Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On behalf of tar I transfer 20 coins to R. Lee On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 2:24 PM James Cook wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca wrote: > > I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself > > Does this work? > > R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is > performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the action is > being taken on behalf of that person." > > Specifically, you didn't say the action is being taken on behalf of > someone. It's sort of implied, because it's very common to act on > behalf of one's zombie to take eir assets, but I'm not sure that's > enough to meet the requirement. > > -- > - Falsifian > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
Does anyone else agree that a "by announcement" is needed here? If so, someone might want to get a proposal submitted by the next distribution. Jason Cobb On 7/3/19 12:38 AM, omd wrote: Does Proposal 8181 actually fix it? Rule 2557 still needs a "by announcement". In any case, it seems to be true that Proposal 8181 hasn't even been adopted. I judge both CFJ 3743 and CFJ 3753 FALSE, with the above-quoted messages as evidence.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca wrote: > I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself Does this work? R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the action is being taken on behalf of that person." Specifically, you didn't say the action is being taken on behalf of someone. It's sort of implied, because it's very common to act on behalf of one's zombie to take eir assets, but I'm not sure that's enough to meet the requirement. -- - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3751
On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 04:18, James Cook wrote: > I judge CFJ 3751 FALSE. However, I think the answer to the question Murphy was trying to ask is TRUE. The message in G.'s gratuitous evidence makes it very clear that Murphy intends to place those votes. This seems to me like common sense or basic interpretation of communication on the forum. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
Heh. Yeah, I've been keeping track of this. I've come close a few times now. It's of course not my goal to stress this system (though I'm not sure how much one person actually could with the excess case rule). Jason Cobb On 7/5/19 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I don't think you've *quite* hit your 5-CFJ limit this week :).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
I'll do that, but I'm not at a laptop right now, so it'll be a few hours. On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 7:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 7/5/2019 3:14 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > Hmm... maybe the statement should have been "The time window of [the > > pledge] is 60 days." > > Remember that before it's been assigned, you can retract the CFJ and > call a different one - adds no work on my end, and I don't think you've > *quite* hit your 5-CFJ limit this week :). > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
On 7/5/2019 3:14 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Hmm... maybe the statement should have been "The time window of [the > pledge] is 60 days." Remember that before it's been assigned, you can retract the CFJ and call a different one - adds no work on my end, and I don't think you've *quite* hit your 5-CFJ limit this week :).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
Hmm... maybe the statement should have been "The time window of [the pledge] is 60 days." On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 5:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Gratuitous: > > Let's say it's Day 31 and R. Lee has kept eir pledge so far. The answer > to the question "did R. Lee [perform the correct behavior] for least 30 > days > [from the time of the pledge]?" would be TRUE regardless of what happens > after that. > > Whether (after the 30 days) the pledge is technically "in its time window > but IMPOSSIBLE to break" versus being "out of its time window" (and how > that > relates to the term "operates" in the CFJ statement) is a matter of > semantics that is IRRELEVANT. > > On 7/5/2019 10:42 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > I CFJ: "R. Lee's Oath to vote against certain proposals operates for 60 > days." > > > > Evidence: > > > > Excerpt from Rule 2450: > > > > If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform > > (or refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the > > pledge within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of > > Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states > > otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the > > pledge explicitly states otherwise. > > > > R. Lee's Oath: > > > > I hereby swear an Oath to vote AGAINST any proposal that adds > > more text than it deletes for at least the next 30 days. > > > > Arguments: > > > > The Oath does not clearly identify and provide intent for the Oath > > to operate for a certain time window, it instead says "for at least > > the next 30 days". The "at least" arguably prevents the "30 days" > > from being definite, thus the pledge does not explicitly state that > > it operates for any specific time period. Thus, under Rule 2450, it > > should operate for 60 days - this CFJ should be judged TRUE. > > > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > On 6/19/19 11:15 PM, Rebecca wrote: > >> I hereby swear an Oath to vote AGAINST any proposal that adds more text > >> than it deletes for at least the next 30 days. >
DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
Gratuitous: Let's say it's Day 31 and R. Lee has kept eir pledge so far. The answer to the question "did R. Lee [perform the correct behavior] for least 30 days [from the time of the pledge]?" would be TRUE regardless of what happens after that. Whether (after the 30 days) the pledge is technically "in its time window but IMPOSSIBLE to break" versus being "out of its time window" (and how that relates to the term "operates" in the CFJ statement) is a matter of semantics that is IRRELEVANT. On 7/5/2019 10:42 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: I CFJ: "R. Lee's Oath to vote against certain proposals operates for 60 days." Evidence: Excerpt from Rule 2450: If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the pledge explicitly states otherwise. R. Lee's Oath: I hereby swear an Oath to vote AGAINST any proposal that adds more text than it deletes for at least the next 30 days. Arguments: The Oath does not clearly identify and provide intent for the Oath to operate for a certain time window, it instead says "for at least the next 30 days". The "at least" arguably prevents the "30 days" from being definite, thus the pledge does not explicitly state that it operates for any specific time period. Thus, under Rule 2450, it should operate for 60 days - this CFJ should be judged TRUE. Jason Cobb On 6/19/19 11:15 PM, Rebecca wrote: I hereby swear an Oath to vote AGAINST any proposal that adds more text than it deletes for at least the next 30 days.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so (attn. Rulekeepor)
