   3.0  Older Cleanliness   Alexis  1 AP


FOR

-Alexis

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7994-7995

[ATMunn]

If you vote AGAINST, it would be nice if you instead proposed a fix proposal. 
The rule is still quite broken.

On 12/17/2017 5:17 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 at 17:10 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


ID Author(s)AI   Title   Pender  Pend fee
---
7994*  ATMunn   1.0  Silliness, Begone!  ATMunn  1 AP


AGAINST


7995*  Alexis   3.0  Older Cleanliness   Alexis  1 AP


FOR

-Alexis

DIS: Proto: Sound and Fury

[Edward Murphy]

Proto-Proposal: Sound and Fury
(AI = 2)

Amend Rule 2426 (Cards) by replacing the paragraph starting "Cards
CANNOT be issued except" with:

  Cards CANNOT be issued except by players by announcement. Any
  attempt to issue a Card is INEFFECTIVE if any of the following
  is true:

(1) It does not include the type of card being issued.

(2) It does not include the name of the person being issued the
card (the bad sport).

(3) It does not include the specific reason for the issuance of
the card.

(4) It attempts to issue a person a card for an action or
inaction that e (more likely than not) did not commit.

(5) It attempts to issue a card for an action or inaction that
is neither prohibited by the rules, nor defined by the rules
as making that type of card appropriate.

(6) It attempts to issue a type of card that is blatantly and
obviously unsuited to be issued for that reason or to that
person.

(7) It is made more than 14 days after the conduct constituting
the reason for its issuance.

(8) It attempts to issue a card to a player who has already been
issued a card for the same conduct.

Amend Rule 2478 (Vigilante Justice) by replacing "violation of the
rules" with "violation of the rules or other infraction", and by
replacing "no rule violation" with "no such infraction".

DIS: Some routine fix protos

[Edward Murphy]

Proto-Proposal: Pulling the Thread
(AI = 3)

Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing the sentence starting "While a
person qualifies for a type of Ribbon," with:

  While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon, any player CAN
  award em that type of Ribbon by announcement, and SHOULD clearly
  specify the qualifying event(s).


Proto-Proposal: Ineligible Means Ineligible
(AI = 2)

Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing "the Arbitor CAN
assign any player" with "the Arbitor CAN assign any eligible player".


Proto-Proposal: Call the Locksmith
(AI = 2)

Amend Rule 2507 (Black Cards) by replacing the sentence starting "Any
attempt to Slam the Door" with:

   Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player, or on a
  former player whose most recent deregistration took place without
  eir consent, is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding.

[In addition to the "player or person" mess, this also clarifies the
situation of a person who has never been a player.]

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[ATMunn]

Looks fine to me.

On 12/17/2017 2:53 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:

A draft Promotor's report follows.

-Aris
---

I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 7.0, the voting method is AI-majority and the valid options
are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional
votes).

ID Author(s)AI   Title   Pender  Pend fee
---
7994*  ATMunn   1.0  Silliness, Begone!  ATMunn  1 AP
7995*  Alexis   3.0  Older Cleanliness   Alexis  1 AP

The proposal pool is currently empty.

Legend: * : Proposal is pending.


A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating Value
in shines (see the Treasuror's report).

The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.

//
ID: 7994
Title: Silliness, Begone!
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: ATMunn
Co-authors:


There once was a man of Sphero
Who was a descendent of Nero;
   E said to me one day,
   "Silliness - it cannot stay!"
So this proposal will repeal rule one six five zero.

//
ID: 7995
Title: Older Cleanliness
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Alexis
Co-authors:


Repeal Rule 2430 (Cleanup Time).

Re-enact Rule 2221 (Cleanliness).

[For reference:
Rule 2221/5 (Power=3)
Cleanliness

   Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one
   or more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, and/or
   dialect, or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in
   place of a word or phrase, in the rule's text and/or title; the
   rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person.

History:
Created by Proposal 5975 (Murphy), 25 November 2008
Amended(1) by Proposal 6098 (comex), 22 February 2009
Amended(2) by Proposal 6291 (Murphy), 19 May 2009
Amended(3) by Proposal 6722 (Murphy), 21 May 2010
Amended(4) by Proposal 6732 (comex), 6 June 2010
Amended(5) by Proposal 6741 (comex; disi.), 1 July 2010]

//