Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Covering bases
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:47 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 14:36 -0600, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 3/5/24 14:24, Rowan Evans via agora-business wrote: > > > After that: If I have granted myself a welcome package 52 times AND > > > not granted Murphy 2.4, then 2.4 times, I grant Murphy a welcome > > > package. > > > > This still fails, you can't do something a fractional amount, so the > > specification of what you're doing is too unclear. > > I guess this is yet another example of the "I say I do, therefore I do" > fallacy, which has plagued Agora for a long time. > > Just saying you perform an action doesn't actually perform it unless > there's a rule that causes that statement to have an effect; when I > make a statement like "I wield the Radiance Stone", the statement > doesn't directly do anything, and the Radiance Stone only gets wielded > because rule 2641 triggers as a consequence of the announcement and > changes the gamestate (due to the definition of "by announcement" in > rule 478). > > For something that isn't rules-defined, like taking an action a > fractional number of times, there's no way to trigger the relevant rule > because there isn't one. > > -- > ais523 > This is why I like the "narrative based" aspect to playing: the narrative will subsequently define what 2.4 times means, if anything. It also prevents Paradoxes, such as Theseus, by resolving them in the same instant, or blatantly leaving them for others to resolve. "This week, my empire, 2.4 times, strikes back. Additionally, half the parts of the death star were replaced and used to build another death star, both thereby being the original. Finally, I went back in time and killed my grandfather before I was born. TAKE THAT, GRANDPA! He's subsequently lost in the space-time continuum, hopefully he doesn't unlock the secrets of the universe in there and come back to haunt me." -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Covering bases
On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 14:36 -0600, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 3/5/24 14:24, Rowan Evans via agora-business wrote: > > After that: If I have granted myself a welcome package 52 times AND > > not granted Murphy 2.4, then 2.4 times, I grant Murphy a welcome > > package. > > This still fails, you can't do something a fractional amount, so the > specification of what you're doing is too unclear. I guess this is yet another example of the "I say I do, therefore I do" fallacy, which has plagued Agora for a long time. Just saying you perform an action doesn't actually perform it unless there's a rule that causes that statement to have an effect; when I make a statement like "I wield the Radiance Stone", the statement doesn't directly do anything, and the Radiance Stone only gets wielded because rule 2641 triggers as a consequence of the announcement and changes the gamestate (due to the definition of "by announcement" in rule 478). For something that isn't rules-defined, like taking an action a fractional number of times, there's no way to trigger the relevant rule because there isn't one. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Covering bases
@murphy, I tried bud On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 6:37 AM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 3/5/24 14:24, Rowan Evans via agora-business wrote: > > After that: If I have granted myself a welcome package 52 times AND not > > granted Murphy 2.4, then 2.4 times, I grant Murphy a welcome package. > > This still fails, you can't do something a fractional amount, so the > specification of what you're doing is too unclear. > > -- > nix > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Covering bases
On 3/5/24 14:24, Rowan Evans via agora-business wrote: > After that: If I have granted myself a welcome package 52 times AND not > granted Murphy 2.4, then 2.4 times, I grant Murphy a welcome package. This still fails, you can't do something a fractional amount, so the specification of what you're doing is too unclear. -- nix
DIS: Re: agora-discussion Digest, Vol 124, Issue 4
Re the actual CFJ: "receive" Is not defined in the rules. But in Rule 2577: For an entity to gain (historical syn. earn) an asset is for that asset to be created in that entity's possession. To grant an entity an asset is to create it in eir possession. To grant an entity a set of assets is to create each asset in the set in eir possession. By expressio unius, grant and gain are the _only_ verbs that describe this phenomenon. The correct passive form of granting is gaining, not receiving, and the definition of what happens when you grant is limited to gaining, and excludes receiving. On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 1:52 AM wrote: > Send agora-discussion mailing list submissions to > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-discussion > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > agora-discussion-requ...@agoranomic.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > agora-discussion-ow...@agoranomic.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of agora-discussion digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: BUS: ?? (?? ??? ??) (nix) >2. Re: BUS: Registering (Yachay Wayllukuq) >3. Re: BUS: Registering (nix) >4. Re: BUS: gift to my friend murphy (nix) >5. Re: BUS: Registering (nix) >6. Re: BUS: Registering (Gaelan Steele) >7. Re: BUS: ?? (?? ??? ??) (Gaelan Steele) >8. Re: Re: BUS: Registering (ais523) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:55:43 -0600 > From: nix > To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: ?? (?? ??? ??) > Message-ID: <44643de0-58d2-46ef-82a1-c6626bd1d...@nullarch.