DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Thesis Submission Peer Review
On 4/18/2020 6:20 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-official wrote: > > There is very little in the way of peer review so far; G., do you wish to > prepare a consolidated copy of the thesis? > Thanks, it may be a week or two more before I get to this.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Wooden Gavel 2019 shortlist
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 1:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > Reviews all the 2019 cases (including those not in the archives). > > My shortlist (discussion welcome! Especially if there's one not on this > list where I missed its deep importance/later citations) > > > CFJ 3694 by Judge D. Margaux > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3694 > > This case let zombie auctions function in our minds (enough for zombie > possession to be self-ratified) for nearly a year. I appreciate it > because it comes from a very valid real-world judicial decision (finding > common sense and obvious intent in confusingly-written law) even though > our Agoran style eventually reasserted itself by overturning this case. > Definitely had a big impact on gameplay (i.e. every zombie auction for a > year). Hmm. I would hardly criticize the ruling, but I'm just not seeing the sort of insight or cleverness that makes me say "oh, wow that's an amazing judgement". It's a perfectly good judgement, but I don't think it meets the standard for being commemorated by a patent title. By contrast, in all of the other cases up for consideration I think the judgements are extremely enlightening. > CFJs 3722-3724, by Judge Aris > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3722 > The untangling of a very complicated situation. Current Agoran practice seems to be to avoid speaking in favor of one's own work, except to answer questions and point out context. However, the rulings in these CFJs aren't actually my work; they're twg's work. I will confess that I just read the judgments, and went "wow, my reasoning here was really top notch", and was rather disappointed that I couldn't argue in favor of giving myself the Gavel for it because of the social convention. I then saw the note at the top that said twg actually wrote the judgements and was even more disappointed that they weren't actually mine. I'd feel extremely uncomfortable accepting the Wooden Gavel for a case in which I summarily assigned the prior judge's draft judgement, without any independent reasoning of my own. Can we please give twg the Wooden Gavel, by proposal if necessary? > > CFJs 3726-3727, by Judge Falsifian > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3726 > A nice examination and very interesting discussion on the timing of > self-ratification versus "truth" in judgement. These are definitely of significant precedential value; they're part of what caused us to reconsider the entire ratification system. Plus, the reasoning is well thought out. Definitely Gavel worthy. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)
On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 14:53 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote: > The following is a Notice of Honour: > > +1 PSS for reporting for Treasuror. > -1 twg for leaving without resigning (I guess). > > By the way, I found the Kingmaking thread which pushed me over 1000 > coins. Thanks, I guess, but I'm really not sure why it was done. I > can't find much commentary about it in the Reportor's summaries or > the mailing lists themselves. Experience from BlogNomic is that many players apparently value causing a win to happen, even if it's some other player that actually gets the win. (I'm more mercenary than that; I'm often quite happy to allow a win to happen, but normally prefer to get something in return. That said, I typically won't stop a win if its effects on the Speakership, etc., are to my benefit, even if I don't receive a bribe directly.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: attn referee (Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport)
On 4/25/2020 3:11 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Based upon my investigation, I have concluded that Gaelan has failed to > maintain this information and has therein violated R2143 because there > existed a point at which e would have been expected to produce this > information at which e didn't. However, I believe that the conduct which > constitutes this violation is substantially the same conduct that > constituted the above violation. As a result, an attempt to levy a fine > would be INEFFECTIVE, therefore I rule this finger pointing SHENANIGANS. > Since I expect this to be CFJ'd, I'll clarify that I don't particularly > care which way this is ruled. I would like to be able to punish this > separately; however, I think that the rule must be clarified before that > can occur. As judge of CFJ 3823, I opined that "maintaining" is a very different activity than "publishing" (you can maintain without publishing, though you can't publish without maintaining). Still, I don't see that there's a way to CFJ on "improper" SHENANIGANS, since such a call is valid if the referee believes that it would be ineffective (whether or not it would be)... I suppose I could call on a hypothetical but tend to prefer not to. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: attn referee (Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport)
On 4/25/20 6:41 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Still, I don't see that there's a way to CFJ on "improper" SHENANIGANS, > since such a call is valid if the referee believes that it would be > ineffective (whether or not it would be)... I suppose I could call on a > hypothetical but tend to prefer not to. > > -G. > > AFAIK there's no prohibition on levying a fine after previously finding SHENANIGANS, so couldn't you CFJ on "The Referee CAN levy a fine ..."? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Wooden Gavel 2019 shortlist
