DIS: Re: (@Arbitor) BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4026 Assigned to ais523
Actually, Arbitor willing, you could pass this problem to me if you'd like. Because atm, I don't fear the SHOULDN'Ts and whatnot and I'll barge through crimes in order to give a Judgement that I feel is right. On Saturday, May 13, 2023, ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 09:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > The below CFJ is 4026. I assign it to ais523. > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4026 > > > > === CFJ 4026 > === > > > > In Rule 2125, the phrase 'The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as > > to proscribe unregulated actions' proscribes unregulated actions. > > > > > == > > Here's an excerpt from a proposal (8867) that was adopted recently: > > > [ > > The goal of this is to expand on our banning system and implement some > > clearly defined values into the rules of Agora. This comprises two main > > changes. > > > > The first removes the "free speech" clause from R478 and replaces it > > with a bill of expectations that largely seek to maximize participation > > while recognizing ways in which that might reasonably be abridged. > > > [snip] > > > > Amend R478 by deleting the following text: > > > > Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of > > any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player > shall > > be prohibited from participating in the Fora > [snip] > > The resulting rule change broke a long-standing protection that > prevented the rules accidentally making it ILLEGAL to participate in > gameplay generally (see CFJ 1738). This has a chilling effect on > various forms of participation in Agora as a whole: this CFJ is asking > me to interpret the rules, but if I discover that the statement of the > CFJ is TRUE, that in turn means that I SHALL NOT give that verdict. > Additionally, I can't even work out whether the statement of the CFJ is > true or not without attempting to interpret the rules, something which > might turn out to be illegal (and for which I can't know, before > attempting it, whether it's illegal or not). > > Normally, when judging a CFJ whose statement has been posed > incorrectly, I provide arguments to let people know the truth or > otherwise of the statement that they probably meant to ask. However, > with the protections that would normally be provided to me repealed, I > do not wish to attempt that in this case. Instead, I will simply note > that the caller has asked the wrong question: this is a question of > interpretation, and various parts of the ruleset affect the meaning of > various other parts of the ruleset. It isn't relevant to the game > whether a hypothetical action might or might not breach a *particular* > rule if, e.g., the same action is permitted by a different rule. > > When trying to judge this CFJ, I got as far as "OK, there's a > distinction between 'the rules proscribe this action' and 'rule 2125 > proscribes this action' – does that matter here", looked at the other > rules that might matter, discovered that one of them had had the > relevant sentence fragment repealed, and realised I was on dangerous > ground even attempting to understand the rule to the extent that I > could judge, so I stopped. I did, however, realise that it doesn't > matter whether or not rule 2125 bans an action if the same action is > permitted by a rule that outprecedences it (and that there are some > rules that might, e.g. the last paragraph of rule 217). So the relevant > question here is whether the *Rules as a whole* are proscribing > unreglated actions. This is not the question that the caller asked. > > I judge CFJ 4026 IRRELEVANT. I note that there's no point in calling a > corrected CFJ under the current ruleset: rule 591 doesn't actually > require CFJ judges to give appropriate rulings to judgements, and rule > 2125 could easily make it illegal to judge a corrected CFJ as TRUE > (judging a CFJ is a regulated action, thus a prohibition on proscribing > unregulated actions wouldn't affect that), so if the judge of the > resulting CFJ wanted to ensure e was following the rules, eir safest > course of action would be to judge it FALSE without actually attempting > to interpret the rules in question – and as such, the CFJ verdict would > not be of any use in resolving the controversy. > > We should probably amend rule 2125 to have the wording that was > probably intended (something along the lines of "the correct > interpretation of the rules is one that does not proscribe unregulated > actions") and/or to reinstate a protection against the rules > accidentally making it illegal to, e.g., honestly judge a CFJ. Then it > would be possible for judges to attempt to determine what the rule in > question meant without risking a rules violation in the process. > > -- > ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE
On 5/12/23 18:15, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion [2023-05-12 09:32]: >> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> So a question to you: if an investigator, with good and honest intent >> doesn't believe that a crime has been committed, and the 1-week >> Favoritism deadline for the investigation is approaching with the CFJ >> unresolved, how exactly do you think I (or anyone) should exert care >> in that circumstance, to avoid the charge of Favoritism? What >> can/should any investigator do to follow their belief with integrity >> while at the same time not committing a crime of late investigation? > This is actually remarkably analogous to a case in Brazilian law a few > years back. People being investigated for potential income-tax related > crimes had only the tool of administrative processes to appeal that > fact. But administrative and criminal matters go about independently, > so such a person would find themselves in the unfortunate position of > believing there was no crime, but perhaps just having to pay the fine > (which would extinguish any potential crime) in order to avoid being > indicted. > > Besides, there were some things concerning statues of limitations, etc. > > So the brazilian Supreme Court found a nifty solution: by slightly > bending the interpretations of some concepts, the presiding judge found > that, actually, the crime hadn't been fully concluded until *after* > an administrative investigation had found it so. In that sense, all > of the actual deadlines regarding to the criminal investigation would > start counting at the moment the administrative process ended, thereby > dissolving the concurrency issues. > > In our case, I wonder if we could say that the knownledge of a crime > having been commited only comes to fruition when the CFJ is > resolved. Unlikely, but interesting. > In Agora, the rules are clear. The clock starts running when the infraction actually occurred, not when it was discovered or reasonably could have been discovered. