Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Wooden Gavel for twg
On 4/25/2020 11:51 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > 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. I think: - Wooden Gavel, awardable by the Arbitor to the judge of a CFJ means it's literally not awardable to a non-judge. The "awardable by" refers back to the "CAN be awarded by the indicated officers" so I think the "to the judge" is a condition for the CAN. Anyway, I think my preference (just looking at the overall judgements) is to award to Falsifian.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3828 Assigned to G.
And all you had to do to secure a win was to try and transfer all your coins to someone before they fixed the rule! On 2020-04-26 18:25, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: On 4/25/2020 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: === CFJ 3828 === A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself. == I deliver the following judgement for CFJ 3828: This court agrees that we must adhere to the text of the rule "A Coin Award" for the time that it was a rule: When this rule is enacted, a player other than the author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1 coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this rule repeals itself. The court also agrees that, upon the enactment of that rule, a coin was created in the possession of a player, as per the definition of 'earn' in R2577/2: For an entity to earn an asset is for that asset to be created in that entity's possession. And just for good measure, the rules grant themselves explicit general authority to create coins, as per R2166/28: An asset's backing document can generally specify when and how that asset is created, destroyed, and transferred. Therefore, in the words of "A Coin Award", a player did indeed earn a coin "this way" and the rule repealed itself. In a more practical jurisdiction than Agora, a judge might say "ah, looking at R2576/0, each asset has exactly one owner. The rule that created the coin listed a subset of possible owners, therefore we merely decide on someone in that set. Or maybe defer to the Officer to make the decision." However, Agora also has Rule 2518/0: If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate. This implies that, if insufficient information exists to determine the owner of an existing coin, a judge's task is not to pick an arbitrary method for determining the value, but simply to determine that the value is indeterminate, and see if that leads to an appropriate result. First, for posterity, it's worth noting that after this CFJ was called, P8366 'Asset Determinacy' was adopted (17 Apr 2020), changing part of R2576's text from: If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. to: If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, or if its ownership would otherwise be indeterminate, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. Therefore, upon that change taking effect, the coin in question was transferred to the Lost and Found Department, where I believe it resides now. However, at the time this CFJ was called, the coin belonged to an indeterminate player, so that is the basis of this judgement. Taking the wording of the CFJ statement: A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself. We have determined that the rule was enacted, and the rule repealed itself. However, it is indeterminate whether R. Lee's coin totals were increased. Looking at the judgement options in R591/46: * PARADOXICAL, appropriate if the statement is logically undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other irresovable logical situation. PARADOXICAL is not appropriate if IRRELEVANT is appropriate, nor is it appropriate if the undecidability arises from the case itself or in reference to it. If the owner of the coin is indeterminate, then it is logically irresovable whether R. Lee's coin totals were changed. It is not IRRELEVANT (at the time it was called), as it directly affects the Treasuror's records, nor does the undecidability arise from the case itself or in reference to it. Further, the other possible option, DISMISS (because insufficient information exists to make a judgement with reasonable effort) explicitly excludes itself from consideration if PARADOXICAL is appropriate. Therefore, this court finds PARADOXICAL.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3828 Assigned to G.
easiest win ever On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 6:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/25/2020 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> === CFJ 3828 > === > >>> > >>> A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the > >>> number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself. > >>> > >>> > == > > I deliver the following judgement for CFJ 3828: > > This court agrees that we must adhere to the text of the rule "A Coin > Award" for the time that it was a rule: > > When this rule is enacted, a player other than the > author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1 > coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this > rule repeals itself. > > The court also agrees that, upon the enactment of that rule, a coin was > created in the possession of a player, as per the definition of 'earn' in > R2577/2: > > For an entity to earn an asset is for that asset to be created in > that entity's possession. > > And just for good measure, the rules grant themselves explicit general > authority to create coins, as per R2166/28: > > An asset's backing document can generally > specify when and how that asset is created, destroyed, and > transferred. > > Therefore, in the words of "A Coin Award", a player did indeed earn a coin > "this way" and the rule repealed itself. > > In a more practical jurisdiction than Agora, a judge might say "ah, > looking at R2576/0, each asset has exactly one owner. The rule that > created the coin listed a subset of possible owners, therefore we merely > decide on someone in that set. Or maybe defer to the Officer to make the > decision." > > However, Agora also has Rule 2518/0: > > If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or > > paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it > > alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is > > considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate. > > This implies that, if insufficient information exists to determine the > owner of an existing coin, a judge's task is not to pick an arbitrary > method for determining the value, but simply to determine that the value > is indeterminate, and see if that leads to an appropriate result. > > First, for posterity, it's worth noting that after this CFJ was called, > P8366 'Asset Determinacy' was adopted (17 Apr 2020), changing part of > R2576's text from: > If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost > and Found Department. > to: > If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, or if its ownership > would otherwise be indeterminate, it is owned by the Lost and > Found Department. > > Therefore, upon that change taking effect, the coin in question was > transferred to the Lost and Found