Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On 5/21/23 15:12, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 12:35 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> This is my Judgement for CFJ 4030, which asks: >> >> Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times >> for a single instance of a ritual act. >> >> This is also my first Judgement. I hope I did alright. >> >> Guidance in Rule 217 states: >> >> 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. >> >> However, the text of the rule isn't clear, such text being: >> >> When a ritual act is performed, any player CAN, within 7 days, by >> announcement anoint a ritual number, specifying the ritual act and >> the new ritual number. >> >> The text of the rule can be understood to mean either that you can anoint >> once, or that you can anoint multiple times. >> >> Arguments in favor of being able to anoint several times has been Agoran >> custom, custom which I am personally not very familiar with, but evidence >> from G. and a lack of counterarguments to this seems reasonable enough to >> permit it as evidence for this case: >> >> I wholly agree that the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current >> custom >> and that, barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained >> totally fairly >> under that assumption. >> >> However, there are also arguments in favor that you shouldn't be able to >> anoint several times, for example, from Caller nix, which seems to me to >> allude to what would be "in the best interests of the game": >> >> To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN >> [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is >> the >> way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of >> pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a >> card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing >> in >> the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would >> interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations >> in >> other games. >> > I thought I should add my voice to this. I actually do see a suggestion of > the "whole deck" interpretation in the text of the rules. The rules text in > question uses "CAN", which is defined as follows: "Attempts to perform the > described action are successful." Note that "attempts" is plural. This > suggests that by default, a CAN allows multiple instances of the same > action to succeed. This definition of CAN is very permissive-feeling, so I > think you judged correctly in not restricting the CAN to only allowing a > single action. > -- > snail Not that this is the actual basis for the judgement, but I don't think that's relevant. To me, this clearly hinges/hinged on "After" not "CAN". -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4029 Assigned to Murphy
> Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals, Power=3) states that adopted proposals > "take effect", and: > >Except insofar as the actions performed by a proposal happen one >after another, rather than simultaneously, a proposal's effect is >instantaneous. A proposal can neither delay nor extend its own >effect. Once a proposal finishes taking effect, its power is set >to 0. > I missed something crucial that is actually pretty interesting (this is a historical note not a prelude to appeal). The "pronouncement" of the proposal that defined invisibilitating in July 2003 actually had a legal framework: the Legislative Order. The pronouncement created a Legislative Order. Of course, since our formal complex system of Orders and counter-Orders doesn't exist, I'd assume the Order on "Invisibilitating" now has a concrete point of destruction, when the Orders system was repealed. But in any case, for historical slice of the rules (and/or future CFJ value) here was the governing rule at the time: Rule 1891/0 (Power=1) Legislative Orders (a) A Proposal may contain one or more Orders. (b) The effect of adopting a Proposal which contains Orders is to execute those Orders. Such Orders are known as Legislative Orders, are deemed to have been executed by that Proposal, and are deemed to have been executed as of the date of the proclamation of the Proposal's adoption. (c) Legislative Orders may not be stayed, vacated, or amended except: (1) by a subsequent Legislative Order; (2) by a Judicial Order issued only after a judicial finding that the Proposal containing the Legislative Order was not adopted, was barred from taking effect, or was invalid; or (3) by the Clerk of the Courts, but only for the purpose of staying such an Order during the pendency of a dispute which might reasonably lead to a judicial finding of the sort mentioned in subdivision (c)(2) of this Rule.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4029 Assigned to Murphy
Seriously considering to send to business that i jaywalk without a license with dangerous levels of swagger anyways søn. 21. mai 2023, 2:19 p.m. skrev Edward Murphy via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>: > G. wrote: > > > The below CFJ is 4029. I assign it to Murphy. > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4029 > > > > === CFJ 4029 > === > > > >There was an infraction noted in this message. > > > > > == > > > > Caller:Yachay > > > > Judge: Murphy > > > > > == > > > > History: > > > > Called by Yachay: 12 May 2023 13:24:04 > > Assigned to Murphy: [now] > > > > > == > > > > Caller's Evidence: > > > > Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > >> I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for > jaywalking > >> without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of swagger. > > > > > > Caller's Arguments: > > > > So, after the silence, finding that a couple other players actually don't > > know what "Invisibilitating" is either, and some simple searches in the > > mail archives, apparently "Invisibilitating" relies on gamestate that > > supposedly still exists after 10+ years. I thought we didn't dig into the > > past that far to consider how many turtles down the current gamestate was > > held up by, but if we do, then: > > > > - 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? > > - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still > exists > > or works as intended? > > - 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. > > > > Thankfully, I'm far from a win so I have a margin to endure risking some > > blots, which I'll spend to try to uncover more about this. > > > > > -- > > > > Gratuitous Arguments by G: > > > >>> Re-enact Rule 2056 (Invisibilitating) with the following text: > >>> > >>>Invisibilitating is a Class 1 infraction. > > > > Proposal 4513[0] - clearly cited in the proposal just adopted - made > > the following 'pronouncement' when it took effect, and the > > pronouncement was not 'rescinded' when the rule was repealed[1]. I'm > > under no illusion that the pronouncement is still "taking effect" in > > any legal way, but it is a unique case because (as Yachay found) > > there's no common-sense definition or term findable on an internet > > search, so this text - which was just voted into the rules, so must be > > interpreted as the text of the rules - is the only thing I know that > > potentially "clarifies" the text of the rules in a R217 definitional > > sense. 