I don't really see how that could be exploitable. Anyway, whenever a rule says "If X occurs, Y occurs", that rule is pretty clearly the agent for Y. -Aris On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 8:22 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I didn't see that, but in any case I'm not 100% convinced by Aris' logic. > Letting rule changes take effect without clearly specifying the instrument > causing them just feels like the sort of thing which, if it worked, would > have been used by ais523 for a scam at some point. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Friday, July 5, 2019 2:35 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > Gratuitous: > > > > This was already brought up by omd [0], and Aris gave a response arguing > > that it would work [1]. > > > > [0]: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040615.html > > > > [1]: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-June/054363.html > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > On 7/5/19 10:03 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > CFJ: Rule 2598 has been repealed. > > > Gratuitous argument for FALSE - R2598 says/said: > > > > > >8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When > > > this Rule is triggered, the following events happen in order: > > > (a) the Politics Rules are automatically repealed in ascending > > > numerical order (unless Politics has been Revived), (b) the > > > Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical > > > order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this Rule is > > > automatically repealed. > > > > > > > > > It's not clear to me that those events can/could actually occur - the > > > rule is/was just stating that they happen, rather than stating that it > > > (or something else with Power >= 3.0) makes them happen. R105 is pretty > > > unambiguous that rule changes can only be caused by instruments, which is > > > why we have verbose things like this in R106: > > > > > >When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if > > >the outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, > > >and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is > > >set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it > > >takes effect. Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that > > >takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the > > >changes that it specifies.nother instrument > > > > > > > > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 7:08 AM, Aris Merchant > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > With Agoran Consent, I do so. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:22 PM Aris Merchant < > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well, there's a simpler solution to that problem. It's not like we're > > > > > really going to go back to our minigames anyway; that's not how the > > > > > Agoran mind seems to work. If someone actually wants to revive a > > > > > minigame, they can say so, and I'll probably support the intent. > > > > > Otherwise... > > > > > I intend with Agoran Consent to trigger Rule 2598, "Side-Game > > > > > Suspension". > > > > > For the public reference, the relevant provision of that rule is as > > > > > follows: > > > > > "Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this Rule > > > > > is triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics > > > > > Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless > > > > > Politics has been Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically > > > > > repealed in ascending numerical order (unless Spaaace has been > > > > > Revived), and (c) this Rule is automatically repealed." > > > > > -Aris > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:16 PM Rebecca edwardostra...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I hereby swear an Oath to vote AGAINST any proposal that adds more > > > > > > text > > > > > > than it deletes for at least the next 30 days. > > > > > > > > > > > > From R. Lee > >
DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so (attn. Rulekeepor)
I didn't see that, but in any case I'm not 100% convinced by Aris' logic. Letting rule changes take effect without clearly specifying the instrument causing them just feels like the sort of thing which, if it worked, would have been used by ais523 for a scam at some point. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, July 5, 2019 2:35 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Gratuitous: > > This was already brought up by omd [0], and Aris gave a response arguing > that it would work [1]. > > [0]: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040615.html > > [1]: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-June/054363.html > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/5/19 10:03 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > CFJ: Rule 2598 has been repealed. > > Gratuitous argument for FALSE - R2598 says/said: > > > >8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When > > this Rule is triggered, the following events happen in order: > > (a) the Politics Rules are automatically repealed in ascending > > numerical order (unless Politics has been Revived), (b) the > > Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical > > order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this Rule is > > automatically repealed. > > > > > > It's not clear to me that those events can/could actually occur - the rule > > is/was just stating that they happen, rather than stating that it (or > > something else with Power >= 3.0) makes them happen. R105 is pretty > > unambiguous that rule changes can only be caused by instruments, which is > > why we have verbose things like this in R106: > > > >When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if > >the outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, > >and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is > >set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it > >takes effect. Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that > >takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the > >changes that it specifies.nother instrument > > > > > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 7:08 AM, Aris Merchant > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > With Agoran Consent, I do so. > > > -Aris > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:22 PM Aris Merchant < > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Well, there's a simpler solution to that problem. It's not like we're > > > > really going to go back to our minigames anyway; that's not how the > > > > Agoran mind seems to work. If someone actually wants to revive a > > > > minigame, they can say so, and I'll probably support the intent. > > > > Otherwise... > > > > I intend with Agoran Consent to trigger Rule 2598, "Side-Game > > > > Suspension". > > > > For the public reference, the relevant provision of that rule is as > > > > follows: > > > > "Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this Rule > > > > is triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics > > > > Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless > > > > Politics has been Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically > > > > repealed in ascending numerical order (unless Spaaace has been > > > > Revived), and (c) this Rule is automatically repealed." > > > > -Aris > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:16 PM Rebecca edwardostra...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > I hereby swear an Oath to vote AGAINST any proposal that adds more > > > > > text > > > > > than it deletes for at least the next 30 days. > > > > > > > > > > From R. Lee