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE
Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion [2023-05-12 09:32]: > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > wrote: > So a question to you: if an investigator, with good and honest intent > doesn't believe that a crime has been committed, and the 1-week > Favoritism deadline for the investigation is approaching with the CFJ > unresolved, how exactly do you think I (or anyone) should exert care > in that circumstance, to avoid the charge of Favoritism? What > can/should any investigator do to follow their belief with integrity > while at the same time not committing a crime of late investigation? This is actually remarkably analogous to a case in Brazilian law a few years back. People being investigated for potential income-tax related crimes had only the tool of administrative processes to appeal that fact. But administrative and criminal matters go about independently, so such a person would find themselves in the unfortunate position of believing there was no crime, but perhaps just having to pay the fine (which would extinguish any potential crime) in order to avoid being indicted. Besides, there were some things concerning statues of limitations, etc. So the brazilian Supreme Court found a nifty solution: by slightly bending the interpretations of some concepts, the presiding judge found that, actually, the crime hadn't been fully concluded until *after* an administrative investigation had found it so. In that sense, all of the actual deadlines regarding to the criminal investigation would start counting at the moment the administrative process ended, thereby dissolving the concurrency issues. In our case, I wonder if we could say that the knownledge of a crime having been commited only comes to fruition when the CFJ is resolved. Unlikely, but interesting. -- juan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE
Ah, alright On Friday, May 12, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Oh sure - no worries if that’s the only thing - I was giving my logic so it > didn’t come across as arbitrary, but didn’t mean to imply it was anything > but my best (conjectural) guess at this time. > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:51 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Easy, you could state that you're basing yourself off mere conjecture and > > that's the best you can do for now rather than using using language that > > states your position as a matter of fact. > > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I'd like to mention that I don't feel like you're exercising the > > "highest > > > > reasonably possible standard of care" if your basis for if the crime > > has > > > > been committed or not is that it doesn't match the arcana, unless you > > > prove > > > > first that the arcana has survived and still has legal effect to this > > > day. > > > > Or at least, give it a shot to convince people about it, because it > > seems > > > > clear to me that the arcana's survival and legal power is just > > > speculation > > > > at the moment. > > > > > > I can still perform the investigation if a crime exists, so I'm not > > > closing out any arguments whatsoever. This "care" only matters if I > > > don't get a CFJ answer in time, and the CFJ finds "crime" after the > > > "Favoritism" deadline passes a week from now. > > > > > > So a question to you: if an investigator, with good and honest intent > > > doesn't believe that a crime has been committed, and the 1-week > > > Favoritism deadline for the investigation is approaching with the CFJ > > > unresolved, how exactly do you think I (or anyone) should exert care > > > in that circumstance, to avoid the charge of Favoritism? What > > > can/should any investigator do to follow their belief with integrity > > > while at the same time not committing a crime of late investigation? > > > > > > This is not a question unique to this crime - it applies to any > > > alleged infraction where the investigator has a reasonably legit > > > reason to believe "no crime" but there's still some controversy over > > > it and a cfj is raised. I believe that (within the 1-week deadline) > > > the investigator stating eir belief (and arguments for that belief) > > > provides evidence of a level of care, and that it's unavoidable to do > > > otherwise due to eir conscience. Otherwise they'd have to act against > > > their belief and conscience in a criminal matter *just in case* it was > > > a crime, which isn't a reasonable request. How (in your opinion) > > > should the investigator go about it, when the investigation might only > > > exist (in essence) retroactively and a CFJ answer is late in coming? > > > > > > -G. > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE
