DIS: Scam Wrap-Up
To make this more clear, the finding of CFJ3858 basically kills R. Lee and I's scam. It finds that notices are delayed by withdrawing objections, so the opposition would've just had to take turns withdrawing objections to delay us by several days until the patch (or motion for no confidence) passed. We could retaliate to some of this, like the motion of no confidence, in the same way. Ultimately it'd be a drag out that would be won by the bigger team and probably take up to another week - which wouldn't be fun for play. So we've accepted our defeat and are trying to clean up the mess. With the dissolution of our "on behalf" contracts we can no longer perform the scam (R. Lee was needed to be deregistered by another player each time for it to work). So now we're back to ordinary play. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Draft Regulations for Diplonomic Birthday Tournament
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 6:32 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/27/20 9:29 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > > Im not sure this contract itself can technically override No Faking, > > however it should be clear from context as the game goes on that nobody > > intends their statenents to be true. > > > > Acting on eir own behalf is fine terminology that we have used before. > > > See CFJ 2637 [0]. > > [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2637 Overturned by modern game custom, I believe. -Aris
Re: DIS: Draft Regulations for Diplonomic Birthday Tournament
Looks good to me. Maybe a few typos here and there, but nothing game-breaking. Looking forward to playing! On 6/27/2020 7:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: Here are my draft regulations for the annual Birthday Tournament. I intend, Without 3 Objections, to enact the following — modified from previous Birthday regulations and a variety of rulesets for Diplomacy, primarily those of EPCC [0] and the official rules [1] — as the regulations for this year's Birthday Tournament. 0. P.S.S. CANNOT win this Tournament or become a Contestant. P.S.S. is the Gamemaster and Judge of this game. 1. Until July 7 or 7 days after the promulgation of these rules, whichever is later, any person CAN enter the contest (becoming a Contestant) by announcement, on eir own behalf, as long as no more than six other persons have already done so. 2. The Gamemaster CAN cause any person to cease to be a Contestant by announcement. The Gamemaster CAN cause any consenting person to become a Contestant by announcement. The Gamemaster CAN, by announcement, amend the gamestate by substituting one Contestant into all instances of another Contestant. If fewer than seven persons have become Contestants, the Gamemaster CAN replace the text of these regulations with appropriate regulations for a Nomic-inspired game, such as FRC, an experimental Nomic, or a sub-Nomic. The Gamemaster CAN amend the text of these regulations arbitrarily in order to prevent breaches of Agoran custom or rules. The Gamemaster SHOULD NOT take any actions permitted by this section unless it is in the best interests of the game. 3. When all contestants except one have been eliminated from the contest, the victor is (1) the last contestant remaining. The judge SHALL then, with 2 days notice, announce them as winners, whereupon they win the tournament and the tournament is concluded. If the judge believes that more than one person is deserving of the win, e CAN announce them all as winners. The judge SHOULD award a badge to all participants in the Tournament, broadly construed, after the conclusion of the Tournament unless it has not been completed in a satisfactory manner. 4. The judge is the final arbitor on matters of this tournament, and eir decisions can overturned if and only if a CFJ finds eir decisions were made with arbitrary or capricious disregard for the terms of these regulations. The judge shall adjudicate these regulations in an equitable manner, with emphasis placed on the intent of the clauses and the fair treatment of all parties. 5. Sections numbered 0 through 5 CANNOT be amended except according to the procedures established by Section 2 or the rules of Agora. 6. The game SHALL be conducted on a map mechanically indistinguishable from that appearing at [2]. The Gamemaster SHALL assign Great Powers to Contestants according to an equitable and random method. 7. Contestants may seek the assistance of non-Contestants. If any do so, they SHALL notify the Judge and publicly announce the identities of any such non-Contestants and what assistance they will provide. This could include negotiating on eir behalf, providing feedback on orders, or drafting proposals on eir behalf. 