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): > > > >> Proposal 4513 by Steve, AI=1, Ordinary > >> Invisibilitating > >> > >> Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this > >> proposal) that includes a provision that proposes to make changes to > >> parts of the gamestate, where no player is required to report those > >> changes in an official report, with the exception of the publication of > >> that proposal by the Promotor and the Assessor, shall be guilty of the > >> Class 0 Infraction of Invisibilitating. > > > > [0] > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2003-July/000706.html > > [1] > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2005-May/002223.html > > > > > > ais523 wrote: > >> 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.) > > > > > > G.
Re: DIS: (Proto) Raybots
On Sun, 2023-05-21 at 13:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 1:01 PM ais523 via agora-discussion > wrote: > > We've had artificial persons in the past, and they ceased to exist with > > no real issues. That predated Promises, which probably need a fix to > > cease to exist when their creator does. > > When you say "no real issues", IIRC we had to think really carefully > about things like rights, and repeal parts of R101 guaranteeing rights > to persons before we "destroyed" artificial persons, then put it back. > Someone might make a slight case that "Persons" are the core of the > game in the current R101 (though that's really a stretch) and > interestingly, reading the rule on Banning, we could probably Ban > artificial persons - a "runaway bot" should something like that ever > exist seems to meet some of the banning criteria of "the person's > actions have been deemed harmful to Agora". > > While I haven't been following the Raybots proposal, I think the main > issues were learned from zombies - there's lots of things (like having > your bot support your own tabled action announcement) that need to be > strictly off-limits for bots in general - the zombie nerf list from a > couple years back is worth a cross reference if that hasn't been done > already. Well, Raybots are safer than zombies in that everything they can do is known in advance while the Agoran consent action to create them is pending – it would probably even be safe to allow them to have full voting strength, because people should in theory object to abusive Raybots being created in the first place, but Agorans have been known to vote for bad ideas on occasion so it's probably worth the safeguard of preventing them voting. I agree that it's probably possible to ban a runaway Raybot, something that seems useful rather than broken (although just exiling it would have the same effect). It's worth noting that although zombies got abused a lot, that sort of abuse seems to have been mostly unique to "artificial person with a single owner" systems. Agora has in the past tried things as simple as the Partnerships mechanic: the more recent version of it was "any group of two or more non-artificial persons can create an artificial person, if they come to some agreement between themselves as to how to control it, and can only create one at a time", and that (amazingly) wasn't abused to any major extent despite there being few limits on what they could do. There definitely *were* abuses in the partnerships era (e.g. the AFO was used for several scams, and P1-P100 – immortalized in the Writ of Fage report – were definitely part of a scam, although one that IIRC didn't work as intended). But that was a minor part of it, and there were partnerships that became a major part of the game for a substantial length of time without any major drama stemming from the fact they were persons. The abuses also tended to generally be interesting rather than boring (e.g. partnerships designed to create interesting scenarios for CFJs but that ultimately didn't do anything, or that time I achieved a "blot everyone" victory condition by using the equivalent of today's PM's Dive power on a partnership to blot numerous players at the same time). The other thing about zombies is that they weren't artificial players, but rather former players being controlled by the rules – many of the zombie protections were to protect *the zombie*, rather than to protect the game from its owner. That's the primary reason why it was dangerous to let them self-blot, deregister, or agree to contracts. I think the only zombie protections that were designed to prevent them being overpowered were the protection against table/support/oppose (which was in my proto), and the protection against recursive zombie use (which probably isn't necessary here because Raybots don't have owners). -- ais523
Re: DIS: (Proto) Raybots
