DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: E•MO•TION

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Ah, forgot that cleanup time could do that. I intend without objection 
to cause Cleanup Time to amend the ruleset by replacing “registrar” in 
any places it appears with “Registrar”.


Does this require specifying an order? There might be just one such Rule 
anyhow, but if not?


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: CFJ on another Campaigning mess (Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921)

[Ørjan Johansen]

I make two CFJ, and request that they be linked:

  There exists a Rule entitled "Campaign Proposals, with power 3",
  with power 1.

and

  The ADOP SHALL NOT distribute Campaign Proposals for ongoing
  elections.

My argument for the first one is that proposal 7912 contains an obvious 
typo:



Enact a new rule entitled (Campaign Proposals, with power 3), reading as
follows:


My argument for the second one (which I thought of first) applies only if 
the first one is FALSE.


In that case, the new rule entitled "Campaign Proposals" and having power 
) states (possibly due to a missing "except"):



 A Campaign Proposal is an Official Proposal exempt from automatic
 distribution, and SHALL NOT be distributed as required by the rules.
 The election with which a Campaign Proposal is associated, as well as its
 Commitment, are essential parameters for an Agoran decision to adopt a
 Campaign Proposal.


That's a pretty strong prohibition, which seems to have no exemption for 
elections. Rule 2154 states the opposite, of course:



 When an election is initiated, it enters the nomination period,
 which lasts for 7 days. In a timely fashion after the nomination
 period ends, the ADoP CAN and SHALL, in the same message:
 1) If the election is contested, initiate an Agoran decision
to select the winner of the election (the poll). For this
decision, the Vote Collector is the Assessor, the valid
options are the candidates for that election (including
those who become candidates after its initiation), and the
voting method is instant runoff.
 2) Distribute all pending Campaign Proposals associated
with the election.
 3) If POSSIBLE per the following paragraph, end the election
immediately.


However, Rule 2154 only has power 2.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

[snip]

Enact a new rule entitled (Campaign Proposals, with power 3), reading as
follows:

 During the nomination period of an election, any candidate for that 
election

 CAN submit a Campaign Proposal for that election, provided e does not
 currently have a pending Campaign Proposal for that election, using the 
normal

 mechanism for proposal submission. Campaign Proposals SHOULD relate to the
 duties of the office up for election. Commitment is an untracked Campaign
 Proposal switch with values Committed (default) and Uncommitted. The author
 of a Committed proposal may flip it to Uncommitted by announcement.

[A Campaign Proposal is basically an extension of a candidate's platform,
allowing them to propose changes to any office that they wish to associate 
with

their election.

Commitment is basically stating whether a candidate wishes to be elected only
if their proposal passes. They can opt out of commitment, so that they can be
elected if it fails. This allows a player to encode "I will take this office
only if I can change it in this fashion." into the election system.]

 A Campaign Proposal is an Official Proposal exempt from automatic
 distribution, and SHALL NOT be distributed as required by the rules.
 The election with which a Campaign Proposal is associated, as well as its
 Commitment, are essential parameters for an Agoran decision to adopt a
 Campaign Proposal.

[The election procedure dictates when Campaign Proposals should be
distributed; they don't follow the normal distribution system. They also
have some additional essential parameters, although note that a player
can opt out of Commitment even after the proposal is distributed.]

 When a Campaign Proposal is adopted, it CANNOT take effect until
 the associated election ends. When the election ends, if the winner was the
 proposal's author, then any player CAN once make it take effect by
 announcement (with its power set as usual for an adopted proposal). If the
 conditions for a Campaign Proposal to take effect are met as a result of an
 action in a public message, the author of the message SHALL make it take
 effect in that message.

[Campaign Proposals need to meet two requirements in order to take effect:
their author must win the election and they must pass. The former is what 
ties

them to the election and allows candidates to safely submit conflicting
proposals. The latter is the safety guard (reinforced by rule 106 which
prevents non-adopted proposals from taking effect) to ensure that a
candidate can

This also means that voters can vote on the Campaign Proposals based on
whether or not they would be okay with the rule changes, knowing that
the actual choice of which one takes effect is dictated by the election
outcome.

Requiring them to take effect by announcement is a safety guard to
ensure that they don't take effect with no one noticing. In practice,
the Assessor will nearly always do this in the same message as resolving
the decision (and the poll, if applicable), however.]


[snip]


Amend rule 2154 (Election Procedure) to read as follows:

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:


{{{
 A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
 It is not possible to for multiple rule changes to occur
 simultaneously; any attempt to cause multiple rule changes
 without a statement of the order in which those changes should
 be made will have no effect and none of the changes will occur.
 Such a statement can be implicit in the order in which the
 changes are specified, so long as there is only one plausible
 possibility for the ordering.
}}}


"to for" (is there a minor epidemic of these?)

