DIS: Re: BUS: More cleaning
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 9:39 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I intend to clean, each without objection, each of the following: > correct the spelling of 'statment' in Rule 2471 "No Faking" to 'statement' > correct the spelling of 'niether' in Rule 2661 "Permits" to 'neither' > correct the grammar of 'guy' in Rule 2423 "First Among Equals" to 'person' > correct the spelling of 'grater' in Rule 2480 "Festivals" to 'greater' > correct the spelling of 'continous' in Rule 2581 "Official Patent Titles" > to 'continuous' > correct the spelling of 'canceled' in Rule 1742 "Contracts" to 'cancelled' > > I object to the "guy" intent because it's not clear to me that it's permissible in cleaning.
Re: DIS: British or American Spelling
On Wed, 2022-06-22 at 18:43 -0700, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > Going thru the SLR spelling... > Do we prefer deputise or deputize? > Authorise or authorize? > Summarise or summarize? > > etc. > > Based on what's currently there, deputise is the outlier with the > british deputise spelling. > But I'd like some confirmation, since there are a lot of counts of > it. Agora started in Australasia – I can't remember whether it was Australia or New Zealand, but either way, that's had an influence on the variant of English we use here (although Agora has come up with its own spellings like "Promotor" since). "-ise" versus "-ize" is somewhat flexible in British English, incidentally. -- ais523
Re: DIS: British or American Spelling
On 6/22/2022 6:43 PM, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > Going thru the SLR spelling... > Do we prefer deputise or deputize? > Authorise or authorize? > Summarise or summarize? > > etc. > > Based on what's currently there, deputise is the outlier with the british > deputise spelling. > But I'd like some confirmation, since there are a lot of counts of it. Either. We've historically had enough participants from both languages that we've remained flexible about that one (sometimes consciously though it hasn't come up in awhile). -G.
DIS: British or American Spelling
Going thru the SLR spelling... Do we prefer deputise or deputize? Authorise or authorize? Summarise or summarize? etc. Based on what's currently there, deputise is the outlier with the british deputise spelling. But I'd like some confirmation, since there are a lot of counts of it.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3969 Assigned to ais523
On 6/22/2022 3:30 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: > On 6/22/22 17:25, nix via agora-business wrote: >> On 6/22/22 17:22, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >>> On 6/20/22 17:41, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 6/20/22 17:40, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 6/19/22 18:51, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >>> >>> Rule 2621/9 (Power=1.0) >>> VP Wins >>> >>> If a player has at least 20 more Winsomes than each other >>> player, >>> e CAN Take Over the Economy by announcement, provided no person >>> has won the game by doing so in the past 30 days. >> I agree to the following contract: "Winsome More": >> 1. G. is the only party to this contract, and can amend or >> terminate >> it by announcement. >> 2. Winsomes are a currency tracked by G. in eir monthly report. >> 3. G. CAN create, destroy, or transfer Winsomes by announcement. >> >> >> I create 21 Winsomes in my possession. >> >> Winsome Report: I have 21, nobody else has any. >> >> Comment: >> >> There's a bit of ambiguity in these two paragraphs in Rule 1586: >> A rule, contract, or regulation that refers to an entity by name >> refers to the entity that had that name when the rule first came >> to include that reference, even if the entity's name has since >> changed. >> >> If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it >> no longer defines the second entity, then the second entity and >> its attributes cease to exist. >> >> Winsomes are no longer "defined" by the rules but they rules do "refer" >> to >> Winsomes. If Winsomes have ceased to exist as per the second paragraph, >> they are no longer entities, and the "reference" bit may or may not apply >> to *former* entities. "Even if the entity's name has since changed" is >> very different than "even if the entity no longer exists", and if rules >> referred to no-longer-existing entities then we'd have to go back a long >> way into the rules to find terms that were repealed and brought back... >> >> -G. >> > The above is CFJ 3969. > > I assign CFJ 3969 to ais523. > Sorry, subject line was wrong. This message contains no game actions. >>> >>> Okay apparently I'm an idiot and the message never actually called a >>> CFJ, so the assignment failed and ais523 has nothing to judge. >>> >>> -- >>> Jason Cobb >>> >>> Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >>> >> >> CFJ: CFJ 3936 does exist, is the entire contents of the message from G. >> quoted above, was created by Jason, and was assigned to ais523 successfully. >> >> Arguments: We let people create CFJs by simply calling text a CFJ pretty >> regularly. Jason called it a CFJ and assigned it. Looks like a CFJ to me. >> >> -- >> nix >> Herald, Registrar, Collector >> > > I withdraw the CFJ I created above. I CFJ: CFJ 3969 does exist, is the > entire contents of the message from G. quoted above, was created by > Jason, and was assigned to ais523 successfully. > > -- > nix > Herald, Registrar, Collector > Gratuitous: Using the typical Arbitor assignment-format language for assigning (but not calling) a cfj does not "set forth intent" to call a cfj to the clear-and-unambiguous standard for by-announcement actions (R478/40).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3969 Assigned to ais523