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 1:01 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sat, 2023-05-20 at 23:43 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > Actually, in general persons ceasing to exist is likely to cause > > problems, and the current ruleset is careful to avoid it (R869/51's "is > > or ever was"; you remain an Agoran person after you die). > > > > I'm not sure there's a good solution here. Having disabled Raybots just > > sit around doing nothing isn't ideal. Auditing the whole ruleset for > > issues caused by this is probably good to do anyway but error-prone (and > > future proposals are reasonably likely to introduce new problems). > > We've had artificial persons in the past, and they ceased to exist with > no real issues. That predated Promises, which probably need a fix to > cease to exist when their creator does. When you say "no real issues", IIRC we had to think really carefully about things like rights, and repeal parts of R101 guaranteeing rights to persons before we "destroyed" artificial persons, then put it back. Someone might make a slight case that "Persons" are the core of the game in the current R101 (though that's really a stretch) and interestingly, reading the rule on Banning, we could probably Ban artificial persons - a "runaway bot" should something like that ever exist seems to meet some of the banning criteria of "the person's actions have been deemed harmful to Agora". While I haven't been following the Raybots proposal, I think the main issues were learned from zombies - there's lots of things (like having your bot support your own tabled action announcement) that need to be strictly off-limits for bots in general - the zombie nerf list from a couple years back is worth a cross reference if that hasn't been done already. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
ais523 wrote: On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 21:32 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago at this point). Just happened to notice this: On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 15:21 -0500, nix via agora-official wrote: Marvy:4st, ais523, CreateSource, cuddlybanana, duck, G., Janet, juan, Murphy, R. Lee, snail, Trigon, Vitor Gonçalves Marvy is a patent title that's currently in use. I suspect that this has no impact on rule 2029 for much the same reason that a player named "Marvy" wouldn't, but it feels like a relevant data point. IIRC, that Patent Title was awarded by proposal, then after its adoption the author claimed that R2029 penalized those players, but it was indeed shot down for much the same reason as a player named "Marvy" would have.
Re: DIS: (Proto) Raybots
On Sat, 2023-05-20 at 23:43 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > Actually, in general persons ceasing to exist is likely to cause > problems, and the current ruleset is careful to avoid it (R869/51's "is > or ever was"; you remain an Agoran person after you die). > > I'm not sure there's a good solution here. Having disabled Raybots just > sit around doing nothing isn't ideal. Auditing the whole ruleset for > issues caused by this is probably good to do anyway but error-prone (and > future proposals are reasonably likely to introduce new problems). We've had artificial persons in the past, and they ceased to exist with no real issues. That predated Promises, which probably need a fix to cease to exist when their creator does. The main potential issue I could think of is "what happens to a CFJ if its judge ceases to exist", but it turns out that there's a specific allowance for that in rule 991 (the nonexistent person remains assigned as the judge). Likewise, rule 649 allows non-persons to bear patent titles (oddly, it even allows non-persons to be *awarded* patent titles). According to the FLR annotations, we were fixing bugs with loss-of-personhood as recently as 2020, so it's historically been considered desirable to have rules that make sense in that context. I checked every use of "person" in the rules to find uses that might cause issues: * Rule 1742 - what happens to a contract if a party ceases to exist? * Rule 2659 - stamps - already addressed in my proto * Rule 2644 - lockout on Stone win condition ends early if the winner ceases to exit - probably not going to matter in practice * Rule 2464 - tournaments have no Gamemaster if their creator is no longer a person, but work just fine in that state * Rule 869 - playerhood - already addressed in my proto * Rule 1023 - definition of "round" - may need fixing, although the definition is used only to fix the First Speaker rule, which wouldn't be affected * Rule 1728 - if an officer tabls an intent as an official action of their office, then ceases to be a person, the new officer can't then resolve the intent if it's an action without objection: potentially buggy, but unlikely to be a major issue in practice * Rule 2530 - potentially weird if a proposal's coauthor ceases to be a person, we might want to reinforce that (although I don't think anything is actually breakable there) * Rule 2493 - regulations - the definitions here break if the promulgator of a regulation ceases to be a person, although I don't think that causes any actual rules to break as a consequence * Rule 2127 - conditional votes - an attempt to endorse a voter breaks if the voter ceases to be a person (even though the non-person's vote is still valid) * Rule 2210 - self-ratification - not broken, only persons can CoE but the CoE remains valid even if the CoEer ceases to be a person * Rule 2478 - investigation of infractions - potentially broken, could most simply be fixed by allowing Favoritism towards non-players * Rule 991 - CFJs - judgehood works fine, but recusal is broken Probably the best approach here is to ensure that loss-of-personhood works: it's something that used to happen at Agora all the time (there have been many eras where a couple of conspiring players could create and destroy an legal-fiction person pretty much at will, and the rules used to use the terminology "first-class person" and "second-class person" so that the legal fnctions could be easily identified). I suspect that regardless of how Raybots goes, it's worth a big fix proposal to make sure that loss of personhood is something that the rule can handle. This does make me think that something like the Raybots proposal is worthwhile, though: the best way to ensure that the ruleset can handle loss of personhood is to make sure it's something that regularly gets tested, thus incentivising us to fix the bugs in it. (The proposal's inspiration came from the direction of "legal-fiction persons would be interesting to have again and we haven't had them for a while, can we find a way of doing them that's significantly different from what we've had before?".) -- ais523
Re: Very Proto Economy (Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization_