Oh sure - no worries if that’s the only thing - I was giving my logic so it didn’t come across as arbitrary, but didn’t mean to imply it was anything but my best (conjectural) guess at this time. On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:51 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Easy, you could state that you're basing yourself off mere conjecture and > that's the best you can do for now rather than using using language that > states your position as a matter of fact. > > On Friday, May 12, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > > > I'd like to mention that I don't feel like you're exercising the > "highest > > > reasonably possible standard of care" if your basis for if the crime > has > > > been committed or not is that it doesn't match the arcana, unless you > > prove > > > first that the arcana has survived and still has legal effect to this > > day. > > > Or at least, give it a shot to convince people about it, because it > seems > > > clear to me that the arcana's survival and legal power is just > > speculation > > > at the moment. > > > > I can still perform the investigation if a crime exists, so I'm not > > closing out any arguments whatsoever. This "care" only matters if I > > don't get a CFJ answer in time, and the CFJ finds "crime" after the > > "Favoritism" deadline passes a week from now. > > > > So a question to you: if an investigator, with good and honest intent > > doesn't believe that a crime has been committed, and the 1-week > > Favoritism deadline for the investigation is approaching with the CFJ > > unresolved, how exactly do you think I (or anyone) should exert care > > in that circumstance, to avoid the charge of Favoritism? What > > can/should any investigator do to follow their belief with integrity > > while at the same time not committing a crime of late investigation? > > > > This is not a question unique to this crime - it applies to any > > alleged infraction where the investigator has a reasonably legit > > reason to believe "no crime" but there's still some controversy over > > it and a cfj is raised. I believe that (within the 1-week deadline) > > the investigator stating eir belief (and arguments for that belief) > > provides evidence of a level of care, and that it's unavoidable to do > > otherwise due to eir conscience. Otherwise they'd have to act against > > their belief and conscience in a criminal matter *just in case* it was > > a crime, which isn't a reasonable request. How (in your opinion) > > should the investigator go about it, when the investigation might only > > exist (in essence) retroactively and a CFJ answer is late in coming? > > > > -G. > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE
Easy, you could state that you're basing yourself off mere conjecture and that's the best you can do for now rather than using using language that states your position as a matter of fact. On Friday, May 12, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > I'd like to mention that I don't feel like you're exercising the "highest > > reasonably possible standard of care" if your basis for if the crime has > > been committed or not is that it doesn't match the arcana, unless you > prove > > first that the arcana has survived and still has legal effect to this > day. > > Or at least, give it a shot to convince people about it, because it seems > > clear to me that the arcana's survival and legal power is just > speculation > > at the moment. > > I can still perform the investigation if a crime exists, so I'm not > closing out any arguments whatsoever. This "care" only matters if I > don't get a CFJ answer in time, and the CFJ finds "crime" after the > "Favoritism" deadline passes a week from now. > > So a question to you: if an investigator, with good and honest intent > doesn't believe that a crime has been committed, and the 1-week > Favoritism deadline for the investigation is approaching with the CFJ > unresolved, how exactly do you think I (or anyone) should exert care > in that circumstance, to avoid the charge of Favoritism? What > can/should any investigator do to follow their belief with integrity > while at the same time not committing a crime of late investigation? > > This is not a question unique to this crime - it applies to any > alleged infraction where the investigator has a reasonably legit > reason to believe "no crime" but there's still some controversy over > it and a cfj is raised. I believe that (within the 1-week deadline) > the investigator stating eir belief (and arguments for that belief) > provides evidence of a level of care, and that it's unavoidable to do > otherwise due to eir conscience. Otherwise they'd have to act against > their belief and conscience in a criminal matter *just in case* it was > a crime, which isn't a reasonable request. How (in your opinion) > should the investigator go about it, when the investigation might only > exist (in essence) retroactively and a CFJ answer is late in coming? > > -G. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > I'd like to mention that I don't feel like you're exercising the "highest > reasonably possible standard of care" if your basis for if the crime has > been committed or not is that it doesn't match the arcana, unless you prove > first that the arcana has survived and still has legal effect to this day. > Or at least, give it a shot to convince people about it, because it seems > clear to me that the arcana's survival and legal power is just speculation > at the moment. I can still perform the investigation if a crime exists, so I'm not closing out any arguments whatsoever. This "care" only matters if I don't get a CFJ answer in time, and the CFJ finds "crime" after the "Favoritism" deadline passes a week from now. So a question to you: if an investigator, with good and honest intent doesn't believe that a crime has been committed, and the 1-week Favoritism deadline for the investigation is approaching with the CFJ unresolved, how exactly do you think I (or anyone) should exert care in that circumstance, to avoid the charge of Favoritism? What can/should any investigator do to follow their belief with integrity while at the same time not committing a crime of late investigation? This is not a question unique to this crime - it applies to any alleged infraction where the investigator has a reasonably legit reason to believe "no crime" but there's still some controversy over it and a cfj is raised. I believe that (within the 1-week deadline) the investigator stating eir belief (and arguments for that belief) provides evidence of a level of care, and that it's unavoidable to do otherwise due to eir conscience. Otherwise they'd have to act against their belief and conscience in a criminal matter *just in case* it was a crime, which isn't a reasonable request. How (in your opinion) should the investigator go about it, when the investigation might only exist (in essence) retroactively and a CFJ answer is late in coming? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: on invisbilitating