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On 3/4/24 12:19, Goren Barak via agora-business wrote: > > , > > ? ? ?? ?? ? ? ? ? > > ? ??, ??? "? ?? ? ?? ?? ?" > > > > ? > > A few notes on this, besides the fact it probably doesn't work for > effort reasons: > > I assume you meant to make an intent here, you first need to publish > something to the effect of "I intend to declare apathy..." and then do > the "I declare apathy" after the intent has been around and un-objected > long enough. > > Even if the intent was written correctly, the second sentence doesn't do > anything. You cannot add a non-rule-defined restriction on objections, > so objections like Janet's (where e objected without even being sure > there's an intent) still work. > > -- > nix > > > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:36:29 +0100 > From: Yachay Wayllukuq > To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering > Message-ID: > < > can759w8hmxhvx9wto65fjx_onig6nrwzxoddasvqtcv+6g9...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > I favor this case, because I'd find it nice to do. I'd just like to judge > something and this seems interesting. > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 5:38?AM Aris via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:33 PM Rowan Evans via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I register as LegallyBearded > > > > > > I grant myself 52 welcome packages, each containing 1 stamp. > > > > > > I pay 51 stamps of the same type to gain (51-1)*2 = 100 radiance. > > > > > > I observe that my radiance is 100, and win. > > > > > > > > > CFJ > > > Does "granting" an asset cause it to be received? > > > > > > Brief explanation. By rule 2499: Any player CAN, by announcement, > grant a > > > Welcome Package to any player if the grantee has neither received one > > since > > > e last registered nor in the last 30 days. > > > > > > By rule 2577: Granting an asset causes it to be "created in that > entity's > > > possession". I take this to be meaningfully different from "receiving" > an > > > asset, because granting is distinguished from the "transfer" of an > asset > > in > > > this same rule. > > > > > > And as a point of interest: most other references to "receiving" in the > > > rules require the item to be sent. > > > > > > FOR: When you create an item in your own possession, it hardly makes > > sense > > > to say you received it. If I make a paper plane, can I say I received > it? > > > From where? Doesn't make sense in plain English. > > > AGAINST: This scam ignores the intent of the clause it's trying to get > > > around. > > > > > > > Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be > > statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is > > different from interpreting it in context. > > > > I CFJ, barring LegallyBearded: In the above message, LegallyBearded > > successfully gra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
On 3/5/24 09:59, Aris via agora-business wrote: > A question is not a statement; Rule 991 > *requires* a statement. You haven't read How to Do Things With Words, have you? (this is a tease, also a rhetorical question. which is a statement.) -- nix
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 7:57 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Mar 5, 2024, at 3:51 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 15:45 +, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > > wrote: > >> On Mar 5, 2024, at 4:37 AM, Aris via agora-business > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be > >>> statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is > >>> different from interpreting it in context. > >> > >> Without commenting on the rest of the situation (I haven’t looked into > >> it), we have precedent that CFJs phrased as questions are fair game; see > >> CFJ 3505. > > > > Well, the precedent of CFJ 3505 also states that CFJ 3505 was never > > validly judged, although the CFJ record seems to ignore that. (FWIW, I > > disagree and think that that part of the judgement was given validly, > > but is wrong.) > > > > -- > > ais523 > > Oh, interesting: I suppose to be a “past judgement” for four-factors > purposes, something does actually have to be a validly assigned judgment to > a CFJ. > > Although if you’re being *truly* pedantic, the term “judgement” refers only > to one of the six valid judgements; there’s arguably no four-factors duty > to consider the surrounding waffle, which has interesting implications for > the classic “trivially FALSE, but to answer your real question:” > judgements. > > Huh. But under the game custom factor, we should interpret the judgement factor more broadly! /lh /gen -Aris >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
> On Mar 5, 2024, at 3:51 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 15:45 +, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On Mar 5, 2024, at 4:37 AM, Aris via agora-business >> wrote: >>> >>> Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be >>> statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is >>> different from interpreting it in context. >> >> Without commenting on the rest of the situation (I haven’t looked into >> it), we have precedent that CFJs phrased as questions are fair game; see >> CFJ 3505. > > Well, the precedent of CFJ 3505 also states that CFJ 3505 was never > validly judged, although the CFJ record seems to ignore that. (FWIW, I > disagree and think that that part of the judgement was given validly, > but is wrong.) > > -- > ais523 Oh, interesting: I suppose to be a “past judgement” for four-factors purposes, something does actually have to be a validly assigned judgment to a CFJ. Although if you’re being *truly* pedantic, the term “judgement” refers only to one of the six valid judgements; there’s arguably no four-factors duty to consider the surrounding waffle, which has interesting implications for the classic “trivially FALSE, but to answer your real question:” judgements. Huh. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 15:45 +, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mar 5, 2024, at 4:37 AM, Aris via agora-business > wrote: > > > > Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be > > statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is > > different from interpreting it in context. > > Without commenting on the rest of the situation (I haven’t looked into > it), we have precedent that CFJs phrased as questions are fair game; see > CFJ 3505. Well, the precedent of CFJ 3505 also states that CFJ 3505 was never validly judged, although the CFJ record seems to ignore that. (FWIW, I disagree and think that that part of the judgement was given validly, but is wrong.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: 𐑕𐑑𐑦𐑤 𐑦𐑯𐑜𐑤𐑦𐑖 (𐑯𐑴𐑚𐑩𐑛𐑰 𐑒𐑨𐑯 𐑕𐑑𐑪𐑐 𐑥𐑰)