8. At any time, any Contestant CAN submit a Proposal to change the rules by announcement. Any Contestant CAN withdraw any Proposal e has submitted by announcement. When a Proposal has been submitted but not withdrawn, any Contestant other than the Proposer CAN privately send a vote to the Judge. When a Proposal has received at least three non-withdrawn votes in favor, the Judge SHALL, in a timely fashion, and CAN enact the proposal by publishing the new text of the regulations and the number of votes in favor and against. The Judge SHALL NOT reveal the votes of specific Contestants. 9. If in the past three game-years, no province has changed ownership, the Gamemaster CAN declare the game a draw, with 2 days notice, concluding the Tournament and announcing all remaining Contestants as winners. 10. Contestants SHALL NOT offer favors outside of this Tournament in order to influence the outcome of it. Contestants CAN and SHOULD lie and engage in deceit for personal gain. 11. There are two types of units: Armies and Fleets. 12. All units have the same strength. 13. There can only be one unit in a province at a time. 14. At the start of the game, each Great Power controls three supply centers, with the exception of Russia, which controls four. These are allocated according to the table shown in the official rules. 15. At the beginning of each turn, there is a period, lasting from 0 UTC until 24 UTC on the same calendar day, in which negotiations should occur. Following this, there is a period until 12 UTC on the following day, during which orders CAN be submitted privately to the Gamemaster. The next turn will begin at 24 UTC on that day, by which time the Gamemaster SHALL have resolved the orders, according to the rules as they were a
Re: DIS: Draft Regulations for Diplonomic Birthday Tournament
On 6/27/20 9:29 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > Im not sure this contract itself can technically override No Faking, > however it should be clear from context as the game goes on that nobody > intends their statenents to be true. > > Acting on eir own behalf is fine terminology that we have used before. See CFJ 2637 [0]. [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2637 -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Draft Regulations for Diplonomic Birthday Tournament
Im not sure this contract itself can technically override No Faking, however it should be clear from context as the game goes on that nobody intends their statenents to be true. Acting on eir own behalf is fine terminology that we have used before. On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 11:21 am Jason Cobb via agora-discussion, < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/27/20 7:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Here are my draft regulations for the annual Birthday Tournament. > > > > I intend, Without 3 Objections, to enact the following — modified from > > previous Birthday regulations and a variety of rulesets for Diplomacy, > > primarily those of EPCC [0] and the official rules [1] — as the > > regulations for this year's Birthday Tournament. > > > > 0. P.S.S. CANNOT win this Tournament or become a Contestant. P.S.S. is > > the Gamemaster and Judge of this game. > > > > 1. Until July 7 or 7 days after the promulgation of these rules, > > whichever is later, any person CAN enter the contest (becoming a > > Contestant) by announcement, on eir own behalf, as long as no more than > > six other persons have already done so. > > > A person does not act on eir own behalf, e acts as emself. > > > > 10. Contestants SHALL NOT offer favors outside of this Tournament in > > order to influence the outcome of it. Contestants CAN and SHOULD lie and > > engage in deceit for personal gain. > > > Is this enough to override No Faking? > > > Otherwise, this all looks perfectly fine to me, a person who has never > played diplomacy before. > > -- > Jason Cobb > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
On 6/27/20 9:26 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > Something must be valid in order to have binding legal effect, surely thats > what valid means (and my judgement on notices doesnt conflict with that). Well, this is proof that there's disagreement. I think I'm being relatively reasonable, since I have a self-consistent (if decidedly literal) reading of the relevant rule. The fact that you happen to disagree with me doesn't make me unreasonable. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
Something must be valid in order to have binding legal effect, surely thats what valid means (and my judgement on notices doesnt conflict with that). On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 11:23 am Jason Cobb via agora-discussion, < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/27/20 9:16 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > > No, i said they may not disagree. Any contention that valid and effective > > are not synonyms is, with respect, unreasonable > > > The argument is that "the announcement" (i.e. the message) being not > "valid" is different from the attempt not being EFFECTIVE. We have > "invalid" notices of honour that are still notices of honour, so we > might be able to have announcements of taking actions that are not > "valid" but nevertheless take actions. > > -- > Jason Cobb > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