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:

[don’t know if anybody else shares this sentiment] Please use 
mail-archive instead of the built-in mailman archive. I have to dig up 
my mailman password every time, and it’s a pain.


I do.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:


Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule
 is repealed, it ceases to be a


I'm not sure the HLR is good for pasting directly into email.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: can we can't we can we can't we

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


If the majority of valid ballots (valid at the end of the voting
period) cast in the decision to adopt this proposal specify "OPTION A"
along with their vote, then amend Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?) by
appending the following paragraph:

 If a Rule states that an entity CAN, MAY, or SHALL perform an
 action, but does not explicitly specify a method for performing
 it, then "CAN by announcement" is specified by that Rule as a
 method for performing that action (subject to any conditions
 included with the CAN, MAY, or SHALL).


This seems like it will may horribly if there's a generally applicable 
method in a _different_ rule.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Draft: Spending Fix

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


So overall, I'm a bit concerned with the separate uses of "pay" and "spend"
given that they now function differently and spend includes destruction.  For
example, if someone says "I pay 1 AP to " then it would technically
fail, because "pay" is defined as a transfer and AP can't be transferred.
This is messy and confusing - we know what is meant, but this could lead
to people calling this out and lots of errors, and inconsistencies (i.e.
most times we let it go, but if someone has a game reason for invalidating
someone else's action, they might call it out).


(1) Make "spend" a synonym for "pay to Agora".
(2) Make destructible fixed assets transferable, but to Agora only, 
immediately after which they are destroyed.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report (revision 2)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


On Oct 11, 2017, at 12:17 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:


As Secretary, I flip the Floating Value to 20.


On Oct 11, 2017, at 12:29 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:


As Secretary, I flip the Floating Value to 22.


On Oct 11, 2017, at 12:54 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:


As Secretary, I flip the Floating Value to 9.


Something snagged my memory, so I went back and looked at the rules. We 
did, in fact, make this mechanism less brittle. From rule 2456 (“The 
Secretary”):


The Secretary CAN flip the floating value once a week by announcement. 
As part of eir weekly duties, e SHALL flip the Floating Value to the 
number of Shinies owned by Agora; e SHALL NOT ever set it to a 
different value. E SHOULD do this while publishing eir weekly report. 
If the Secretary discovers that e last flipped the floating value to an 
incorrect value and e would not otherwise be able to set it again yet, 
e CAN and SHALL set the value to what it should have been set to in the 
first place by announcement.


I note that this is still brittle - the _initial_ flip works, but when 
using the correction option, the CAN only applies when setting the value 
to what it _should_ have been in the initial flip.  And it cannot consider 
intermediate events.  I am not sure which of the three values above is 
currently the actual one.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3572 assigned to o

[Ørjan Johansen]

While the rules do not specifically define “an announcement of intent”, 
rule 478 (“Fora”) defines what it means to announce something:


A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to all 
players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. A 
rule can also designate that a part of one public message is considered 
a public message in its own right. A person "publishes" or "announces" 
something by sending a public message.


Note the use of “a clear designation of intent.” I hold that Gaelan’s 
messages were unclear.


This seems to me a misreading: The comma before "or" combined with the 
lack of comma before "and" clearly signifies that "a clear designation of 
intent" _only_ applies in the "sent to all players" case.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:

win-by-robbing-Agora proposal (that was intended as a real proposal, not 
just a scam vessel; if that proposal doesn’t exist, I create it with the 
text and attributes from the original message), but (barring a bug/typo)


Hm you only have to "specify" the proposal properties, not quote them... 
fiendish.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: Agency: PPE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:


Yeah, but in my question, I kind of meant before they were even created,
though I see the confusion because of my non-explicit wording... Gosh, now
I feel like such a hypocrite, criticising the wording of a rule then being
ambiguous with mine...


Before they're created, the easiest way to amend one is just to forget (or 
retract, although that has no official effect) the original intent and 
make a new one.  The final creation should specify which intent it refers 
to.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:

For the record, I’ve been re-wrapping rules as I touch them. Looking at 
the ruleset now, however, I’m not sure if I’ve been indenting to the 
right width…


Well I'm not sure which ones you've fixed, so...

The standard used to be something like 75 chars, including the indent.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


 A person SHALL NOT deliberately, by eir explicit, positive, and restricted
 action aid, abet, or induce the violation of the rules by another person; when
 e does so, e commits the Class-3 Crime of Being an Accessory. A person never
 is never an accessory if e is the only one participating in the violation.


