DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8322-3541
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 22:33, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > 3532f Murphy, Alexis 1.0 Switch Responsibility Responsibility > AGAINST; this is already addressed by default officeholding. Only initially. If the player deregisters, the office becomes vacant with no mechanism to fill it. > > 3533l Murphy, Alexis 2.0 Meaningful extra votes > AGAINST; it's supposed to be a casting vote. No it's not; if it were, it would only apply to AI=1 proposals since there is no such thing as a "tie" for anything other than a majority vote. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-3341
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 5:27 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 00:04, Aris Merchant via agora-official > wrote: > > To the extent that my official numbering decisions have any meaning at > > this point, I reverse any action I took in this message. > > For someone just catching up: which ID numbers am I supposed to use now? As of the time you sent that message, there was no correct set of numbers, because I was waiting to make sure I didn't mess up a third time. As of now, you should use the ones I just sent. Again, I'm really sorry for this whole mess. -Aris
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-3341
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 00:04, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > To the extent that my official numbering decisions have any meaning at > this point, I reverse any action I took in this message. For someone just catching up: which ID numbers am I supposed to use now?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8308-8321
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:32 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 2/12/20 9:17 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > PROPOSAL 8317 (Zombie trade) > > FOR (5): Alexis%, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg& > > AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o > > PRESENT (0): > > BALLOTS: 11 > > AI (F/A): 21/19 (AI=1.0) > > OUTCOME: ADOPTED > > > Out of curiosity, what the reward have been if this had passed? Would > the author have lost a coin or would nothing happen when e was granted > the reward? There's several scattered but consistent precedents to the effect that currency units are "actual things" and aren't reversible operations like pure numbers, e.g. if you have to "lose N coins" but N turns out to be negative, you don't magically gain coins, because "negative coins" don't exist as an Agoran concept. I imagine the "grant" definition of R2577 would be the same interpretation, that "granting negative coins" is a no-op, and doesn't imply "destroying coins" (though I don't think that particular version of R2577 has been tested). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8308-8321
Jason wrote: > On 2/12/20 9:17 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > PROPOSAL 8317 (Zombie trade) > > FOR (5): Alexis%, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg& > > AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o > > PRESENT (0): > > BALLOTS: 11 > > AI (F/A): 21/19 (AI=1.0) > > OUTCOME: ADOPTED > > Out of curiosity, what the reward have been if this had passed? Would > the author have lost a coin or would nothing happen when e was granted > the reward? CFJ 3703 suggests the latter. -twg
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8308-8321
On 2/12/20 9:17 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > PROPOSAL 8317 (Zombie trade) > FOR (5): Alexis%, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg& > AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o > PRESENT (0): > BALLOTS: 11 > AI (F/A): 21/19 (AI=1.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED Out of curiosity, what the reward have been if this had passed? Would the author have lost a coin or would nothing happen when e was granted the reward? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Promotor] Renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-3341
Jason wrote: > On 2/13/20 12:00 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > Fucking hell. I didn't even fix the numbers. I'm so stressed out about > > my mistake that I only fixed half the problem. I am so sorry everyone. > > This is truly mortifying. > > > It's alright! I have no complaints about the work you've done since I've > been here, and I certainly can't claim to have made no mistakes myself. Seconded. (actually I think... "fourthed", now? whatever.) If I can get away with breaking rewards for two weeks then I think you can survive misplacing some digits. Especially if all your mistakes are going to be as amusing as this one. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Promotor] Renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-3341
On 2/13/20 12:00 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > Fucking hell. I didn't even fix the numbers. I'm so stressed out about > my mistake that I only fixed half the problem. I am so sorry everyone. > This is truly mortifying. It's alright! I have no complaints about the work you've done since I've been here, and I certainly can't claim to have made no mistakes myself. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Birthday
El 13/02/2020 a las 17:56, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion escribió: sukil wrote: Me too! Hi sukil, welcome to Agora! You sent this to the main Discussion Forum (agora-discussion@agoranomic.org), whereas you probably meant to send it to the main Public Forum (agora-busin...@agoranomic.org). Messages sent to a discussion forum have no in-game effect, because it's useful for us to have a way to talk about the game without actually performing in-game actions. The details about fora are in Rule 478, and you can find a list of fora in the Registrar's weekly report, which is published online here: https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/ -twg You're right. Upon investigation, it seems that the headers got messed up in the message I was replying to (or before that message),populating the "reply-to" header with the discussion list and your e-mail address. Thanks very much on the pointer about the register!