On 6/27/20 9:16 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > No, i said they may not disagree. Any contention that valid and effective > are not synonyms is, with respect, unreasonable The argument is that "the announcement" (i.e. the message) being not "valid" is different from the attempt not being EFFECTIVE. We have "invalid" notices of honour that are still notices of honour, so we might be able to have announcements of taking actions that are not "valid" but nevertheless take actions. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Draft Regulations for Diplonomic Birthday Tournament
On 6/27/20 7:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > Here are my draft regulations for the annual Birthday Tournament. > > I intend, Without 3 Objections, to enact the following — modified from > previous Birthday regulations and a variety of rulesets for Diplomacy, > primarily those of EPCC [0] and the official rules [1] — as the > regulations for this year's Birthday Tournament. > > 0. P.S.S. CANNOT win this Tournament or become a Contestant. P.S.S. is > the Gamemaster and Judge of this game. > > 1. Until July 7 or 7 days after the promulgation of these rules, > whichever is later, any person CAN enter the contest (becoming a > Contestant) by announcement, on eir own behalf, as long as no more than > six other persons have already done so. A person does not act on eir own behalf, e acts as emself. > 10. Contestants SHALL NOT offer favors outside of this Tournament in > order to influence the outcome of it. Contestants CAN and SHOULD lie and > engage in deceit for personal gain. Is this enough to override No Faking? Otherwise, this all looks perfectly fine to me, a person who has never played diplomacy before. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
No, i said they may not disagree. Any contention that valid and effective are not synonyms is, with respect, unreasonable On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 11:12 am Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion, < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/27/2020 6:06 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > > I point a finger at jason for uncertain certification. Reasonable players > > may not disagree about the operation of the current wording. > > Which means it's an ambiguity which is covered by CP? > > -G. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
On 6/27/2020 6:06 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > I point a finger at jason for uncertain certification. Reasonable players > may not disagree about the operation of the current wording. Which means it's an ambiguity which is covered by CP? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
I point a finger at jason for uncertain certification. Reasonable players
may not disagree about the operation of the current wording.
On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 11:02 am Jason Cobb via agora-business, <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal and certify it as a patch:
>
> Title: Decision resolution patch
>
> Author: Jason
>
> Coauthors: nch, G.
>
> Adoption index: 3.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 208 by replacing the text "To be valid, this announcement
> must satisfy the following conditions" with the text "To be EFFECTIVE,
> such an attempt must satisfy the following conditions".
>
>
> [This resolves a potential bug that *may* permit the vote collector of a
> decision to resolve it without adhering to the conditions in the
> numbered list of Rule 208 based on the precise wording of how the
> conditions are enforced. The argument that they don't work is that the
> sentence doesn't sufficiently override R208's earlier statement that
> "The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by
> announcement, indicating the outcome.", because it describes the
> announcement, rather than the attempt itself.
>
> Even if that interpretation is wrong, there is enough of an ambiguity
> that it should be resolved. The new wording makes this clearer by
> describing the /attempt/ as INEFFECTIVE (clearly overriding the earlier
> CAN) rather than the "announcement".]
>
> }
>
>
> Justification for certification as a patch:
>
> An ambiguity exists because "reasonable players" can "disagree about the
> operation" of Rule 208. Even if you think I am not a reasonable player,
> nch and G. were at least willing to entertain my arguments and did not
> dismiss me as entirely insane. The proposal's "sole function" is to
> resolve this ambiguity and fix the (potential) bug.
