Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3751
On 7/5/2019 9:21 PM, James Cook wrote: 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. It would be great if you made this part of the official arguments, as it is the opposite of how D. Margaux assessed them (and since those decisions haven't been resolved yet due to other errors, it would be good not to have to call a separate case and wait even longer for that!)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote: > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other rules that are much more stale.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
On 7/6/2019 10:29 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Ok, this is a ridiculous level of semantic hair-splitting even for Agora, sorry. Ugh - my unclear writing again. This was meant to read as "I'm about to engage in some ridiculous hair-splitting on the subject, sorry about that", NOT "I'm sorry, but you're being ridiculous".
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
On 7/6/2019 10:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/6/2019 6:56 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 15:11, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/2/2019 6:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
[Quick! While it's still current!]
Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
By this announcement, 5 coins are earned by G. for publishing the above
Arbitor's weekly report.
I don't think that worked, due to R478's text "...and announcing that
e performs it." about "by announcement" actions. This looks similar to
CFJ 3002, though I don't know how the ruleset has changed since then.
Ok, this is a ridiculous level of semantic hair-splitting even for Agora,
sorry. It's an announcement, that specifies both the action and amount
earned, and it's clear the announcement was made by me (i.e. that I earned
the coins by making the announcement).
Oops, sent too soon, meant to add:
The difference between this and CFJ 3002 (unfortunately missing the message
that's the subject of that CFJ) is the inclusion of G. as the specified
actor in the current message, even if in passive voice.
The CFJ 3002 message was this:
> This statement causes the creation of a CfJ of Inquiry questioning its own
> legality.
where the caller explicitly says that "the statement causes" along with
some purposeful self-reference instead of a straightforward use of the
passive voice ("by this announcement ... G.").
-G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
On 7/6/2019 6:56 AM, James Cook wrote: On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 15:11, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 7/2/2019 6:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: [Quick! While it's still current!] Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) By this announcement, 5 coins are earned by G. for publishing the above Arbitor's weekly report. I don't think that worked, due to R478's text "...and announcing that e performs it." about "by announcement" actions. This looks similar to CFJ 3002, though I don't know how the ruleset has changed since then. Ok, this is a ridiculous level of semantic hair-splitting even for Agora, sorry. It's an announcement, that specifies both the action and amount earned, and it's clear the announcement was made by me (i.e. that I earned the coins by making the announcement). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
This may be a bit nit-picky, but I don't believe "withdraw" is defined for rules, only "repeal". Jason Cobb On 7/6/19 10:52 AM, James Cook wrote: On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 14:38, James Cook wrote: I submit a proposal as follows. Title: Police Power Actually, to get R. Lee potentially on board, I'll make the proposal shorten the ruleset. I withdraw the proposal I most recently submitted (title "Police Power"). I submit a proposal as follows. Title: Administrative Reform and Police Power Omnibus Co-authors: Jason Cobb Adoption index: 1.7 Text: Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). In Rule 2557, replace the first paragraph with: When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine of B on the perp by announcement, within the following guidelines: and add a new list item at the start of the list (that is, right after the first paragraph), with the text: - B is at least 1 and at most twice the base value of the violation. Retitle Rule 2557 to "Sentencing Guidelines". [Comment: Rule 2557 is currently titled "Removing Blots". When I tried to understand why, I noticed that the 2018-04-07 SLR lists two Rule 2557s, one of which actually is about removing blots, and the other of which is titled "Sentencing Guidelines". The next SLR I could find is published much later, 2018-10-14, and has R2557 in or close to its current form. I don't know exactly what happened there.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so (attn. Rulekeepor)
No, but I've never spotted any exploit before it actually happens and yet people still pull things off every so often. At the very least I would like some official confirmation that I'm just worrying about nothing. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, July 5, 2019 6:31 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > 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 m...@timon.red 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 jason.e.c...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Gratuitous: > > > This was already brought up by omd 0, and Aris gave a response arguing > > > that it would work 1. > > > 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: Proposal pool CoE
You're right. I was waiting for the dust to settle before trying to
sort things out. Does the following look correct?
Also, feel free to just withdraw "no power is all powerful" if you
want to; it would simplify things a bit in some ways, and it's not
like it would work even if it passed.
-Aris
---
Proposal 8197 was never validly distributed.
Revision: At ~01:55:32 UTC Jul 2, when the last proposal pool report was
published, the proposal pool contained the following proposals:
Author(s) AITitle
---
G. none no power is all powerful
Jason Cobb, [1]3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2)
[1] Aris, omd, G., Falsifian
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//
Title: no power is all powerful
Adoption index: none
Author: G.
Co-authors:
Create the following Rule, "Supreme Power", Power=4:
G. CAN make arbitrary changes to the gamestate by announcement.
//
Title: Regulated actions reform (v2)
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors: Aris, omd, G., Falsifian
[Comment: see proto thread for changes and rationales.]
Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations are
binding."
Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") as follows:
Append the following sentence to the first paragraph: "Contracts are
binding."
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An entity is binding if and only if the Rules designate it as such.
The Rules as a whole is an entity that is binding; this entity is
known as the ruleset.
An action is regulated by a binding entity if: (1) the entity
directly and explicitly defines, limits, allows, enables, permits,
forbids, or requires its performance; (2) the entity describes the
circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3)
the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for
which the entity requires some player to be a "recordkeepor".
When a binding entity explicitly defines an action, describes the
possibility of performing an action, or describes the methods by
which an action can be performed, it creates an action that is
distinct from all other actions; the binding entity is said to "own"
this created action. A binding entity CAN only state that it
requires or forbids an action that it does not own; it CANNOT modify
any other properties of the action.
An action that is owned by a binding entity CAN only be performed as
described by the entity, and only using the methods explicitly
specified in the entity for performing the given action.
Interpretations that result in the entity directly proscribing
actions that are not regulated by it are invalid.
Retitle Rule 2125 to "Binding Entities".
Set the power of Rule 2125 to 3.1.
//
---
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:54 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Just noticed this didn't go to the PF and didn't see an informal
> response/revision (sorry if I missed it).
>
> CoE: the Proposal Pool is not empty, it contains the proposal noted
> below.
>
> On 7/1/2019 10:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Accepted, revision: The AI of proposal 8197 is none, but the AI of the
> > decision on whether to adopt that proposal is 1.0.
> >
> > -Aris
>
>