Thanks for the input! Really helpful. On 4/25/2020 1:52 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 1:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> CFJ 3694 by Judge D. Margaux >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3694 > Hmm. I would hardly criticize the ruling, but I'm just not seeing the > sort of insight or cleverness that makes me say "oh, wow that's an > amazing judgement". On this one I was thinking more of "greatest effect on the game" (since zombie auctions was the only consistent play all year). Still, you're right, this one is probably not the highest tier in the actual writing. >> CFJs 3722-3724, by Judge Aris >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3722 >> The untangling of a very complicated situation. > > I'd feel extremely > uncomfortable accepting the Wooden Gavel for a case in which I > summarily assigned the prior judge's draft judgement, without any > independent reasoning of my own. Can we please give twg the Wooden > Gavel, by proposal if necessary? Thanks for the heads-up, I can't rememeber why twg didn't deliver it emself. I agree it's good, but the fact that e had nearly 2 months of opportunity to do so before e was recused is enough of a minor strike that I'll leave this to others to propose if desired (tho I'd probably vote for such a proposal). >> CFJs 3726-3727, by Judge Falsifian >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3726 >> A nice examination and very interesting discussion on the timing of >> self-ratification versus "truth" in judgement. > > These are definitely of significant precedential value; they're part > of what caused us to reconsider the entire ratification system. Plus, > the reasoning is well thought out. Definitely Gavel worthy. I was going to go relive that time a little to see if others contributed, but your comments matched my memory that Falsifian was the main motivator in puzzling this one out. Definitely open for further discussion but this is my top choice right now. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: attn referee (Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport)
On 4/25/2020 3:44 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 4/25/20 6:41 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> Still, I don't see that there's a way to CFJ on "improper" SHENANIGANS, >> since such a call is valid if the referee believes that it would be >> ineffective (whether or not it would be)... I suppose I could call on a >> hypothetical but tend to prefer not to. >> >> -G. >> >> > > AFAIK there's no prohibition on levying a fine after previously finding > SHENANIGANS, so couldn't you CFJ on "The Referee CAN levy a fine ..."? > R2478 says that the investigator CAN "conclude" the investigation by calling shenanigans. I'd argue that the common definition of "conclude" (supported by an ethical/good of the game desire to avoid double jeopardy) means you can't conclude the same thing twice.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: attn referee (Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport)
Well you can CFJ improper SHENANIGANS because you can CFJ anything. If the SHENANIGANS turned out to be improper, another finger may be pointed in identical terms to the first finger, yes? On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:55 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 4/25/2020 3:44 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 4/25/20 6:41 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > >> Still, I don't see that there's a way to CFJ on "improper" SHENANIGANS, > >> since such a call is valid if the referee believes that it would be > >> ineffective (whether or not it would be)... I suppose I could call on a > >> hypothetical but tend to prefer not to. > >> > >> -G. > >> > >> > > > > AFAIK there's no prohibition on levying a fine after previously finding > > SHENANIGANS, so couldn't you CFJ on "The Referee CAN levy a fine ..."? > > > > R2478 says that the investigator CAN "conclude" the investigation by > calling shenanigans. I'd argue that the common definition of "conclude" > (supported by an ethical/good of the game desire to avoid double jeopardy) > means you can't conclude the same thing twice. > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 16:55, ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 14:53 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-business > wrote: > > The following is a Notice of Honour: > > > > +1 PSS for reporting for Treasuror. > > -1 twg for leaving without resigning (I guess). > > > > By the way, I found the Kingmaking thread which pushed me over 1000 > > coins. Thanks, I guess, but I'm really not sure why it was done. I > > can't find much commentary about it in the Reportor's summaries or > > the mailing lists themselves. > > Experience from BlogNomic is that many players apparently value causing > a win to happen, even if it's some other player that actually gets the > win. > > (I'm more mercenary than that; I'm often quite happy to allow a win to > happen, but normally prefer to get something in return. That said, I > typically won't stop a win if its effects on the Speakership, etc., are > to my benefit, even if I don't receive a bribe directly.) > Winning triggers an era change in BN, though, which may be motivation enough for some.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: attn referee (Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport)
On 4/25/20 6:55 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > R2478 says that the investigator CAN "conclude" the investigation by > calling shenanigans. I'd argue that the common definition of "conclude" > (supported by an ethical/good of the game desire to avoid double jeopardy) > means you can't conclude the same thing twice. > Good point; I hadn't noticed that. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: attn referee (Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport)