>
> This ambiguity relates to my office as Assessor because it is the
> Assessor's entire function to collect votes on and resolve Agoran
> decisions. This ambiguity affects what requirements and abilities are
> placed on vote collectors, so it relates to the office of Assessor.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>
DIS: Draft Regulations for Diplonomic Birthday Tournament
Here are my draft regulations for the annual Birthday Tournament. I intend, Without 3 Objections, to enact the following — modified from previous Birthday regulations and a variety of rulesets for Diplomacy, primarily those of EPCC [0] and the official rules [1] — as the regulations for this year's Birthday Tournament. 0. P.S.S. CANNOT win this Tournament or become a Contestant. P.S.S. is the Gamemaster and Judge of this game. 1. Until July 7 or 7 days after the promulgation of these rules, whichever is later, any person CAN enter the contest (becoming a Contestant) by announcement, on eir own behalf, as long as no more than six other persons have already done so. 2. The Gamemaster CAN cause any person to cease to be a Contestant by announcement. The Gamemaster CAN cause any consenting person to become a Contestant by announcement. The Gamemaster CAN, by announcement, amend the gamestate by substituting one Contestant into all instances of another Contestant. If fewer than seven persons have become Contestants, the Gamemaster CAN replace the text of these regulations with appropriate regulations for a Nomic-inspired game, such as FRC, an experimental Nomic, or a sub-Nomic. The Gamemaster CAN amend the text of these regulations arbitrarily in order to prevent breaches of Agoran custom or rules. The Gamemaster SHOULD NOT take any actions permitted by this section unless it is in the best interests of the game. 3. When all contestants except one have been eliminated from the contest, the victor is (1) the last contestant remaining. The judge SHALL then, with 2 days notice, announce them as winners, whereupon they win the tournament and the tournament is concluded. If the judge believes that more than one person is deserving of the win, e CAN announce them all as winners. The judge SHOULD award a badge to all participants in the Tournament, broadly construed, after the conclusion of the Tournament unless it has not been completed in a satisfactory manner. 4. The judge is the final arbitor on matters of this tournament, and eir decisions can overturned if and only if a CFJ finds eir decisions were made with arbitrary or capricious disregard for the terms of these regulations. The judge shall adjudicate these regulations in an equitable manner, with emphasis placed on the intent of the clauses and the fair treatment of all parties. 5. Sections numbered 0 through 5 CANNOT be amended except according to the procedures established by Section 2 or the rules of Agora. 6. The game SHALL be conducted on a map mechanically indistinguishable from that appearing at [2]. The Gamemaster SHALL assign Great Powers to Contestants according to an equitable and random method. 7. Contestants may seek the assistance of non-Contestants. If any do so, they SHALL notify the Judge and publicly announce the identities of any such non-Contestants and what assistance they will provide. This could include negotiating on eir behalf, providing feedback on orders, or drafting proposals on eir behalf. 8. At any time, any Contestant CAN submit a Proposal to change the rules by announcement. Any Contestant CAN withdraw any Proposal e has submitted by announcement. When a Proposal has been submitted but not withdrawn, any Contestant other than the Proposer CAN privately send a vote to the Judge. When a Proposal has received at least three non-withdrawn votes in favor, the Judge SHALL, in a timely fashion, and CAN enact the proposal by publishing the new text of the regulations and the number of votes in favor and against. The Judge SHALL NOT reveal the votes of specific Contestants. 9. If in the past three game-years, no province has changed ownership, the Gamemaster CAN declare the game a draw, with 2 days notice, concluding the Tournament and announcing all remaining Contestants as winners. 10. Contestants SHALL NOT offer favors outside of this Tournament in order to influence the outcome of it. Contestants CAN and SHOULD lie and engage in deceit for personal gain. 11. There are two types of units: Armies and Fleets. 12. All units have the same strength. 13. There can only be one unit in a province at a time. 14. At the start of the game, each Great Power controls three supply centers, with the exception of Russia, which controls four. These are allocated according to the table shown in the official rules. 15. At the beginning of each turn, there is a period, lasting from 0 UTC until 24 UTC on the same calendar day, in which negotiations should occur. Following this, there is a period until 12 UTC on the following day, during which orders CAN be submitted privately to the Gamemaster. The next turn will begin at 24 UTC on that day, by which time the Gamemaster SHALL have resolved the orders, according to the rules as they were at the end of the ordering period and announced the new state of the game. Orders CAN be submitted during the negotiations period and can be changed at any time when orders could be submitted. Ea
DIS: Re: BUS: Honor among Pirates [Attn. All "Pirates"]
On 6/16/20 3:17 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > I could have just let this pass and banked some MAJOR coinage but the > long-term consequences of having people be paranoid about my contracts > isn't worth it imo, I much prefer to have people's trust that I won't > betray them on contracts. So, the thing is that there is a bug in the > Plunder contract - nobody could join because there was no join mechanism. > > So nobody became a Pirate. I suggest you all rejoin. I'm also adding the > latest Parley patch. > > I propose the following Parley: Since it was found that everyone did successfully join, this failed. And afaict Falsifian never resolved either eir intent to amend with consent of the party members or eir intent to ratify a version without objection.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Tapecutter intent [Patent Title Award]
On 6/27/2020 2:37 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 6/23/20 12:01 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to award G. the Patent Title of >> Tapecutter for Proposal 8407, "no stinking auction definitions". >> > > Seeing 3 support and no objections, I do so (award G. the Patent Title > of Tapecutter). > > Congratulations, G.! > meep
Re: Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/27/2020 2:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook wrote: >>> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with >>> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest >>> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. >> >> Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose >> initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied >> from Agora's Rule 217: >> >> When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules >> takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or >> unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past >> judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. >> > I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were > interested. > I'd join this if there's not too many other subgames going on (i.e. would be too much to do this and a different birthday tournament simultaneouesly). -G.
