DIS: Re: BUS: [Dragon] Presidential Elections and Shorter Voting Periods
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 8:48 PM James Cook via agora-business wrote: > I vote FOR the first amendment quoted above. I consent to the second > amendment, but have mixed feelings. Here's the reasoning for the second amendment: Corporate Proposals are required for Dragon to do anything. Having it take a week for us to do anything makes us extraordinarily slow. Four days speeds it up a bit, so we can move with reasonable speed in response to changing events. Otherwise, the corporation isn't a dragon, it's a dinosaur. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Dragon Corporation] The Dragon's Lair
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 03:55, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 8:42 PM James Cook via agora-business > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 21:09, Jason Cobb via agora-business > > wrote: > > > I become a party to the Dragon Corporation. > > > > > > > > > This is a self-ratifying report of the asset shares of DRGN: > > > > > > There are 3 shares of DRGN in existence, each owned by Jason. > > > > > > > > > History of DRGN shares (not self-ratifying): > > > > > > Mar 01 2020 23:13: Warrigal purchased 3 shares of DRGN and became > > > president > > > Mar 10 2020 01: Jason purchased 3 shares. > > > Mar 21 2020 01:53: Warrigal sold 1 share of DRGN, causing Jason to become > > > president. > > > Apr 23 2020 02:04: Warrigal's 2 shares of DRGN are destroyed as e > > > deregisters. > > > > > > -- > > > Jason Cobb > > > > CoE on the above report: I believe you (Jason) own 3 banknotes, > > because you owned 3 shares of DRGN when the current quarter began on > > April 1. > > Aren't you conflating perpetual bonds with shares? > > -Aris Oops, you're right. I didn't realize they were different assets. - Falsifian
DIS: Pledge Bug
Breaking a pledge is a crime. A pledge has a time window when after that the pledge stops existing. But a pledge exists that says "I will cause cuddlebeam to win agora within 90 days." That pledge is unenforceable because it ceases to exist when its time window expires, but before then it's not possible to say that the pledge has been broken! Any suggestions for fixing this rules loophole? -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [Dragon Corporation] The Dragon's Lair
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 8:42 PM James Cook via agora-business wrote: > > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 21:09, Jason Cobb via agora-business > wrote: > > I become a party to the Dragon Corporation. > > > > > > This is a self-ratifying report of the asset shares of DRGN: > > > > There are 3 shares of DRGN in existence, each owned by Jason. > > > > > > History of DRGN shares (not self-ratifying): > > > > Mar 01 2020 23:13: Warrigal purchased 3 shares of DRGN and became president > > Mar 10 2020 01: Jason purchased 3 shares. > > Mar 21 2020 01:53: Warrigal sold 1 share of DRGN, causing Jason to become > > president. > > Apr 23 2020 02:04: Warrigal's 2 shares of DRGN are destroyed as e > > deregisters. > > > > -- > > Jason Cobb > > CoE on the above report: I believe you (Jason) own 3 banknotes, > because you owned 3 shares of DRGN when the current quarter began on > April 1. Aren't you conflating perpetual bonds with shares? -Aris
DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset - Apr 2020
> CFJ 3783 (called 07 Dec 2019): It is not possible to wan an election >after it has ended. Typo: wan - Falsifian
Re: DIS: a side-game for sets
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 7:54 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/16/20 10:27 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > Proto: Sets side-game > > > > [nch didn't name an officer for Sets I'm going to use "Dealor" here]. > > > > Enact the following Rule, "Setting the Table": > > > > Chits are a currency tracked by the Dealor, ownable by Players. > > > > The Jack's Hand, the Queen's Hand, and the King's Hand are each > > Dealor-tracked switches, with possible values being any specified set > > of 8+ rules-defined card types (repeats allowed), and the default of > > "no payout". > > *puts on pedantry hat* > > Isn't this an unordered list, rather than a set? A list is defined by having an order. It's a multiset. -Aris
Re: DIS: a side-game for sets