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 3:55 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 4/25/2020 3:44 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 4/25/20 6:41 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > >> Still, I don't see that there's a way to CFJ on "improper" SHENANIGANS, > >> since such a call is valid if the referee believes that it would be > >> ineffective (whether or not it would be)... I suppose I could call on a > >> hypothetical but tend to prefer not to. > >> > >> -G. > >> > >> > > > > AFAIK there's no prohibition on levying a fine after previously finding > > SHENANIGANS, so couldn't you CFJ on "The Referee CAN levy a fine ..."? > > > > R2478 says that the investigator CAN "conclude" the investigation by > calling shenanigans. I'd argue that the common definition of "conclude" > (supported by an ethical/good of the game desire to avoid double jeopardy) > means you can't conclude the same thing twice. > > I think it's clear that if someone else points their finger, starting a different investigation, that would be separately resolvable? I can't open the rules at the moment, so it's possible that there's an obvious bar I'm missing. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: attn referee (Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport)
On 4/25/2020 8:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 3:55 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> R2478 says that the investigator CAN "conclude" the investigation by >> calling shenanigans. I'd argue that the common definition of "conclude" >> (supported by an ethical/good of the game desire to avoid double jeopardy) >> means you can't conclude the same thing twice. >> >> I think it's clear that if someone else points their finger, starting a > different investigation, that would be separately resolvable? I can't open > the rules at the moment, so it's possible that there's an obvious bar I'm > missing. > There's no bar to that - I just didn't personally feel like raising the issue in CFJ or asking a hypothetical, when the referee had opined within the bounds of reason, and the standard for shenanigans is what the referee "believed" was true (If it was a different standard I might have CFJ'd). Oh, I may see the confusion - I said initially there was "no way" to CFJ the referee's finding, when what I really meant was something like there was "no valid legal reason" (the finding having met the proper standard of belief and all). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Wooden Gavel for twg
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 01:43, Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > [I'm attempting to replicate, as nearly as possible, the 2 Agoran > Consent requirement for awarding the patent title. Unless there is an > objection, the Promotorial Proposal Office intends to exercise its > discretion not to assign this proposal to a chamber.] > > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to make the below proposal Democratic. > > -Aris > Why not just do it with 2 Agoran Consent? -Alexis
DIS: Draft Report
Here's a draft report. Note that I'm now going back and forth over whether to refer P8374. -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, 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)AITitle --- 8373# Jason, Aris 1.0 Auction resolution fixes 8374# Aris 2.0 Wooden Gavel for twg 8375* Falsifian3.0 Additional fire retardant The proposal pool is currently empty. Legend: * : Democratic proposal. # : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber. e : Economy ministry proposal. f : Efficiency ministry proposal. j : Justice ministry proposal. l : Legislation ministry proposal. p : Participation ministry proposal. The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. // ID: 8373 Title: Auction resolution fixes Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Jason Co-authors: Aris Amend Rule 2551 by replacing the text from "A person's priority on an Auction is their" to "the excess lots are not won by any person." (including both ends) with the following paragraphs: The bidders in an Auction are the players who have a non-withdrawn bid in that Auction. Priority is a strict total ordering over the bidders in an Auction. For two bidders with different bid amounts on their non-withdrawn bids, the bidder with the higher bid has higher priority than the other bidder; otherwise, the bidder whose non-withdrawn bid was placed earlier has higher priority than the other bidder. Upon the end of an Auction, for each lot, in the order they are to be awarded, the bidder with the highest priority in the Auction who is not yet the winner of a lot becomes the winner of the lot. If there are more lots than there are persons with non-withdrawn bids, the excess lots are not won by any person. See [0] for an explanation on what this does. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-April/057218.html // ID: 8374 Title: Wooden Gavel for twg Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: WHEREAS it is proper and good that the accomplishments of Agorans be celebrated; WHEREAS April has been designated as Awards Month, during which the Wooden Gavel patent title is to be be awarded; WHEREAS it is the will of the players of Agora, made manifest through this proposal, that twg receive the Wooden Gavel for eir outstanding opinions in CFJs 3722-3724; and WHEREAS the particular circumstances of this case make it impractical for the the Honorable Arbitor to award the Wooden Gavel by the usual method; THEREFORE, LET IT BE DECREED that the Patent Title "Wooden Gavel 2019" is hereby bestowed upon twg. // ID: 8375 Title: Additional fire retardant Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Falsifian Co-authors: Amend Rule 1789 by replacing "subsequent Registrar Reports" with "subsequent Registrar monthly Reports". //
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Wooden Gavel for twg
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:11 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 01:43, Aris Merchant via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > [I'm attempting to replicate, as nearly as possible, the 2 Agoran > > Consent requirement for awarding the patent title. Unless there is an > > objection, the Promotorial Proposal Office intends to exercise its > > discretion not to assign this proposal to a chamber.] > > > > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to make the below proposal Democratic. > > > > -Aris > > > > Why not just do it with 2 Agoran Consent? Rereading the rule, it seems the Arbitor CAN make an intent for whoever e wants; the restriction on doing it for the judge of the CFJ is a should. So I guess maybe we should go that route? I'm tired and can't think ATM, I'll see what people have said in the morning. -Aris