> On Mar 4, 2024, at 6:55 PM, nix via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 3/4/24 12:19, Goren Barak via agora-business wrote: >> 𐑣𐑧𐑤𐑴 𐑩𐑜𐑹𐑩, >> 𐑲 𐑛𐑧𐑒𐑤𐑺 𐑝𐑦𐑒𐑑𐑹𐑰 𐑚𐑲 𐑨𐑐𐑩𐑔𐑰 𐑓 ·𐑚𐑧𐑯 𐑯 ·𐑜𐑹𐑧𐑯 >> 𐑑 𐑳𐑚𐑡𐑧𐑒𐑑, 𐑮𐑲𐑑 "𐑲 𐑳𐑚𐑡𐑧𐑒𐑑 𐑑 𐑝𐑦𐑒𐑑𐑹𐑰 𐑚𐑲 𐑨𐑐𐑩𐑔𐑰" >> >> 𐑜𐑫𐑛𐑚𐑲 𐑩𐑜𐑹𐑩 > > A few notes on this, besides the fact it probably doesn't work for > effort reasons: > > I assume you meant to make an intent here, you first need to publish > something to the effect of "I intend to declare apathy..." and then do > the "I declare apathy" after the intent has been around and un-objected > long enough. > > Even if the intent was written correctly, the second sentence doesn't do > anything. You cannot add a non-rule-defined restriction on objections, > so objections like Janet's (where e objected without even being sure > there's an intent) still work. > > -- > nix > Beyond standard by-announcement rules, there’s also the explicit requirement in 1728/46 that tabling an intent specifies certain information “without obfuscation”; it’s hard to imagine the choice of alphabet here was not done with the intention to obfuscate. Gaelan
DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
> On Mar 5, 2024, at 4:37 AM, Aris via agora-business > wrote: > > Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be > statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is > different from interpreting it in context. Without commenting on the rest of the situation (I haven’t looked into it), we have precedent that CFJs phrased as questions are fair game; see CFJ 3505. Gaelan
DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
On 3/4/24 22:32, Rowan Evans via agora-business wrote: > By rule 2577: Granting an asset causes it to be "created in that entity's > possession". I take this to be meaningfully different from "receiving" an > asset, because granting is distinguished from the "transfer" of an asset in > this same rule. I'm not going to give an opinion on this point directly because I told LegallyBearded I wouldn't interfere. However, here's some definitions (selecting only the most relevant-seeming from the source): >From Wiktionary: 1. To take, as something that is offered, given, committed, sent, paid, etc.; to accept; to be given something. >From Merriam-Webster: 1. to come into possession of : acquire >From dictionary.com: 1. to take into one's possession (something offered or delivered): to receive many gifts. 2. to have (something) bestowed, conferred, etc.: to receive an honorary degree. -- nix
DIS: Re: BUS: gift to my friend murphy
On 3/5/24 01:56, Rowan Evans via agora-business wrote: > Conditional on my silly scam receiving a favourable CFJ, I grant Murphy 2.4 > welcome packages. This fails for two reasons. First, you cannot use conditionals that rely on future information for actions. Secondly, there's no way to do a fractional part of an action. -- nix
DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
On 3/4/24 22:32, Rowan Evans via agora-business wrote: > I grant myself 52 welcome packages, each containing 1 stamp. It's possible this fails on the fact that there's no mechanism to grant yourself X welcome packages. You can only do one at a time, so the more proper language would be "52 times, I grant myself a welcome package." Tho we might determine that it's semantically equivalent here. -- nix
DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
I favor this case, because I'd find it nice to do. I'd just like to judge something and this seems interesting. On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 5:38 AM Aris via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:33 PM Rowan Evans via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I register as LegallyBearded > > > > I grant myself 52 welcome packages, each containing 1 stamp. > > > > I pay 51 stamps of the same type to gain (51-1)*2 = 100 radiance. > > > > I observe that my radiance is 100, and win. > > > > > > CFJ > > Does "granting" an asset cause it to be received? > > > > Brief explanation. By rule 2499: Any player CAN, by announcement, grant a > > Welcome Package to any player if the grantee has neither received one > since > > e last registered nor in the last 30 days. > > > > By rule 2577: Granting an asset causes it to be "created in that entity's > > possession". I take this to be meaningfully different from "receiving" an > > asset, because granting is distinguished from the "transfer" of an asset > in > > this same rule. > > > > And as a point of interest: most other references to "receiving" in the > > rules require the item to be sent. > > > > FOR: When you create an item in your own possession, it hardly makes > sense > > to say you received it. If I make a paper plane, can I say I received it? > > From where? Doesn't make sense in plain English. > > AGAINST: This scam ignores the intent of the clause it's trying to get > > around. > > > > Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be > statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is > different from interpreting it in context. > > I CFJ, barring LegallyBearded: In the above message, LegallyBearded > successfully granted emself 52 welcome packages. > > -Aris >
