DIS: [Notary] Report available online
FYI, the notary’s report is now available online, in HTML and text forms, at https://agoranomic.org/Notary/. It’s hooked up my own records, so it’ll update as soon as I update those, even if I haven’t published a report yet. Gaelan
DIS: Re: BUS: How to Break Your Promise
On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 5:47 PM Tanner Swett via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit a proposal, titled "Promissory cleanliness", with AI = 1.7: {
>
> Append the following paragraph to Rule 2450 "Pledges":
>
> The Notary CAN destroy a pledge Without Objection, and SHOULD do so if and
> only if the pledge no longer serves any significant purpose.
>
> }
>
> The blackjack hand is over, but there's currently no way to get rid of the
> pledge without a proposal.
>
> —Warrigal
May as well add it to contracts too?
-Aris
>
>
Re: DIS: [Assessor] Request for office confirmation
Jason wrote: > Because there hasn't been an ADoP report in over a month (I hope > Murphy's okay), I'd just like to confirm office holdings because the > assessments depend on it: > > The latest report is at [0]. As far as I know, the changes from then are: > > * Herald is held by Alexis. > * Prime Minister is held by Alexis. > * Treasuror is held by twg > * Tailor is held by twg > > > Is that all that has happened? > > > [0]: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-January/013318.html Yes, that matches the list I came up with for Payday. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes a uroborus
Assuming this goes undisputed, I’ll assume that this interpretation is correct for my reports. Gaelan > On Feb 8, 2020, at 1:04 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I doubt that this really does anything. Presumably, "one party" means "one > person who is a party"; there's no means by which a single person can be > multiple parties. > > On a related note, years ago, it was ruled that "I act on behalf of myself > to do X" means exactly the same thing as "I do X." > > Back then, there was no mechanism in the rules for one person to act on > behalf of another. Instead, if a person A said "I permit person B to act on > my behalf", and then person B sent a message saying "Person A does X", then > the way that this was treated is that Person A was considered to be the > author and the sender of that particular sentence, with Person B merely > relaying the message to the forum. > > —Warrigal, who is emself
DIS: [Assessor] Request for office confirmation
Because there hasn't been an ADoP report in over a month (I hope Murphy's okay), I'd just like to confirm office holdings because the assessments depend on it: The latest report is at [0]. As far as I know, the changes from then are: * Herald is held by Alexis. * Prime Minister is held by Alexis. * Treasuror is held by twg * Tailor is held by twg Is that all that has happened? [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-January/013318.html -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3798 Assigned to G.
On 2/8/2020 4:16 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2/8/20 7:11 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> [5] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3773 found that >> future-dated reports are inaccurate by nature (too inaccurate to be >> considered >> a report). > > > Didn't that CFJ find that I could be punished "for publishing, as part > of an official report, [an] inaccurate statement"? If so, I don't see > how it could also find that my future report was also not an official > report. Oh good point. I don't think Judge Murphy considered the distinction between "an inaccurate report" versus "something so inaccurate it's not a report" (which is still punishable as a straight-up lie under no faking). I'll look at that more.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3798 Assigned to G.
On 2/8/20 7:11 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > [5] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3773 found that > future-dated reports are inaccurate by nature (too inaccurate to be considered > a report). Didn't that CFJ find that I could be punished "for publishing, as part of an official report, [an] inaccurate statement"? If so, I don't see how it could also find that my future report was also not an official report. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3793 Assigned to Alexis
On 2/8/2020 2:07 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 16:21, Kerim Aydin via agora-official > wrote: >> >> The below CFJ is 3793. I assign it to Alexis. >> >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3793 >> >> === CFJ 3793 === >> >> Rance’s master switch is set to Gaelan. >> >> == > > I intend to judge this per my arguments on the reconsideration, > meaning FALSE and zombie auctions don't work, but I'll give a little > bit for someone to rebut. Just to note I've just uploaded 3693-3694 to the archives, so some kind of direct reference/overruling of that would be appreciated (if you weren't planning that already).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Modest Proposal
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 17:22, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > > Seems reasonable. Minor thing: it would be nice if this had a self-repeal > provision. > > Gaelan But that would move it back afterward. -Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes a uroborus
I doubt that this really does anything. Presumably, "one party" means "one person who is a party"; there's no means by which a single person can be multiple parties. On a related note, years ago, it was ruled that "I act on behalf of myself to do X" means exactly the same thing as "I do X." Back then, there was no mechanism in the rules for one person to act on behalf of another. Instead, if a person A said "I permit person B to act on my behalf", and then person B sent a message saying "Person A does X", then the way that this was treated is that Person A was considered to be the author and the sender of that particular sentence, with Person B merely relaying the message to the forum. —Warrigal, who is emself
DIS: Re: BUS: A Modest Proposal
Seems reasonable. Minor thing: it would be nice if this had a self-repeal
provision.