"never is never"?

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Actions

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:


Seeing the recent report reminds me that I never resolved the quoted
intention, and I do so now.


I think you're too late - there's a general 14 day limit on dependent 
actions.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Superintendent] Weekly Report

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


Nothing prevents me from issuing a weekly report including the full
text of agencies. I therefore pledge to do so as long as I am
superintendent. There have been no changes to agencies this week.

NOTE: The portion of this report referring to the agencies Ben Öyle
Öneriyorum and G: Overlord of Dunce is disputed by pending CFJ and I
do not intend it to self-ratify (see CFJ 3522). The "EDITOR's NOTE"
also does not self-ratify.


On a brief search of the last posted ruleset (which is admittedly not up 
to date, but it's what I keep in my home directory) I don't think there's 
anything in the Superintendent's Report that self-ratifies anyway.  If it 
did, then your recent CFJ on the existence of BÖÖ would be trivial.


I suppose Agencies are similar enough to rules for self-ratification to be 
unsafe.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

[Ørjan Johansen]

Actually my point (2) was my greater worry, not rules.  It implies that 
your ratification may be utterly meaningless for the purpose you made it 
for - it creates an agency with a legally tweaked age but changes nothing 
in the past that depended on whether it existed on that date.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


I ratify this:


{{There is an agency with the following text.
"G: Overlord of Dunce  (GOD)
Head: Quazie
Agents:  G.
Powers:   1 - The ability to give notice to establish Agencies with
 Quazie as the Director or Head and G. as the only agent
 2 - The ability to establish Agencies with Quazie as the Director or
 Head and G. as the only agent".
That agency was established by a message sent by Quazie, purporting to
establish a message called "G is Overlord of Dunce", but the name of
the agency is, and has been since its establishment, "G: Overlord of
Dunce"}}


Don't worry about it affecting rules, it doesn't.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:

On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 09:24 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

[snip]

As others have mentioned, this kind of ratification has problems. The
system is designed to ratify _old documents_ with _simulated
retroactivity_ - not a _new_ document containing _retroactive claims_. I
see at least two issues:

(1) The impossibility of rule changes, that others have mentioned.
(2) It is really not obvious what
  "the gamestate is modified to what it would be
   if, at the time the ratified document was published, the
   gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified
   document as true and accurate as possible"
 means - what is a minimal change _at the time of publishing_ in
 order to achieve a retroactive claim _much earlier_?

In your case, the minimality in (2) might plausibly mean that it simply
changes "now" the state of the agency itself - but _none_ of the
intermediate side effects on other game state that are your real reason
for wanting to save it.


(2) has already been found to be a genuine issue that can prevent
ratifications working (and was the cause of a minor crisis in the
past); proposal 6930 (2 January 2011) was the fix proposal. Reading
posts from that time is likely to have relevant discussion. (I can't
find a relevant CFJ; that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't
one, of course, as searching old CFJs can be hard.)

--
ais523




--

From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Congratulations everyone!

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


Agora-Discussion traffic last month was 6 MB, significantly more than
our previous record of 2 MB from May. In addition to this,
Agora-Business traffic was a record setting 2 MB. Although these
records only go back to July 2013 (when archive gzip'ing ended), they
are an impressive sign that Agora is alive and well. Keep up the good
work!


Do MBs mean anything in this age of top posting, tag-filled html and 
multiple-version messages...


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:

It’s not the format that’s the problem. Many clients display the date a 
message was received, not the Date: of the message itself, when showing 
dates in message lists. Mine (Mail.app, macOS Sierra, up-to-date on 
patches) does this.


*Sigh* well, at least they cannot expect that to accurately tell when it's 
sent.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:


Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to
display anomalous Date: headers.


Could lead to some interesting time paradoxes, too (given that changing
the gamestate as though the message were sent at some other time than
the time the message was actually sent could potentially change the
timing at which the message self-ratifies, leading it to maybe self-
ratify multiple times). I'm not sure if there's any situation that's
outright broken, but it's confusing to think about.


Whoops, that does seem annoying.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:

Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to display 
anomalous Date: headers.


For example, this message's Date: header claims that it was sent on Jan 1st, 
2017.


I thought you meant "anomalous" as in weird format, yours looks normal to 
me.


If you're actually meaning "clients that cannot show any Date: headers 
easily at _all_", then I'm tempted to say those users deserve what they 
get.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

"The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a 
self-ratifying claim that the message was sent at the indicated time.”


Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to 
display anomalous Date: headers.


"A Date: header in standard-conforming format", then?

I guess that won't do either, given how flexible standard formats are and 
how stupid software is.


"A Date: email header in near-universally supported format".  Nailed it.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


So the TDOC precedent was set long ago in a very different ruleset.  I've always
been of the opinion that we should go with the Date: header, and the knowledge
that it can be forged for tiny advantage be dealt with by some kind of crime 
(e.g.
"if the date-headers show discrepancy, and that discrepancy would gain a
material advantage...") and say "not messing with the headers" is the same as
"not playing as two people from different accounts":  strong social pressure not
to do so, but not worth our time to be paranoid about.  The convenience of the
Date header all around is worth accepting that it's *possible* to fake.


"The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a 
self-ratifying claim that the message was sent at the indicated time."


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: voting strength question

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


However, what keeps non-players from voting is in R683:

 An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a
 notice satisfying the following conditions:
 [...]
 2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
initiation of the decision, a player.

Is this correct interpretation?  Or is there something elsewhere that
sets non-players' voting power to 0?


Well that rule seems clearly written to allow deregistered players to 
vote.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


[I think I did the CoE part of this message already, but I'm being very
clear here to be sure].


You cut that _very_ close to a week. And because of an erroneous clock 
setting in Nichdel's computer, quite likely not on the side you intended.


Mail headers:

Nichdel's resolution:
Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com (209.85.223.175)
 by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 26 Sep 2017 19:45:49 -
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:49:53 -0500

Your attempted resolution:
Received: from mxout25.s.uw.edu (140.142.234.175)
 by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 3 Oct 2017 19:48:07 -
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:45:18 -0700 (PDT)

As you can see, dependently on whether you count Date: headers or the time 
when the list server received it, your message was either very shortly 
before 7 days later, or very shortly after.  And given the orderings, 
nichdel's Date: header is probably in error, so it should be after.


I'm not sure which time Agora counts messages by these days, mind you.  I 
vaguely recall reading that the old "technical domain of control" 
precedent I set had been changed to something else, but not what.


Now, if you _did_ do your CoE previously, then I don't think this really 
matters.  But if you didn't, the original resolution may have 
self-ratified, and I think it then would no longer be overdue.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Another UTF-8 question (for o or someone else)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Could someone look at the index for cases:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/

And tell me why Ørjan's name displays correctly in CFJ 3565,
but not in CFJ 3470?


The first case involves a quoted message including 天火狐's CJK nick, and 
so probably got sent as UTF-8.


The second case has no special characters other than my own name, and for 
such messages my mailer (terminal Alpine) seems to use ISO-8859-15 (a 
western European charset, the revision of ISO-8859-1 with the euro sign, 
iirc) for sending.



Further, if you click through to the pure text version, the
situation is reversed.


ISO-8859-15 is mostly compatible with the Windows Codepage 1252 and 
ISO-8859-1 encodings, so if your pure text is served as either of those or 
something similar, the ISO-8859-15 is likely to be shown correctly in a 
browser.


For the other one, I can see it correctly as pure text by forcing UTF-8.


I'm guessing one uses a UTF-8 Ø, but the other uses some form
of extended ASCII?  So one displays in html not text, and the
other is vice versa?  And given that I get these from cutting
and pasting from email, is there any convenient way to tell
other than seeing the mistake or always having a hex editor
open?


Finding out my sending charset was surprisingly awkward because it's only 
given as a multipart header (for some reason it uses multipart format even 
though there is only one part), not a header of the email itself. Its 
format in the raw mailbox file looks like


Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

*Sigh*, I think these days, cutting and pasting ought to convert via 
Unicode to work properly.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: I think I fixed the rulesets

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:

I believe the rulesets on GitHub are now accurate. If something is still 
wrong, please speak up before I publicly embarrass myself again. :)


Still no farming in sight in the SLR there. Also, sneaking a peek at the 
HLR, rule 2496 looks misformatted.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: I attempt to Declare A NEW ERA

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


I withdraw my objection. I support the above-quoted intent.


This cannot be continued though:

  A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the
  intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same type of response.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: 🎵Spooky Scary Skeletonsð沁ｵ

[Ørjan Johansen]

Yep, as well as a weekly Silly Person (ideally appointed by the previous 
one) to make them.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:


Were Silly Proposals a game concept at that point?