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On 6/26/2020 11:11 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:29 PM nch wrote: >> On 6/25/20 6:40 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: >>> Title: Regulatory Instruments v2 >>> Author: Jason >>> Coauthors: Aris >>> Adoption index: 3.0 >> >> Reading this it seems mechanically sound. However I kind of agree with >> G. Were there any specific deficits with the current regulation system >> that have affected gameplay negatively? Do we need the extra protections >> offered by bodies of law? > > > The underlying premise of bodies of law is that it makes sense to have > rules, regulations, and probably also contracts follow the same basic > framework. This unification in processing was thought to be inherently > beneficial. It's something we have been discussing for a while. I've protested a fair bit about language complexity, but I'm undecided on the framework overall. When Alexis first proposed I thought it was complicated, but also that all our arguments about things like R2125 had become a bit stale and maybe we should try out some whole new language. And from a judicial standpoint, trying to puzzle out what the new R2125 did for the first time yesterday *was* an interesting exercise. > That being said, if this adds complexity... Maybe we should reconsider the > whole project? Maybe these systems simply shouldn't be unified? One thought I had was to unify from a different angle. A lot of what I wanted when writing Auctions was simply a document control system, and regulations had a suitable one. E.g. "This is a fixed body of text with legal and controlled processes to change the contents, assigned to an officer to track, etc." So maybe we should "unify" underlying text control. In other words, say "a legal body of text (LBOD) is a document that can be changed by [some useful default methods]." Then we might make various texts (contract texts, proposal texts, regulations etc.) into LBODs [ok not a great name someone can think of something better]. That way we might simplify/reduce the mechanical text on how to change and track the various types of documents, and keep the actual legal effects of each document separate and written specifically for each purpose. > Jason, I know you've been working on this for quite a while. You've been > doing a lot of good stuff and the results are quite impressive. And I > honestly don't like suggesting that we not use so much good thoughtful > work. > > That being said, people's comments here have made me wonder whether this > entire affair was a good idea. Bodies of Law made the ruleset more > complicated. At the time I was concerned about the complexity but thought > the eventual uniformity that would result would make it all worth it. It's > starting to feel like maybe I should have listened to my gut and argued > against it. First-time drafts can often have a bit too much in them, especially if the language its trying to replace is old and has accumulated a lot of edge cases, which the drafter feels obligated to include so as not to open old scams/bugs. But the second draft could be a review of "which of this is *actually* needed right now. I think I'd try a round of clarifying before complete abandonment. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it
On 6/27/20 10:03 AM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > well i can still buy extra votes if voting is ever important to me (voting > can't go below 0) If you have 30 blots, your voting strength would be at -10 before clamping. Even if you buy 3 extra votes, you'll be at -7, which is clamped to 0, since clamping is applied after all modifications: > When multiple rules set or modify an entity's voting strength on > an Agoran decision, it shall be determined by first applying the > rule(s) which set it to a specific value, using the ordinary > precedence of rules, and then applying the rules, other than > this one, which modify it, in numerical order by ID. Finally, if > the result of the calculation is not an integer, it is rounded > up, and then if it is outside the allowable range of values for > voting strength, it is set to the minimum value if it was less > and the maximum value if it was more. > -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On 6/27/20 2:11 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:29 PM nch via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 6/25/20 6:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Title: Regulatory Instruments v2 >>> Author: Jason >>> Coauthors: Aris >>> Adoption index: 3.0 >> Reading this it seems mechanically sound. However I kind of agree with >> G. Were there any specific deficits with the current regulation system >> that have affected gameplay negatively? Do we need the extra protections >> offered by bodies of law? > > The underlying premise of bodies of law is that it makes sense to have > rules, regulations, and probably also contracts follow the same basic > framework. This unification in processing was thought to be inherently > beneficial. It's something we have been discussing for a while. > > That being said, if this adds complexity... Maybe we should reconsider the > whole project? Maybe these systems simply shouldn't be unified? > > Jason, I know you've been working on this for quite a while. You've been > doing a lot of good stuff and the results are quite impressive. And I > honestly don't like suggesting that we not use so much good thoughtful > work. Eh, no big deal. it wasn't too much work (certainly much less than talismans). > That being said, people's comments here have made me wonder whether this > entire affair was a good idea. Bodies of Law made the ruleset more > complicated. At the time I was concerned about the complexity but thought > the eventual uniformity that would result would make it all worth it. It's > starting to feel like maybe I should have listened to my gut and argued > against it. > > -Aris I don't really mind the bodies of law system, although I understand why people dislike it. Just, if the proposal is going to fail, I won't bother pending it and making the lives of everyone who has to deal with it harder. -- Jason Cobb
Re: Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/27/2020 5:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied from Agora's Rule 217: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were interested. I think I would be interested. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it