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Promotor] Renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-3341
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 05:01, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > Fucking hell. I didn't even fix the numbers. I'm so stressed out about > my mistake that I only fixed half the problem. I am so sorry everyone. > This is truly mortifying. If I got this embarrassed every time I made two mistakes in a row, I... would often be quite embarrassed. And I've never had to distribute or assess proposals. You are doing good work. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Birthday
sukil wrote: > Me too! Hi sukil, welcome to Agora! You sent this to the main Discussion Forum (agora-discussion@agoranomic.org), whereas you probably meant to send it to the main Public Forum (agora-busin...@agoranomic.org). Messages sent to a discussion forum have no in-game effect, because it's useful for us to have a way to talk about the game without actually performing in-game actions. The details about fora are in Rule 478, and you can find a list of fora in the Registrar's weekly report, which is published online here: https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/ -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Statement on Proposal 8311's Effect
I wrote: > Jason: >5Reward (assessing proposals, w/c 27 Jan) > 20Indigo Glitter (Baccalaureate of Nomic) [disputed by CFJ] >5Reward (CFJ 3788) > 14Blue Glitter (CFJ 3788) >5Reward (Rulekeepor weekly, w/c 10 Feb) >- > 49 CoE: Jason also receives 5 coins for assessing proposals w/c 10 Feb, because e resolved proposals 8308-8310 before 8311 passed. Accepted. Revision: Jason: 5Reward (assessing proposals, w/c 27 Jan) 20Indigo Glitter (Baccalaureate of Nomic) [disputed by CFJ] 5Reward (CFJ 3788) 14Blue Glitter (CFJ 3788) 5Reward (Rulekeepor weekly, w/c 10 Feb) 5Reward (assessing proposals, w/c 10 Feb) - 54 -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Birthday
El 13/02/2020 a las 17:37, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business escribió: Aris wrote: On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 5:09 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: Happy birthday! I grant Falsifian 3 coins. Likewise! So do I! -tw Me too!
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
El 13/02/2020 a las 13:24, AIS523--- via agora-discussion escribió: On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:40 +0100, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: Hi, I was reading the rules before registering and came across something I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be the only one who doesn't understand this). First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a switch (called n), and the negation of them (without objection, consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these cases? It's basically because it's trying to define the most useful case as shorthand. Without 1 Objection is very common: it means that everyone has to agree (or at least, nobody can actively disagree) for something to happen, so it's used to handle uncontroversial situations where everyone is unanimous. Without 0 Objections would not be a usable mechanism, because there's always at least 0 objections. Maybe it's because I'm a non-native English speaker (specifically: I'm from Spain), and "without objections" rings more natural to me and conveys the same meaning (though now I doubt if that's the case). So we could rephrase "without objection" to "without objections". A structurally simpler "fix" would be to add "without n objections (and its shorthand) is equivalent to with less than n objections". As I said I'm raising this in discussion as I don't know if you think this deserves a change or not (maybe I'm the only one who trips with these things). Thanks and sorry for sending several mails in a row, will try to clarify my thoughts before hitting "send".
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
Ah, I see now, double negatives (approximate term) confuse me. Thanks! El 13/02/2020 a las 13:24, AIS523--- via agora-discussion escribió: On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:40 +0100, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: Hi, I was reading the rules before registering and came across something I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be the only one who doesn't understand this). First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a switch (called n), and the negation of them (without objection, consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these cases? It's basically because it's trying to define the most useful case as shorthand. Without 1 Objection is very common: it means that everyone has to agree (or at least, nobody can actively disagree) for something to happen, so it's used to handle uncontroversial situations where everyone is unanimous. Without 0 Objections would not be a usable mechanism, because there's always at least 0 objections. And lastly, are all actions "without objections" bound to have no objections before taking them? (See cleanliness, for example). For a "without 1 objection" action (typically abbreviated to "without objection"), if anyone objected to the intent, then the action could not be performed. For an action with an easier requirement, such as "without 3 objections", there could be up to 2 objections to an intent without making the action impossible to perform.
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:40 +0100, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: > Hi, > > I was reading the rules before registering and came across something > I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was > going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be > the only one who doesn't understand this). > > First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a > switch (called n), and the negation of them (without objection, > consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it > be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in > the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I > must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these > cases? It's basically because it's trying to define the most useful case as shorthand. Without 1 Objection is very common: it means that everyone has to agree (or at least, nobody can actively disagree) for something to happen, so it's used to handle uncontroversial situations where everyone is unanimous. Without 0 Objections would not be a usable mechanism, because there's always at least 0 objections. > And lastly, are all actions "without objections" bound to have no > objections before taking them? (See cleanliness, for example). For a "without 1 objection" action (typically abbreviated to "without objection"), if anyone objected to the intent, then the action could not be performed. For an action with an easier requirement, such as "without 3 objections", there could be up to 2 objections to an intent without making the action impossible to perform. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
Re-reading the rules it seems that my first point only applies to the objections part, the rest is clear.
Re: DIS: [Registrar] Want to be listed as a watcher? (was: Checking In)
I would, thank you. > On Feb 13, 2020, at 1:52 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: > > If anyone would like to be added to the unofficial list of Watchers in > the weekly Registrar report, please let me know. > > See the "Watchers" section at > https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/weekly/fresh.txt > > >> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 00:25, AIS523--- via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 17:50 -0500, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via >>> agora-discussion wrote: >>> Let's hope the third attempt works. >> >> I received this. I didn't receive your other messages. > > Same. > >> Agora has a long tradition of watchers, anyway. (I guess I'm one of >> them, too, at the moment.) >> >> -- >> ais523 > > I've added you to the list. https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/weekly/fresh.txt > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, let me know if you would to be listed as > well. > > - Falsifian
DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
Hi, I was reading the rules before registering and came across something I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be the only one who doesn't understand this). First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a switch (called n), and the negation of them (without objection, consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these cases? And lastly, are all actions "without objections" bound to have no objections before taking them? (See cleanliness, for example).