Gaelan
> On Feb 8, 2020, at 1:15 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> Proposal: RtRW Reschedule (AI=1)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2327 (Read the Ruleset Week) by adding the following paragraph:
> {
> The above notwithstanding, due to serious uncertainty surrounding the
> state of the rules during the scheduled Read the Ruleset Week, in the
> year 2020, Read the Ruleset Week is, instead, the week of February 24
> - March 1
> }
> }}}
>
> (I wanted to post a zombie auction fix but, honestly, the auction
> rules are so long and complicated for little value that it's not worth
> it right now.)
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3793 Assigned to Alexis
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 16:21, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > The below CFJ is 3793. I assign it to Alexis. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3793 > > === CFJ 3793 === > > Rance’s master switch is set to Gaelan. > > == I intend to judge this per my arguments on the reconsideration, meaning FALSE and zombie auctions don't work, but I'll give a little bit for someone to rebut.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] February zombie auction status
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 12:17, James Cook via agora-business wrote: > > This is an unofficial report on the ongoing zombie auction. All times UTC. > > Note: it is not clear that zombie auctions work. It is possible the > winners will not receive their lots but will still be required to pay. > The judgement of CFJ 3793 is expected to address this. R2549 seems to prevent auction initiation if the lots can't be transferred. I believe that auctions have simply been ineffective. -Alexis
Re: DIS: [proto] Retroactive Events: a refactor of ratification
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:41, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:17 AM James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: > > This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in > > the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification > > failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is a more > > radical change and makes the use of ratification less concise, but in > > my opinion the reward is that it greatly increases simplicity and > > certainty in what the effect of ratification actually is. > > Proto-proto: Overturn CFJ 3337 > > [Treat the scope of ratification the way I always assumed it should be > treated... including when I wrote the current wording of Rule 1551, > back in 2010. (Previously, Rule 1551 had stated that "the gamestate > is minimally modified so that the ratified document was completely > true and accurate at the time it was published; I added the "what it > would be" clause.) > > I believe this is orthogonal to your counter-proto; it could go > together with it, or it could serve as a basis for a more conservative > fix. For what it's worth, if you *don't* want these semantics, I > think you should have Rule 1551 say so more explicitly; in particular, > you should clarify the meaning of "what it would be".] > > Create a new Power-3 Rule, titled "Gamestate": > > The gamestate of Agora consists of the Rules, together with all > other entities and properties defined by the Rules. It does not > include a mutable record of its own history: when the Rules > refer to past game states or events, they refer to the actual > past. Nor does it include a list of 'legal fictions', or false > statements about external reality to be treated as true for game > purposes. A rule may state or imply that 'X is treated as if it > were Y', but this is considered an attempt to redefine X, > subject to the usual standards for definitions. I fully support this and would like to see it in next week's distribution. It would help clear up one of the issues that I was having with my proto as well. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer ain't dead no mo'
Thanks, an updated Ruleset is something I always super appreciate On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 8:14 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 2/8/20 12:10 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > * You can make one-party contracts now. (The Rulekeepor hasn't caught > > up with that one yet, but it's "Contract Patency v3" in last week's > > proposal resolution [0].) > > > The data files are updated for the last resolutions, but I think at this > point I won't publish the SLR until after I can get the next assessments > out. > > > -- > Jason Cobb >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer ain't dead no mo'
On 2/8/20 12:10 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > * You can make one-party contracts now. (The Rulekeepor hasn't caught > up with that one yet, but it's "Contract Patency v3" in last week's > proposal resolution [0].) The data files are updated for the last resolutions, but I think at this point I won't publish the SLR until after I can get the next assessments out. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer ain't dead no mo'
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 21:22, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > I set my master to myself > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNFzfwLM72c Always a pleasure to have you back! If you're looking for something to do: * You could try winning yourself in this month's zombie auction. It wouldn't do anything (per the last paragraph of R1885) but I think it would be funny. You're the third lot and the bids so far are 11 and 12 coins. * You can make one-party contracts now. (The Rulekeepor hasn't caught up with that one yet, but it's "Contract Patency v3" in last week's proposal resolution [0].) * Warrigal started a blackjack game [1]. It's too late to join that one, but maybe e or someone else will start another round? - Falsifian [0] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-January/013387.html [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-January/042013.html
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Some questions, some thoughts, and a proposed newsletter
> > Alternatively, it could be interesting to add a general mechanism for
> > public funding of private projects. E.g. have a singleton Budget
> > switch which lists contracts that get weekly payments. An example
> > might be [{my press contract, 5 Coins}, {Society for the Advancement
> > of Agora, 5 Coins}]. Players could flip the budget switch with Agoran
> > Consent, or there could be a monthly budget review.
> >
> > - Falsifian
>
> This could possibly be a good way to simplify some of the existing
> rewards language further?
>
> -Alexis
What are you suggesting? Replacing reward conditions in the rules with
publicly funded contracts that specify the conditions for rewards
being distributed?
- Falsifian