On Fri, 2023-05-12 at 06:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > Further it is clear from the text itself that it was intended > that this definition be "hidden" and continue to provide definitional > guidance (that's unique afaik when thinking of other old gamestate): It can't provide definitional guidance. Rule 217 contains a complete list of things that can be used to interpret and apply the rules where their text is silent, and "the text of adopted proposals" isn't on the list. (So neither the text of proposal 4513, nor the text of proposal 8961 which references it, is relevant in the interpretation.) Do you have a past judgement to reference for the definition? (There's no game custom remaining at this point – I remembered that Invisibilitating had once been defined, which is why I voted AGAINST, but couldn't remember the details – and common sense and the best interests of the game may argue towards leaving the term defined or undefined but don't provide a definition.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE
I'd like to mention that I don't feel like you're exercising the "highest reasonably possible standard of care" if your basis for if the crime has been committed or not is that it doesn't match the arcana, unless you prove first that the arcana has survived and still has legal effect to this day. Or at least, give it a shot to convince people about it, because it seems clear to me that the arcana's survival and legal power is just speculation at the moment. On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 5:27 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 7:58 AM nix via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On 5/12/23 08:24, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > > Sure, > > > > > > I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for > jaywalking > > > without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of swagger. > > > > > > I CfJ: "There was an infraction noted in this message." > > AFAICT Invisibilitating, if it does anything, only impacts anyone who > > writes an adopted proposal that alters gamestate without tracking it. > > Not sure if anyone has done so in recent memory. > > > > Also not sure it does anything at all, since the resolution uses a > > lowercase "shall" that would not necessarily be interpreted the same way > > as the uppercase under the modern MMI rules. > > Pseudo-investigation: Since investigation is weirdly platonic (the > investigation doesn't exist if there was no infraction), I'm just > noting publicly that, as the *alleged* investigator, I agree with nix > that the cited behavior neither fits the ancient description of the > crime, nor does it fit any crime definition that I could infer for > invisibilitating outside of that ancient text, so I'm (informally, > with no legal effect[0]) stating 'not guilty' at this time. > > I submit my "investigation" above, as well as the below-linked note, > as gratuitous arguments for the CFJ: > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg44780.html > > [0] This may have one legal effect - should this turn out to be a > crime anyway, it's reasonably plausible that I'm exercising the > "highest reasonably possible standard of care" by not investigating it > in a timely fashion and making the above statement. > > -G. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:03 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Having such an unwieldy amount of arcana puts a lot of power in being able > to give out 'hedonistic' Judgements; ones that are heavily based on "well > this is best for the game"/"this makes it playable"/etc, especially ones > that have to be that way because of ambiguity. Because we don't know for > sure everything that has even happened until now, and even then, we're > likely to have more disagreements the more arcana that we have to consider > in order to compute the current gamestate. > > It's probably not so bad then, because the longer back you go, the harder > it is to be sure of it, and the easier it seems that a hedonistic Judgement > will just overwrite it. Arcana *generally* doesn't have that strong an impact - an old CFJ can always be revisited, even if cited, and new CFJs have often said "that old one doesn't apply". And believe me, current judges are *very* ready to overturn or just ignore precedent that's somewhat old, that happens regularly. The reason this one is relevant is because voters, in the modern time, last week, voted FOR this Rules text, and so it's become current rules text. As I said, I can't speak for other voters' reasoning - no deals were made etc. - but there's all sorts of ways to go wrong in the rules by voting for unwise text, whether than unwise text is drawn from an ancient source or entirely new. Knowing about the old CFJs gives a *minor* advantage, in that when something comes up that's happened before, I can say "hey - here's a ready-to-go argument for the situation I don't need to re-argue first principles". But it still has to persuade the current judge (and any potential appealers) all over again. People do feel a "weight of history" a bit, in the sense of saying that this is a long-running game and it would be a shame to destroy it on a whim of a single judgement, but that applies to entirely new arguments/issues just as much as "old" ones. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