Department, where I believe it resides > now. > > However, at the time this CFJ was called, the coin belonged to an > indeterminate player, so that is the basis of this judgement. Taking the > wording of the CFJ statement: > > A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the > number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself. > > We have determined that the rule was enacted, and the rule repealed > itself. However, it is indeterminate whether R. Lee's coin totals were > increased. Looking at the judgement options in R591/46: > > > * PARADOXICAL, appropriate if the statement is logically > >undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other irresovable > >logical situation. PARADOXICAL is not appropriate if IRRELEVANT > >is appropriate, nor is it appropriate if the undecidability > >arises from the case itself or in reference to it. > > If the owner of the coin is indeterminate, then it is logically > irresovable whether R. Lee's coin totals were changed. It is not > IRRELEVANT (at the time it was called), as it directly affects the > Treasuror's records, nor does the undecidability arise from the case > itself or in reference to it. Further, the other possible option, DISMISS > (because insufficient information exists to make a judgement with > reasonable effort) explicitly excludes itself from consideration if > PARADOXICAL is appropriate. > > Therefore, this court finds PARADOXICAL. > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: attn referee (Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport)
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:56 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > 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. I hadn't thought about the fact that a ruling of SHENANIGANS could not be CFJ'd, so if another finger were pointed for this or another similar violation, I would impose a fine, just to ensure a CFJ could be called. I also looked at CFJ 3823 and it seems to be in line with what I was already thinking. I agree that it is distinct conduct, but I think that the fact that we ascertain whether it is occurring from the same conduct may make it the same for the purposes of the sentencing guidelines.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Wooden Gavel for twg
On 4/25/2020 11:51 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:11 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 01:43, Aris Merchant 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. Actually, rereading it this morning, could the proposal be a bit less "whereas" ish and a bit more explaining why that particular judgement deserves it enough to override twg's failure to deliver it? I'd prefer honest discussion of such awards (as is more prone to happen when seeking Agoran consent) over acclamation for its own sake. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)
On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 22:30 -0400, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 16:55, ais523 via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > 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. > > > Winning triggers an era change in BN, though, which may be motivation > enough for some. This phenomenon's been observed even in cases when it's clear that an era change is inevitable regardless, though. (For example, if two players are each close to winning, there will typically be several players willing to accept requests from one or the other of the players to influence which of them wins, even with no obvious compensation.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)
On 4/26/2020 8:26 AM, ais523 wrote: > On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 22:30 -0400, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 16:55, ais523 wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> Winning triggers an era change in BN, though, which may be motivation >> enough for some. > > This phenomenon's been observed even in cases when it's clear that an > era change is inevitable regardless, though. (For example, if two > players are each close to winning, there will typically be several > players willing to accept requests from one or the other of the players > to influence which of them wins, even with no obvious compensation.) > Well if it's an ongoing game with rounds, if you're losing one round you might as well have someone owe you a favor (even if just subconsciously) on a future round. (iterated play being what, in a game theory sense, breaks through prisoners' dilemmas in favor of cooperation).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3828 Assigned to G.
On 4/26/2020 2:53 AM, Rebecca wrote: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 6:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> I deliver the following judgement for CFJ 3828: >> > > easiest win ever lol it was totally not the decision I was expecting to make when I started writing (I thought I was going to end up on "it all failed").
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Wooden Gavel for twg
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 11:23, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Actually, rereading it this morning, could the proposal be a bit less > "whereas" ish and a bit more explaining why that particular judgement > deserves it enough to override twg's failure to deliver it? I'd prefer > honest discussion of such awards (as is more prone to happen when seeking > Agoran consent) over acclamation for its own sake. > > -G Also, for what it's worth, I do prefer giving the award to Falsifian.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 15:00, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-official wrote:
> Trigon -400c. 2020-02-09 19:18 Transfer from Murphy
> ("Kingmaking")
> Murphy +400c. 2020-02-09 19:18 Transfer to Trigon
> ("Kingmaking")
>
These appear to be backwards, though I think the values in the actual
reports are correct and, in any case, self-ratified by now.
-Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: A few orders of business [attn Arbitor, Herald]
I suppose Trigon should be awarded speaker, though I will win in 6 days On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 11:01 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 20:56, Reuben Staley via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > With that out of the way, I would also like to have an office again. It > > appears that all the offices are filled, but if anyone has an office > > they don't really want to keep up, I would not mind taking care of it. > > > > PSS offered Treasuror up; I intend, with 2 support, to initiate an election > for Treasuror. I won't resolve this intent and become a candidate, but you > can. (You have to become a candidate in the same message to start an > election with support.) > > -Alexis > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few orders of business [attn Arbitor, Herald]
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 21:03, Rebecca via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I suppose Trigon should be awarded speaker, though I will win in 6 days > Correct, but that falls on the Prime Minister. -Alexis