On 5/16/20 10:27 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Proto: Sets side-game > > [nch didn't name an officer for Sets I'm going to use "Dealor" here]. > > Enact the following Rule, "Setting the Table": > > Chits are a currency tracked by the Dealor, ownable by Players. > > The Jack's Hand, the Queen's Hand, and the King's Hand are each > Dealor-tracked switches, with possible values being any specified set > of 8+ rules-defined card types (repeats allowed), and the default of > "no payout". *puts on pedantry hat* Isn't this an unordered list, rather than a set? *removes pedantry hat* > > The Jack's Purse, Queen's Purse, and King's Purse, are each Dealor- > tracked natural switches with a default of 0 and a maximum of 10. > > To Clear the Table is to flip all the switches defined in this rule > to their default values, and to destroy all instances of assets > defined in this rule. The table is then cleared until the Dealor > Posts the Odds. If the table has not been cleared in the past 90 > days, or since the last contested Dealor election, then the Dealor > CAN clear the table with notice. I'm unsure how appropriate the 90 day period is, but to figure out one way or the other I'd have to be doing some math with the expected auctions that I don't have time to right now. > > Whenever the table is cleared, the Dealor SHALL in a timely > fashion, and CAN with notice, post the odds. For an announcement of > intent to post the odds to be clearly specified, it must contain: Can a low-power rule override the term "clearly specified" like this? All in all, I think this would be a good addition if we end up passing sets. > [ > Just realized if we wanted to keep things economic-like, we could reskin > cards as "futures" and their assets as "commodities" or something. > ] I think "futures" does sound better than cards. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: a side-game for sets
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 7:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Proto: Sets side-game > > The Jack's Hand, the Queen's Hand, and the King's Hand are each > Dealor-tracked switches, with possible values being any specified set > of 8+ rules-defined card types (repeats allowed), and the default of > "no payout". > > The Jack's Purse, Queen's Purse, and King's Purse, are each Dealor- > tracked natural switches with a default of 0 and a maximum of 10. > > I think you want "singleton" in those switch definitions. That's the only comment I have right now, I might have more later. -Aris >
DIS: a side-game for sets
Proto: Sets side-game [nch didn't name an officer for Sets I'm going to use "Dealor" here]. Enact the following Rule, "Setting the Table": Chits are a currency tracked by the Dealor, ownable by Players. The Jack's Hand, the Queen's Hand, and the King's Hand are each Dealor-tracked switches, with possible values being any specified set of 8+ rules-defined card types (repeats allowed), and the default of "no payout". The Jack's Purse, Queen's Purse, and King's Purse, are each Dealor- tracked natural switches with a default of 0 and a maximum of 10. To Clear the Table is to flip all the switches defined in this rule to their default values, and to destroy all instances of assets defined in this rule. The table is then cleared until the Dealor Posts the Odds. If the table has not been cleared in the past 90 days, or since the last contested Dealor election, then the Dealor CAN clear the table with notice. Whenever the table is cleared, the Dealor SHALL in a timely fashion, and CAN with notice, post the odds. For an announcement of intent to post the odds to be clearly specified, it must contain: 1. A clear indication that it is an intent to post the odds; 2. A single possible non-default value specified for each Hand switch (i.e. a set of 8+ card types for each hand switch) such that none of the hands have the same value. 3. A single possible non-default value specified for each Purse switch such that none of the purses have the same value. Posting the odds flips all the indicated switches to the indicated values. Enact the following Rule, "Cash out": If a player, over the course of a single message, transmutes cards that together match the value of one of the Jack's, Queen's, or King's Hands, e CAN claim the corresponding purse by announcement in the same message. Doing so grants em a number of chits equal to the value of the corresponding purse switch. The value of "no payout" matches to no set of cards. A particular instance of card transmutation CANNOT contribute towards more than one such claim. A player CAN pay a fee of 100 chits to win the game. Doing so clears the table. The table is hereby cleared. [ Just realized if we wanted to keep things economic-like, we could reskin cards as "futures" and their assets as "commodities" or something. ]
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3836 Assigned to Murphy
On 5/16/2020 4:08 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > This is IRRELEVANT to the game state now and should be so judged That would be an appropriate choice, but wanted to give the judge the option of figuring out (for future reference) if that statement passes the "possibility of game action" test - I'd be interested in knowing that still (i.e. it's now a hypothetical, but perhaps not "overly" so).