Having such an unwieldy amount of arcana puts a lot of power in being able to give out 'hedonistic' Judgements; ones that are heavily based on "well this is best for the game"/"this makes it playable"/etc, especially ones that have to be that way because of ambiguity. Because we don't know for sure everything that has even happened until now, and even then, we're likely to have more disagreements the more arcana that we have to consider in order to compute the current gamestate. It's probably not so bad then, because the longer back you go, the harder it is to be sure of it, and the easier it seems that a hedonistic Judgement will just overwrite it. On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 4:47 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/23 06:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > - Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating > specifically? > > What about other ancient things that may affect how other*current* > things > > of the game work too? > > There might be. There's nothing that prevents us from looking back, nor > any game custom that says not to. In fact it's encouraged. Less of a > look-back, but see also Janet recently noticing various proposal issues > from the last two years. We try to curb these things by having stuff > ratify, but it doesn't catch everything (and blindly ratify everything > has its own drawbacks). > > > - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still > exists > > or works as intended? > > Probably not. > > > - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones > > which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now > > supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. > > It's a game with a continuous 30 year history, the history is going to > impact that game and having more experience and knowledge about a thing > will give you advantage on the thing. There wasn't some explicit goal of > hurting new players. G. rediscovered some old arcana (which anyone could > do if they wanted to look through old archives, it's how I know anything > from before my time), and wanted to toy around with it. To my knowledge > it's not deeper than that. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE
On 5/12/23 08:24, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: Sure, I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for jaywalking without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of swagger. I CfJ: "There was an infraction noted in this message." AFAICT Invisibilitating, if it does anything, only impacts anyone who writes an adopted proposal that alters gamestate without tracking it. Not sure if anyone has done so in recent memory. Also not sure it does anything at all, since the resolution uses a lowercase "shall" that would not necessarily be interpreted the same way as the uppercase under the modern MMI rules. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
On 5/12/23 06:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: - Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating specifically? What about other ancient things that may affect how other*current* things of the game work too? There might be. There's nothing that prevents us from looking back, nor any game custom that says not to. In fact it's encouraged. Less of a look-back, but see also Janet recently noticing various proposal issues from the last two years. We try to curb these things by having stuff ratify, but it doesn't catch everything (and blindly ratify everything has its own drawbacks). - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still exists or works as intended? Probably not. - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. It's a game with a continuous 30 year history, the history is going to impact that game and having more experience and knowledge about a thing will give you advantage on the thing. There wasn't some explicit goal of hurting new players. G. rediscovered some old arcana (which anyone could do if they wanted to look through old archives, it's how I know anything from before my time), and wanted to toy around with it. To my knowledge it's not deeper than that. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 5:00 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones > which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now > supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. > Just on this note, I wanted to say that this was all me, not an "old person conspiracy", so I apologize it felt that way - I didn't reveal the text outside putting the reference in the proposal and referring to it indirectly, and was intending to reveal it right after the voting regardless, so people (old and new) were drawing their own conclusions during the voting. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 1:31 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/23 01:37, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > And about "voting strength games", any player could reactivate voting > > strength on the proposal if they would vote against it. Voting strength > > only matters when there's disagreement anyways, and if there is any, > it'll > > get turned back to ordinary by whichever side wants the voting strength > to > > be in effect. Or by any player who agrees with the "SHOULD". If everyone > > agrees to gamify it, then why not? There's really not more danger than a > > normal proposal, anyways, since this is just streamlining the process to > > what it can already be at a minimum. Even if you can come up with an > > example of how the expedited proposal could be abused, you could also > > probably just spot it and turn it ordinary. > > > This just becomes a timing race for setting the class immediately before > the voting period ends. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > Once it's turned ordinary during the voting period, it can't be turned back. "Each player CAN, with 2 support, flip an ordinary proposal's class to expedited, **provided it is in the Proposal Pool** and e has not done so yet this week." -- snail
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8960-8964
What is "Invisibilitating"?
I feel like I'm being left out of something here.