nix wrote: On 5/19/23 11:50, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen, and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against repealing it without a replacement. I do somewhat regret the *full* repeal we did, tho it was an interesting experiment (that got my a Silver Quill). I've been trying to be more hands off with economic writing because I want to see other ideas (and I've written two of the recent ones), but I have had some ideas floating around that would at least incorporate Stamps. The idea is basically: * replace dreams with focuses, and have 3 or 4 focuses. Something like Voting, Proposing, etc. * each stamp type inherits a focus from the person it's minted by, with stamps belonging to non-players being wildcards for focus * players automatically get stamps of eir type, maybe at a rate similar wealth dream (2 when there's less than 8 total of your type, 1 when there's less than 16 total, 0 otherwise) * cash stamps in sets, where each stamp in the set is of the same class (or wildcard) to get the associated bonus. Cash voting stamps and get a voting power increase, cash proposing stamps and get the ability to pend X proposals. Scale it to large payouts for larger cashing sets, and also larger payouts for the number of *different* stamps used. And increasingly larger payouts for having greater military strength than one's neighbors.
Re: DIS: (Proto) Raybots
Maybe we can keep "persons" as is, and make a new definition that pretty
much encompasses everything persons can do? For example, adding something
like "If a person CAN do something, an Agent CAN do so as well, other rules
notwithstanding", and just refer to Agents for the Raybots.
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 5:44 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/20/23 23:30, Janet Cobb wrote:
> >> In rule 2618, amend
> >> {{{
> >> A consenting player CAN, by announcement, grant a specified entity a
> >> promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator.
> >> }}}
> >> to
> >> {{{
> >> A Raybot or a consenting player CAN, by announcement, grant a specified
> >> entity a promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator.
> >> }}}
> >> [It's an interesting philosophical question as to whether Raybots can
> >> consent to things, so avoid the issue by making it possible for Raybots
> >> to create promises by announcement even if they don't consent to them.
> >> For what it's worth, rule 2519(3) means that the Raybot probably is
> >> consenting, but it's better to make it clear.]
> > What happens to such promises when the Raybot ceases to exist?
> >
> >
>
> Actually, in general persons ceasing to exist is likely to cause
> problems, and the current ruleset is careful to avoid it (R869/51's "is
> or ever was"; you remain an Agoran person after you die).
>
> I'm not sure there's a good solution here. Having disabled Raybots just
> sit around doing nothing isn't ideal. Auditing the whole ruleset for
> issues caused by this is probably good to do anyway but error-prone (and
> future proposals are reasonably likely to introduce new problems).
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 12:35 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > This is my Judgement for CFJ 4030, which asks: > > Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times > for a single instance of a ritual act. > > This is also my first Judgement. I hope I did alright. > > Guidance in Rule 217 states: > > 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. > > However, the text of the rule isn't clear, such text being: > > When a ritual act is performed, any player CAN, within 7 days, by > announcement anoint a ritual number, specifying the ritual act and > the new ritual number. > > The text of the rule can be understood to mean either that you can anoint > once, or that you can anoint multiple times. > > Arguments in favor of being able to anoint several times has been Agoran > custom, custom which I am personally not very familiar with, but evidence > from G. and a lack of counterarguments to this seems reasonable enough to > permit it as evidence for this case: > > I wholly agree that the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current > custom > and that, barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained > totally fairly > under that assumption. > > However, there are also arguments in favor that you shouldn't be able to > anoint several times, for example, from Caller nix, which seems to me to > allude to what would be "in the best interests of the game": > > To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN > [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is > the > way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of > pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a > card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing > in > the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would > interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations > in > other games. > I thought I should add my voice to this. I actually do see a suggestion of the "whole deck" interpretation in the text of the rules. The rules text in question uses "CAN", which is defined as follows: "Attempts to perform the described action are successful." Note that "attempts" is plural. This suggests that by default, a CAN allows multiple instances of the same action to succeed. This definition of CAN is very permissive-feeling, so I think you judged correctly in not restricting the CAN to only allowing a single action. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 10:35 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > I Judge TRUE, forced to play my last card and merely appeal to my personal > opinion. I think this is just fine, and a nice overall first judgement and discussion of the issues. When we were discussing this on Discord, it was a limited audience and I don't think anyone spoke up for the "it actually reads that way on a natural reading", it was mainly nix and I agreeing that boardgame rules generally read the *other* way. For these sorts of uncertain R217 readings that *could* be read both ways reasonably, and where the dominant reading isn't pegged to some very specific past judgement but a more hazy 'game custom', a completely fresh "it reads that way to me, in my opinion" is a perfectly sound and solid basis for deciding. And if the players are really split (which they probably aren't), it would head for Moot whichever way you went, and you definitely provided sufficient arguments opposite the Caller's arguments for a Moot to chew on. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Stonemason/@Assessor) SABOTAGE!