well i can still buy extra votes if voting is ever important to me (voting can't go below 0) On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:55 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/27/20 9:53 AM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > > I have no defense (I also don't REALLY care how many blots i get as long > as > > it's less than 40, so 7 blots each is fine) > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > > agora-business wrote: > > > >> On 6/19/20 9:27 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > >>> I certify every proposal in the proposal pool. I wasn't going to win in > >>> this system anyway (and i dont really care about winning) and this > gives > >> me > >>> an amount of Blots truly coinciding with my self-image. > >>> > >>> I point fingers at myself for Uncertain Certification, once for each > >>> proposal I just certified. > >>> > >>> Also good luck punishing me in time for the statute of limitations > given > >>> that you guys just basically made it impossible to punish class 4 > crimes. > >>> > >> > >> Here is the list of proposals that I believe were pended in this way — > >> some may be missing, and I considered the possibility that the finger > >> pointing was insufficiently precise, but given that I can recommend > >> arbitrary punishment, I'm not particularly concerned: > >> > >> CHILL BRO > >> Redoing Adopted Proposals > >> UV-G Sunblock > >> Fee-based methods > >> You can certify, but you can't win ever! > >> > >> For each of the above proposals, I find that R. Lee committed the > >> Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification. Given that this crime was not > >> minor, accidental, or inconsequential and was willful, profitable, and > >> egregious, I plan to seek a fine of seven blots for each violation. > >> > >> As referee, I hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee for the Class-4 Crime > >> of Uncertain Certification, specifying a fine of 7 blots, for the > >> proposal, "CHILL BRO". As referee, I hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee > >> for the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification, specifying a fine of 7 > >> blots, for the proposal, "Redoing Adopted Proposals". As referee, I > >> hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee for the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain > >> Certification, specifying a fine of 7 blots, for the proposal, "UV-G > >> Sunblock". As referee, I hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee for the > >> Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification, specifying a fine of 7 blots, > >> for the proposal, "You can certify, but you can't win ever!". As > >> referee, I hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee for the Class-4 Crime of > >> Uncertain Certification, specifying a fine of 7 blots, for the proposal, > >> "CHILL BRO". > >> > >> E should be convicted because e has clearly committed the crimes. The > >> current indictment should be improved given the willful and egregious > >> nature of the crime and the burden placed on the Honorable Arbitor and > >> myself in the great number of crimes and the poor specification of the > >> finger-pointings. I'd like to note that this has taken me around an hour > >> to determine the proposals involved and determine whether anything > >> occurred to make it reasonable and that the Honorable Arbitor will be > >> required to conduct ten decisions to process this. While this will > >> result in 35 blots if all are approved, this is not an overly harsh > >> penalty because e could have predicted the consequences or at least > >> should have been able to had e appropriately specified the > >> finger-pointings. Additionally, I'll note that these blots will almost > >> surely be imposed after the scam has been included meaning that e should > >> not be able to benefit from this. > >> > >> R. Lee, please submit your defences. > >> > >> G., my apologies for the great number of decisions, but please prepare > >> them. > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > >> Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth > >> > > > > > > Well, you'll have no votes, and given your tendency for rule-breaking, > you'll likely get more blots from other things, so I would still > recommend that you consider changing your behavior moving forwards. > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it
On 6/27/20 9:53 AM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > I have no defense (I also don't REALLY care how many blots i get as long as > it's less than 40, so 7 blots each is fine) > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-business wrote: > >> On 6/19/20 9:27 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: >>> I certify every proposal in the proposal pool. I wasn't going to win in >>> this system anyway (and i dont really care about winning) and this gives >> me >>> an amount of Blots truly coinciding with my self-image. >>> >>> I point fingers at myself for Uncertain Certification, once for each >>> proposal I just certified. >>> >>> Also good luck punishing me in time for the statute of limitations given >>> that you guys just basically made it impossible to punish class 4 crimes. >>> >> >> Here is the list of proposals that I believe were pended in this way — >> some may be missing, and I considered the possibility that the finger >> pointing was insufficiently precise, but given that I can recommend >> arbitrary punishment, I'm not particularly concerned: >> >> CHILL BRO >> Redoing Adopted Proposals >> UV-G Sunblock >> Fee-based methods >> You can certify, but you can't win ever! >> >> For each of the above proposals, I find that R. Lee committed the >> Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification. Given that this crime was not >> minor, accidental, or inconsequential and was willful, profitable, and >> egregious, I plan to seek a fine of seven blots for each violation. >> >> As referee, I hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee for the Class-4 Crime >> of Uncertain Certification, specifying a fine of 7 blots, for the >> proposal, "CHILL BRO". As referee, I hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee >> for the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification, specifying a fine of 7 >> blots, for the proposal, "Redoing Adopted Proposals". As referee, I >> hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee for the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain >> Certification, specifying a fine of 7 blots, for the proposal, "UV-G >> Sunblock". As referee, I hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee for the >> Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification, specifying a fine of 7 blots, >> for the proposal, "You can certify, but you can't win ever!". As >> referee, I hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee for the Class-4 Crime of >> Uncertain Certification, specifying a fine of 7 blots, for the proposal, >> "CHILL BRO". >> >> E should be convicted because e has clearly committed the crimes. The >> current indictment should be improved given the willful and egregious >> nature of the crime and the burden placed on the Honorable Arbitor and >> myself in the great number of crimes and the poor specification of the >> finger-pointings. I'd like to note that this has taken me around an hour >> to determine the proposals involved and determine whether anything >> occurred to make it reasonable and that the Honorable Arbitor will be >> required to conduct ten decisions to process this. While this will >> result in 35 blots if all are approved, this is not an overly harsh >> penalty because e could have predicted the consequences or at least >> should have been able to had e appropriately specified the >> finger-pointings. Additionally, I'll note that these blots will almost >> surely be imposed after the scam has been included meaning that e should >> not be able to benefit from this. >> >> R. Lee, please submit your defences. >> >> G., my apologies for the great number of decisions, but please prepare >> them. >> >> -- >> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate >> Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth >> > > Well, you'll have no votes, and given your tendency for rule-breaking, you'll likely get more blots from other things, so I would still recommend that you consider changing your behavior moving forwards. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it
I have no defense (I also don't REALLY care how many blots i get as long as it's less than 40, so 7 blots each is fine) On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > On 6/19/20 9:27 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > I certify every proposal in the proposal pool. I wasn't going to win in > > this system anyway (and i dont really care about winning) and this gives > me > > an amount of Blots truly coinciding with my self-image. > > > > I point fingers at myself for Uncertain Certification, once for each > > proposal I just certified. > > > > Also good luck punishing me in time for the statute of limitations given > > that you guys just basically made it impossible to punish class 4 crimes. > > > > Here is the list of proposals that I believe were pended in this way — > some may be missing, and I considered the possibility that the finger > pointing was insufficiently precise, but given that I can recommend > arbitrary punishment, I'm not particularly concerned: > > CHILL BRO > Redoing Adopted Proposals > UV-G Sunblock > Fee-based methods > You can certify, but you can't win ever! > > For each of the above proposals, I find that R. Lee committed the > Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification. Given that this crime was not > minor, accidental, or inconsequential and was willful, profitable, and > egregious, I plan to seek a fine of seven blots for each violation. > > As referee, I hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee for the Class-4 Crime > of Uncertain Certification, specifying a fine of 7 blots, for the > proposal, "CHILL BRO". As referee, I hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee > for the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification, specifying a fine of 7 > blots, for the proposal, "Redoing Adopted Proposals". As referee, I > hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee for the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain > Certification, specifying a fine of 7 blots, for the proposal, "UV-G > Sunblock". As referee, I hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee for the > Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification, specifying a fine of 7 blots, > for the proposal, "You can certify, but you can't win ever!". As > referee, I hereby indict the Honorable R. Lee for the Class-4 Crime of > Uncertain Certification, specifying a fine of 7 blots, for the proposal, > "CHILL BRO". > > E should be convicted because e has clearly committed the crimes. The > current indictment should be improved given the willful and egregious > nature of the crime and the burden placed on the Honorable Arbitor and > myself in the great number of crimes and the poor specification of the > finger-pointings. I'd like to note that this has taken me around an hour > to determine the proposals involved and determine whether anything > occurred to make it reasonable and that the Honorable Arbitor will be > required to conduct ten decisions to process this. While this will > result in 35 blots if all are approved, this is not an overly harsh > penalty because e could have predicted the consequences or at least > should have been able to had e appropriately specified the > finger-pointings. Additionally, I'll note that these blots will almost > surely be imposed after the scam has been included meaning that e should > not be able to benefit from this. > > R. Lee, please submit your defences. > > G., my apologies for the great number of decisions, but please prepare > them. > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