On Wed, 2022-06-22 at 18:22 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > Okay apparently I'm an idiot and the message never actually called a > CFJ, so the assignment failed and ais523 has nothing to judge. Now I'm happy that I postponed judging it! Just to verify that I have no obligations here: calling a CFJ is an action by announcement, thus it's impossible to create a CFJ by mistake. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] the speaker thing
On 6/22/22 16:46, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > CFJ, barring snail: At least one person was appointed Speaker in the > quoted message. > > > Arguments: > > At question is whether this clause in Rule 103/29: >If the office of Speaker has been held continuously by the same >person for 90+ days, then any player CAN appoint another player to >the office with support. > means "if the present speaker has been in office for the last 90 days" or > if it means "if any speaker has*ever* held the office for 90 continuous > days". > > > Evidence: > > At least one Speaker who held the office continuously for 90+ days is in > this report: > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09228.html I favor this CFJ. -- nix Herald, Registrar, Collector
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Speaker Appointment Clarification
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 2:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > ... > If 90+ is true, the last 90 is also true. > oh... my... goodness! -mindblown- how did I not see that
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Speaker Appointment Clarification
On 6/22/2022 2:46 PM, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 2:41 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> Amend Rule 103 (The Speaker) by replacing "held continuously by the same >> person for 90+ days" with "held continuously by the same person for the >> last 90 days". >> > 90+ seems important, not only 90. If 90+ is true, the last 90 is also true.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Speaker Appointment Clarification
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 2:41 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Amend Rule 103 (The Speaker) by replacing "held continuously by the same > person for 90+ days" with "held continuously by the same person for the > last 90 days". > 90+ seems important, not only 90.
DIS: Re: (@ADoP) Re: BUS: Just intending
I award myself a platinum ribbon. On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 2:14 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Jun 22, 2022, at 3:58 PM, Forest Sweeney > wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 1:06 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> For each player in the below list, I intend, with support, to appoint > em to the office of The Speaker, in order of the list. > >> ... > > I support all intents in the above message. > > > For each player in the below list, I appoint em to the office of The > Speaker, in order of the list. > > ais523 > CreateSource > cuddlybanana > duck > G. > Gaelan > Jason > juan > Madrid > Murphy > nix > R. Lee > Trigon > 4st > > Sent from my iPhone > -- > secretsnail -- §
Re: [CFJ] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Speaker Experiment
On 6/22/2022 2:08 PM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Wed, 2022-06-22 at 15:40 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Jun 22, 2022, at 3:15 PM, ais523 via agora-business < >>> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >>> I intend, with support, to appoint ais523 to the office of Speaker. >>> >>> [As far as I can tell, although I can't actually resolve this intent, >>> that doesn't prevent me making the intent. It seems as though it could >>> potentially be resolved by someone else?] >>> >> I don't think you can actually make the intent? It's not a tabled >> action because it's not an action described in the rules. "any player >> CAN appoint *another player* to the office with support." And since >> you didn't do that I don't think it works? Just like you couldn't >> intend to deactivate someone with notice before it's been 30 days of >> inactivity. Unless you can idk > > I call a CFJ on the statement "My attempt to intend to perform a tabled > action in the above-quoted message succeeded". > > Arguments: > > This basically boils down to whether I can intend to perform a tabled > action, despite it being an action that I personally could not perform > even if I had the required support. There are situations in which one > person can act on a different person's intent (either due to an office > changing hands, or due to the "I support and do so" mechanism), so it > can matter whether the intent is valid even if the stated action isn't > possible. > > Historically, I think we've held that intents to perform an impossible > action are valid, and can be made in case, e.g., rule changes make that > action possible in the future, although the action has to be described > precisely enough to make it clear that the intent matches up. This > situation is analogous. (As a side note, rule 2471 has an explicit > exception for intents – this was designed so that a player could table > an intent to perform an action simply so that they'd have the option > available, without planning to actually act on the intent later on, > despite the wording of the announcement.) > > However, the rules for tabled actions have changed since the previous > precedents, and they may no longer be applicable; a judge would need to > check the current wording of the rule and see if anything has changed. > In particular, the key to the case seems to be whether "table