On Sun, 2023-05-21 at 10:50 -0700, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > I change my vote on 8983 to ABSENT, or PRESENT if I cannot change my > vote to something invalid. The wording you want is "I withdraw my vote on 8983" or "I retract my vote on 8983" (these are synonyms). To "change a vote" is to retract your vote, then cast a new one. So it's unclear whether "I change my vote to ABSENT" would have the desired effect or not. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: (@CotC, Yachay) BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4030 Assigned to Yachay
On Sun, 2023-05-21 at 19:43 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Oh, I just finished writing/posting my Judgement when I saw this. I don't > think it's essential for the case and I'd rather not bite more than I can > chew for my CfJ. It felt very difficult as it is. > > You could always just call a new one for that though. That's OK – it isn't your fault that I was a little late in submitting my arguments. I guess it can stay there and be relevant if there's an appeal. Rule 217 cases are always difficult to handle, even for people with a lot more experience. -- ais523
DIS: Re: (@CotC, Yachay) BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4030 Assigned to Yachay
Oh, I just finished writing/posting my Judgement when I saw this. I don't think it's essential for the case and I'd rather not bite more than I can chew for my CfJ. It felt very difficult as it is. You could always just call a new one for that though. On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 6:44 PM ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2023-05-21 at 07:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official > wrote: > > The below CFJ is 4030. I assign it to Yachay. > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4030 > > > > CFJ 4030 > > > >Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times > >for a single instance of a ritual act. > > > > > > Gratuitous arguments: > > I request the judge to consider whether there's a relevant difference > between "When X, a player CAN Y" (the situation the arguments so far > are discussing), and "When X, a player CAN, within Z days, Y" (the > actual situation that's in question). > > -- > ais523 >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Promise anti-escalation
This has been the best possible outcome
lør. 20. mai 2023, 11:07 p.m. skrev Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:
> On 5/21/23 01:59, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I counter by instead submitting the following proposal:
> >
> > {Adoption index = 3
> >
> > [Stop making small changes to fix things. This security issue happens all
> > the time.]
>
>
> Exactly what non-small change would you want here? Your proposal is
> "small", too. This is really getting annoying.
>
>
> > Enact the following rule:"By default and unless otherwise specified,
> > assets, switches, and eir properties are secured at the power level of
> the
> > rule that defines them."}
>
>
> First, NttPF.
>
> Second, you've put the "adoption index" inside the text of the proposal.
>
> Third, why is this in a new rule? There's a perfectly good rule this can
> go into (R1688).
>
> Fourth, there are likely to be breakages, and I find it unlikely you
> audited the entire ruleset for things that might break.
>
> Fifth, when things inevitably do break, how would they be fixed? In all
> likelihood, more small proposals, fixing them piecewise as they're
> found. This isn't preventing "small changes" at all.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Promise anti-escalation
On 5/21/23 01:59, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> I counter by instead submitting the following proposal:
>
> {Adoption index = 3
>
> [Stop making small changes to fix things. This security issue happens all
> the time.]
Exactly what non-small change would you want here? Your proposal is
"small", too. This is really getting annoying.
> Enact the following rule:"By default and unless otherwise specified,
> assets, switches, and eir properties are secured at the power level of the
> rule that defines them."}
First, NttPF.
Second, you've put the "adoption index" inside the text of the proposal.
Third, why is this in a new rule? There's a perfectly good rule this can
go into (R1688).
Fourth, there are likely to be breakages, and I find it unlikely you
audited the entire ruleset for things that might break.
Fifth, when things inevitably do break, how would they be fixed? In all
likelihood, more small proposals, fixing them piecewise as they're
found. This isn't preventing "small changes" at all.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