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3836 Assigned to Murphy
This is IRRELEVANT to the game state now and should be so judged On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 8:08 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The below CFJ is 3836. I assign it to Murphy. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3836 > > === CFJ 3836 === > > The above CFJ statement is about the possibility of a game action > so that its caller is eligible to win by paradox if a judgement of > PARADOXICAL is assigned to it for seven days. > > == > > Caller:R. Lee > > Judge: Murphy > > == > > History: > > Called by R. Lee: 16 May 2020 00:29:54 > Assigned to Murphy: [now] > > == > > Caller's Evidence: > > The "above CFJ statement", which is the statement for CFJ 3835: > (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3835) > > It is both possible and true that a rule named "A coin award" took > the game action of increasing the number of coins R. Lee owned by 1. > > > Caller's Arguments: > > I will simply link the two CFJs that provide all relevant context for these > two CFJs: > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3828 > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3832 > > These two cases include sufficient arguments and summaries of the facts > involved that you can decide this case. I don't think I need to > provide/rehash any other arguments or evidence to avoid insufficiency. > The only thing I'd like to add is that irrelevant is not an appropriate > judgement on the first CFJ because it is relevant to whether or not I have > a legal obligation. Also the first CFJ is clearly about the possibility of > a game action due to its phrasing that specifically includes those > elements. > > == > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Ministerial Referrals
On 5/15/2020 7:58 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 7:48 PM Edward Murphy wrote: >> G. wrote: >>> Well e's not using a random strange word like Quang, either. To "refer" >>> a proposal to chamber" seems similar enough to me (in common usage terms of >>> refer) to "set the chamber of a proposal" in R2607 (and there's not >>> really any other possible rules-interpretations), such that anyone who takes >>> the time to learn what a "chamber" is would likely figure it out... >>> >> >> You'd think so, but then one of my messages was shot down for mentioning >> "kudos" instead of "karma", notwithstanding it being labeled as a Notice >> of Honour and otherwise following the typical form factor of one. Surely >> "refer" has had some formal rule definition at some point in the past? > > > I said at the time that I thought that worked, I just called the CFJ to > double check. If you want to call a moot I'd support (I don't know how I'd > vote on the actual moot yet, but I'd support calling one). > > Anyhow, the factor there wasn't that it had a meaning in the past. Rather > the opposite actually; the judge ruled that people couldn't be expected to > know that kudos had been comparable to karma. So if anything, that CFJ > stands as precedent *against* the significance of usage in prior rulesets. Really, the past is a bit of a red herring and shouldn't come into it (unless it was the immediate past and in most players' memory). The "Notice of Honour" label and form factor, the +1 and -1 and reasons for the chosen people, and a k-word of similar sound/length to the correct word that has no meaning in the current ruleset. And Notices don't have any heightened clarity requirements beyond "specify". I mean, if AGAINT is a vote, then that Notice should have worked. -G.
DIS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3835 assgined to G. and judged IRRELEVANT
On 5/16/2020 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > So if this current case isn't IRRELEVANT, for reasons of being directly > and trivially answerable from a past CFJ, then that triviality clause is > pretty meaningless. In terms of R217 tests concerning the definition of > "trivial" in this context, under the judicial fairness doctrine mentioned > earlier, nerfing IRRELEVANT that much would against Agoran custom, would > directly devalue past judgements, and would not be fair to the Arbitor nor > to the rest of Agora, thus not for the good of the game. > > I find IRRELEVANT. > There's something I missed writing above, which I may self-file to add. Whenever a CFJ judgement trivially follows from a past CFJ, there are generally two appropriate options: (1) "this is trivially [the same judgement as before] because of [past CFJ]" or (2) "this is IRRELEVANT because of the past CFJ". I was going to add that the judge could use the totality of CFJ circumstances to decide between those two options. E.g. if the past CFJ was simply unknown to the caller, option (1) is better, because it puts the answer to the statement up front, and no one has to dig to the past CFJ to find the answer. But if the second CFJ is an attempt to game the system in some way (i.e. to specifically set up a conflicting opinion or win the game or something) then option (2) may be preferred due to all of those "good of the game" arguments.
