DIS: A call for delegates
I am planning to use the new Vacations rule to take a Vacation from my three offices (Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason) over the month of May. If anybody would like to be a Delegate for any of those offices, please let me know! I would be happy to provide instruction on how my automation (for Assessor and Rulekeepor) works if someone is interested. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Recruiting Github Group Owners
On 4/10/24 13:28, 4st nomic wrote: > Uh I'm not a player currently but it couldn't hurt? > fjsweeney Seems good to me, as long as you're planning to at least generally stick around for a while. -- nix Arbitor
Re: DIS: Recruiting Github Group Owners
Uh I'm not a player currently but it couldn't hurt? fjsweeney On Wed, Apr 10, 2024, 9:13 AM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/9/24 12:27, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > As you might know, we have a Github Group. Some of the officers use it > > to maintain various tools and archives related to the game; essentially > > it's a collaboration tool. > > > > Similar to the discussion of the backup mailing list, I think it'd be > > best to add new "owners" to the group. The group has 3 owners - myself, > > omd, and G. omd and G. are not active players, and I'm only semi-active. > > > > Again, like the mailing list, IMO it is best to have diverse but trusted > > keyholders. To that end, my suggestion is we add 2-3 new owners, who > > have preferably been Agorans for at least a year, and preferably aren't > > already moderators for gio or extremely entrenched officers. If you're > > interested, even if you don't fit all of the criteria, please let me > know! > > > > I have added Janet to the list of owners, pursuant to eir interest on > Discord. Still hoping for one or two more to show interest. > > -- > nix > Arbitor > >
Re: DIS: Recruiting Github Group Owners
On 4/9/24 12:27, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > As you might know, we have a Github Group. Some of the officers use it > to maintain various tools and archives related to the game; essentially > it's a collaboration tool. > > Similar to the discussion of the backup mailing list, I think it'd be > best to add new "owners" to the group. The group has 3 owners - myself, > omd, and G. omd and G. are not active players, and I'm only semi-active. > > Again, like the mailing list, IMO it is best to have diverse but trusted > keyholders. To that end, my suggestion is we add 2-3 new owners, who > have preferably been Agorans for at least a year, and preferably aren't > already moderators for gio or extremely entrenched officers. If you're > interested, even if you don't fit all of the criteria, please let me know! > I have added Janet to the list of owners, pursuant to eir interest on Discord. Still hoping for one or two more to show interest. -- nix Arbitor
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Spendor definition
On 4/10/24 10:06, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > The Officeholder of Spendor is hereby flipped to nix. > > } For bystander context, I consented to this. -- nix Arbitor
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJs 4075 & 4076 Assigned to kiako [Re: BUS: (@Notary, Arbitor) A Broken Promise]
On Wed, 2024-04-10 at 09:17 -0500, Kiako via agora-discussion wrote: > ARGUMENTS FOR [X] > > i. We again suppose (D) succeeds. Then one of (A) or (C) succeeds. > ii. (B) fails, to avoid a paradox/indeterminacy. > iii. (A) fails, because (A) implies (B), and (B) must fail. > iv. (C) succeeds, because (A) fails and (D) succeeds. At least this argument is explicitly disallowed by the rules. From rule 217: Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true. which implies that you can't validly use step "ii." above in order to try to resolve the situation. (This was added to the rules intentionally in order to stop scams of the form "if I don't have a dictatorship, there is a paradox, therefore I have a dictatorship" – if someone sets up such a situation, the correct/intended resolution is that there is a paradox and no dictatorship.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: CFJs 4075 & 4076 Assigned to kiako [Re: BUS: (@Notary, Arbitor) A Broken Promise]
On 4/9/2024 6:57 PM, nix via agora-official wrote:
On 4/7/24 07:19, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
I call for judgement on the statement "Yachay CAN cash Promise Q,
either by directly cashing it, or by transferring it from the Library
to emself and then cashing it."
I number this CFJ 4075.
I call for judgement on the statement "I CAN cash the promise
'Awakening'."
I number this CFJ 4076.
I assign CFJ 4075 to kiako. I assign CFJ 4076 to kiako.
Below is my draft-judgement on CFJs 4075 and 4076.
I am currently fielding gratuitous arguments towards R217 or previous
rulings on any of the four possible resolutions: I am not sure where
precedent is established or where the rules already claim specific
resolutions is correct, and don't think I know enough Agoran history to
know what to look for.
---
{{DRAFT JUDGEMENT OF CFJs 4075 AND 4076}}
Consider these four statements:
(A) I take Promise Q from the library.
(B) I transfer Promise Q from myself to Yachay.
(C) I take Promise Q from the Library.
(D) I cash Promise Q.
From these, there are four meaningful resolutions:
[W] Statements (A) and (D) succeed, while the others fail.
[X] Statements (C) and (D) succeed, while the others fail.
[Y] All statements fail.
[Z] The statements form a paradox.
where:
- [W] and [X] warrant judgements 4075 FALSE and 4076 TRUE.
- [Y] warrants judgements 4075 TRUE and 4076 FALSE.
- [Z] warrants one of 4075 and 4076 judged PARADOXICAL.
-
ARGUMENTS FOR [W]
i. We suppose (D) succeeds. Then one of (A) or (C) succeeds.
ii. Since (A) comes first, (A) should succeed.
iii. (B) fails, because if (B) were to succeed, (A) must fail.
iv. (C) fails because (A) succeeded.
One could argue for (iii) by claiming that is it IMPOSSIBLE for a player
to transfer a promise taken from the library.
-
ARGUMENTS FOR [X]
i. We again suppose (D) succeeds. Then one of (A) or (C) succeeds.
ii. (B) fails, to avoid a paradox/indeterminacy.
iii. (A) fails, because (A) implies (B), and (B) must fail.
iv. (C) succeeds, because (A) fails and (D) succeeds.
This holds if (B) "interrupted" the ability for (A) to resolve, forcing
(A) to fail (which consequentially forces (B) to fail.
(One can also arrive at this conclusion by stopping at (viii) in
ARGUMENTS FOR [Z], since it has been decided that (A) and (B) fail,
while (C) and (D) succeed.)
-
ARGUMENTS FOR [Y]
i. Suppose (D) succeeds.
ii. (A) should succeed.
iii. Since (A) succeeds, (B) is POSSIBLE and so succeeds.
iv. Since (B) succeeds, (D) fails.
v. Since (D) fails, (A) fails.
vi. Since (A) fails, (B) fails.
vii. All of (A) through (D) must fail.
This presupposes that (vii)-(viii) in ARGUMENTS FOR [Z] are invalid.
It's entirely fair to assume this; (ii)-(iv) determine that (D) must
fail, and so we can't later decide that (D) should actually succeed.
-
ARGUMENTS FOR [Z]
Extend ARGUMENTS FOR [Y] with the following (replacing (vii)):
vii. Since (B) fails, (C) could succeed.
viii. Since (C) can now succeed, (D) succeeds.
ix. (A) should succeed; (C) fails.
The only big jump here is (ix), saying that if (D) succeeds, (A) MUST be
able to succeed. I'm personally more convinced that (A) fails by
ARGUMENTS TOWARDS [X] (or that (iii) is incorrect by ARGUMENTS TOWARDS [W].)
-
Since [W] and [X] have the same judgements, I'm considering which to be
the correct one outside my jurisdiction, so plan to remain silent on it
if sufficient arguments towards both is possible.
{{END OF DRAFT JUDGEMENT}}
--
kiako