On Friday, May 12, 2023, Janet Cobb via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8960-8964
> =
>
> IDTitle Result
> -
> 8960 Ritual disambiguation ADOPTED
> 8961 now you don't see it ADOPTED
> 8962 Please behave, Prime Minister REJECTED
> 8963 hats REJECTED
> 8964 Minty StoneADOPTED
>
> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
>
> The quorum for all below decisions was 5.
>
> VOTING STRENGTHS
>
>
> Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted.
> #: player has voting strength 3
> $: player has voting strength 4
> %: player has voting strength 5
> ^: player has voting strength 6
> &: player has voting strength 7
> *: player has voting strength 8
> +: player has voting strength 9
>
> PROPOSALS
> =
>
> PROPOSAL 8960 (Ritual disambiguation)
> AUTHOR: ais523
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (6): G.&, Janet+, Yachay Wayllukuq, ais523, nix%, snail^
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (1): Murphy%
> BALLOTS: 7
> AI (F/A): 33/0 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.857
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8961 (now you don't see it)
> AUTHOR: G.
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (5): 4st*, G.&, Janet+, Murphy%, nix%
> AGAINST (3): Yachay Wayllukuq, ais523, snail^
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 34/12 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.250
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> Janet: Endorsement of G.
> ]
>
> PROPOSAL 8962 (Please behave, Prime Minister)
> AUTHOR: Yachay Wayllukuq
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (3): 4st*, G.&, Yachay Wayllukuq
> AGAINST (5): Janet+, Murphy%, ais523, nix%, snail^
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 18/28 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: -0.250
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
> [
> G.: Conditional resolved: Yachay Wayllukuq has changed all of eir votes on
> this distribution to unconditional votes
> ]
>
> PROPOSAL 8963 (hats)
> AUTHOR: 4st
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (4): 4st*, G.&, Murphy%, Yachay Wayllukuq
> AGAINST (4): Janet+, ais523, nix%, snail^
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 23/23 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.000
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8964 (Minty Stone)
> AUTHOR: snail
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (7): G.&, Janet+, Murphy%, Yachay Wayllukuq, ais523, nix%, snail^
> AGAINST (1): 4st*
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 38/8 (AI=2.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.750
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> Janet: Endorsement of nix
> ais523: Conditional resolved: snail voted unconditionally FOR on P8960
> ]
>
> The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below:
>
> //
> ID: 8960
> Title: Ritual disambiguation
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: ais523
> Co-authors:
>
>
> In rule 2680, amend
> {{{
> When a positive integral multiple of 41 is anointed as a ritual
> number for the first time, the person who does so CAN, by
> announcement, Raise the First Speaker in a powerful dance around
> the Town Fountain. Doing so causes each player qualifying under
> this Rule to gain 1 radiance.
> }}}
> to
> {{{
> For each positive integral multiple of 41, when that number is
> anointed as a ritual number for the first time, the person who
> does so CAN, by announcement, Raise the First Speaker in a
> powerful dance around the Town Fountain. Doing so causes each
> player qualifying under this Rule to gain 1 radiance.
> }}}
>
> //
> ID: 8961
> Title: now you don't see it
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Re-enact Rule 2056 (Invisibilitating) with the following text:
>
> Invisibilitating is a Class 1 infraction.
>
>
> [
> Rule 2056 history (confirmed by checking archives):
>
> Enacted (Power=1) by Proposal 4513 "Invisibilitating" (Steve), 10 July
> 2003.
> Repealed by Proposal 4759 "Olive Repeals" (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005.
> ]
>
> //
> ID: 8964
> Title: Minty Stone
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by replacing
>
> {{
> - Jockey Stone (monthly, 3): When wielded, a specified Running
> horse's Race Position is increased by 1.
> }}
> with
> {{
> - Minty Stone (weekly, 4): When wielded, a specified Player gains a
> stamp of eir own type.
> }}
>
> //
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On 5/12/23 01:37, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > And about "voting strength games", any player could reactivate voting > strength on the proposal if they would vote against it. Voting strength > only matters when there's disagreement anyways, and if there is any, it'll > get turned back to ordinary by whichever side wants the voting strength to > be in effect. Or by any player who agrees with the "SHOULD". If everyone > agrees to gamify it, then why not? There's really not more danger than a > normal proposal, anyways, since this is just streamlining the process to > what it can already be at a minimum. Even if you can come up with an > example of how the expedited proposal could be abused, you could also > probably just spot it and turn it ordinary. This just becomes a timing race for setting the class immediately before the voting period ends. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