an intent > to perform a tabled action" permits intents to perform a hypothetical > tabled action, or only tabled actions that are defined in the rules. > > For what it's worth, I've been assuming that you can intend to > deactivate someone before they've been inactive for 30 days (e.g. > because you're planning to resolve the intent after the 30-day timer > has expired) – the action that you're intending to perform is an action > that can only be performed in the future, but that's fine because the > your intention is to perform the action in the future, rather than > right now. So "you can only intend to perform an action that you could > (if you had an appropriately ripe intent) perform right now" seems like > it's the wrong reading of the rule. Another possibility is "you can > only intend to perform an action that you could (if you had an > appropriately ripe intent) perform in the future", but that's a future > conditional, and those are almost impossible to resolve correctly (and > in this case, the 14-day ripeness limit is enough time to pass a > proposal to make the action possible, so this sort of future > conditional would hardly exclude anything anyway). So the most > reasonable reading seems, to me, to be "you can intend to perform an > action even if you can't envisage circumstances under which you could > actually perform it". > > However, there's a disagreement about this, thus this CFJ. > > (The judge might also want to opine on whether the intent in question > could be acted upon, without rules changes, if it's resolved by a > supporter rather than the sponsor – the action of "appoint ais523 as > Speaker" is impossible for ais523 but would be possible for a > hypothetical supporter of the intent. I didn't file a separate CFJ on > this because it was too difficult to come up with a short and loophole- > free statement.) > Since the CFJ called, the "stretch" interpretation I mentioned is here: A person CAN act on eir own behalf, by announcement, to table an intent (syn. "intend") to perform a tabled action... the possible interpretation being "it's not an intent to perform a tabled action if it isn't currently a rules-defined action you can do via tabled action" (instead, it's an intent to perform a non-tabled action via a tabled action method, which doesn't qualify). But I think this still supports the old interpretation of "if I say I'm intending to perform an action by a tabled action method, it's an intent to perform the tabled action. Because even if it's not currently possible, I still *intend* to do it that way,
DIS: Re: BUS: Just intending
I support each intent in the above message. On Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 4:06 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > For each player in the below list, I intend, with support, to appoint em > to the office of The Speaker, in order of the list. > > 4st > ais523 > CreateSource > cuddlybanana > duck > G. > Gaelan > Jason > juan > Madrid > Murphy > nix > R. Lee > Trigon > > Sent from my iPhone > -- > secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Speaker Experiment
On 6/22/2022 1:40 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 22, 2022, at 3:15 PM, ais523 via agora-business >> wrote: >> I intend, with support, to appoint ais523 to the office of Speaker. >> >> [As far as I can tell, although I can't actually resolve this intent, >> that doesn't prevent me making the intent. It seems as though it could >> potentially be resolved by someone else?] >> >> -- >> ais523 >> > > I don't think you can actually make the intent? It's not a tabled action > because it's not an action described in the rules. "any player CAN appoint > *another player* to the office with support." And since you didn't do that I > don't think it works? Just like you couldn't intend to deactivate someone > with notice before it's been 30 days of inactivity. Unless you can idk You can make the intent, but not complete the action. For example, if there's a rule change coming up to allow something via tabled action, you can intend to do that thing before the rule change happens as long as it's within the 14 day window when the rule changes to allow it. The way tabled actions are written, at the time you *complete* the task, you look back to see if there's an intent within the right past time range, and it works even if it couldn't be performed when the intent was announced. Aaand as I write that, I can see at least one place in the Tabled action rule (not the old dependent action rule) that *could* be argued the other way, though it's a stretch IMO. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Just intending
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 1:06 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > For each player in the below list, I intend, with support, to appoint em > to the office of The Speaker, in order of the list. > ... I support all intents in the above message.
DIS: Re: BUS: A Speaker Experiment
Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 22, 2022, at 3:15 PM, ais523 via agora-business > wrote: > I intend, with support, to appoint ais523 to the office of Speaker. > > [As far as I can tell, although I can't actually resolve this intent, > that doesn't prevent me making the intent. It seems as though it could > potentially be resolved by someone else?] > > -- > ais523 > I don't think you can actually make the intent? It's not a tabled action because it's not an action described in the rules. "any player CAN appoint *another player* to the office with support." And since you didn't do that I don't think it works? Just like you couldn't intend to deactivate someone with notice before it's been 30 days of inactivity. Unless you can idk -- secretsnail