to be fair, this might be different if i had not made it clear that i rule you all like a monarch On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:14 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > > >> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius > > Scholasticus. > > > >> > > > >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 > > > >> > > > >> === CFJ 3851 > > === > > > >> > > > >> R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message > in > > > >> evidence. > > > >> > > > >> > > > == > > > >> Caller:G. > > > >> Barred:R. Lee > > > >> > > > >> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > >> > > > >> > > > == > > > >> > > > >> History: > > > >> > > > >> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 > 02:49:52 > > > >> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] > > > >> > > > >> > > > == > > > > First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one > > of > > > > which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this > > > > definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to > > > > complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a > forbidden > > > > action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a > term > > > > of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting > > definitions: > > > > "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended > > commission > > > > of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and > taking > > > > action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2] > > > > The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent > > > > publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the > > > > first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given > > that > > > > the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later > > > > commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any > other > > > > purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. > Given > > > > that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the > > > > circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a > > > > result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851. > > > > > > > > > > Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else > here. > > > > > > I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" > > > would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition > > of > > > contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" > > > agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of > all > > > parties. > > > > > > And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. > > > > > > And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little > > > about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed > > > forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't > > > explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew > > what > > > "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining > proof > > > of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that > found > > > that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. > > > > > > Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, > > > that's fine too... > > > > > > -G. > > > > I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with > > just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest > > out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > > > > It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the > > power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you > > say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's > > an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!" > > > > Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as > > implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take > > effect unless they would ossify Agora. > > > > We have one of those on the Discord server. So far the end result appears > to be that, in the absence of any defined way of contributing to
Re: Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
this nomic already exists: it's the ruleset of my discord server. nerds. On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:10 PM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/27/20 4:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion > >> wrote: > >>> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with > >>> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest > >>> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > >> Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose > >> initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied > >> from Agora's Rule 217: > >> > >>When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules > >>takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or > >>unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past > >>judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. > >> > > I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were > > interested. > > > > -- > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth > > I like the idea but wouldn't commit to it right now just because there's > so much going on in Agora right now. > > -- > nch > Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/27/20 4:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with >>> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest >>> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. >> Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose >> initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied >> from Agora's Rule 217: >> >>When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules >>takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or >>unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past >>judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. >> > I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were > interested. > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth I like the idea but wouldn't commit to it right now just because there's so much going on in Agora right now. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it
On 6/26/20 11:50 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:39 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-business wrote: >> Here is the list of proposals that I believe were pended in this way — > > I think my proposal "Reset deadlines when resetting the economy" was > also pended. > E did pend that illegally, but no finger has been pointed for that as far as I can tell. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: >> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with >> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest >> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > > Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose > initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied > from Agora's Rule 217: > > When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules > takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or > unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past > judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. > I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were interested. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