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

[Ørjan Johansen]

After looking a bit, I think

(1) the person complaining may have been confused about Nichdel's 
erroneous assessment of Sep 7, or possibly just complaining that the SLR 
was late.
(2) however, the current SLR does not include any of the results from the 
_correct_ assessment of Sep 12, posted shortly after the last SLR.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

This is also missing the farming stuff, which was one of several things 
someone else complained was missing in the _previous_ Ruleset. (That's the 
one thing I recall. I didn't save the message.)


Greetings,
Ørjsn.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:


THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET

[snip]

DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

[Ørjan Johansen]

This is also missing the farming stuff, which was one of several things 
someone else complained was missing in the _previous_ Ruleset. (That's the 
one thing I recall. I didn't save the message.)


Greetings,
Ørjsn.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:


THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET

[snip]

DIS: Re: BUS: 🎵Spooky Scary Skeletons🎵

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


From the archives (by memory):


AN INSANE PROPOSAL IS A PROPOSAL IN ALL CAPS.

VOTES FOR AN INSANE PROPOSAL ARE SECRET AND CANNOT BE DISCUSSED,
EVEN IN PRIVATE.

IF NOT A SINGLE FOR VOTE IS CAST FOR AN INSANE PROPOSAL, THE
PROPOSERS WIN THE GAME.


Good times. I created the first version of that, although I understand 
people later rewrote it because they found it too unclear, not the least 
of which because it was a Silly Proposal and so had to be in verse:


()()()()
There exists an imbalance. To correct this inanity,
This Rule is created, enTitled "Insanity":

  An Interested Proposal is Insane, if it contains no minuscule letter.
  (That is the opposite of CAPITAL, for those who know not better.)

  For such a Proposal, until the Voting Period has ended:
  there shall be no discussing Votes, or this Rule has been bended.
  Nor shall a Player Vote in public, only to Assessor.
  The Votes shall be unknown to others, even employer and professor.

  And should it occur (due to greed or sin)
  that no one Votes FOR it, the Proposer shall Win.
()()()()

(The "imbalance" refers to Sane Proposals, which iirc used 
one-Player-one-vote at a time when it was otherwise easy to manipulate 
voting strength.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: 🎵Spooky Scary Skeletons🎵

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:


- Title: Terrifying Proposals Reward
- Content: The victor of the "The Terrifying Proposals" Proposal
Competition, once ever via this effect, can gain 3 Stamps from Agora by
announcement.


I get really queasy about proposals having non-instantaneous effects, 
although I recall someone pointing out there was an old such proposal 
already existing, so possibly it does work. (Although the competition 
fails for other reasons mentioned.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Guaranteed Stampage

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


On Sep 28, 2017, at 3:09 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:


Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Stamp Wins" with the following text:

   If a player owns 10 stamps with different Creaters, none of which
   have Agora as its Creater, e CAN win by announcement. Doing so
   destroys the specified stamps.


Specified where?


In the announcement is the only interpretation that makes sense.


I wasn't really asking how it _should_ be done, I was asking why the rule 
doesn't say how it works.


In particular, there is (1) no requirement to specify, and (2) no 
requirement that the specification uses the player's own stamps. (Shades 
of recent scam, anyone?)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


To avoid committing fraud I hereby specify that the document I am
attempting to ratify is inaccurate to the extent that no such agency
exists. Oh, I made a typo in the below ratification as well. I object
to that ratification and intend to, without objection, ratify this:


As others have mentioned, this kind of ratification has problems. The 
system is designed to ratify _old documents_ with _simulated 
retroactivity_ - not a _new_ document containing _retroactive claims_. I 
see at least two issues:


(1) The impossibility of rule changes, that others have mentioned.
(2) It is really not obvious what
 "the gamestate is modified to what it would be
  if, at the time the ratified document was published, the
  gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified
  document as true and accurate as possible"
means - what is a minimal change _at the time of publishing_ in
order to achieve a retroactive claim _much earlier_?

In your case, the minimality in (2) might plausibly mean that it simply 
changes "now" the state of the agency itself - but _none_ of the 
intermediate side effects on other game state that are your real reason 
for wanting to save it.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating election for the Assessor and Herald

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


FUCK WHY DID I INITIATE AN ELECTION FOR HERALD WHEN I MEANT TAILOR WE
JUST RE-ELECTED G. HERALD WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME!!!


High blood pressure, it seems.

On the bright side, no one else pointed it out...

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Guaranteed Stampage

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:


Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Stamp Wins" with the following text:

   If a player owns 10 stamps with different Creaters, none of which
   have Agora as its Creater, e CAN win by announcement. Doing so
   destroys the specified stamps.


Specified where?

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Experimental Bench procedure

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Experimental procedure for assigning CFJs.  You can just tell me
what Court you want to be on.  Favoring still works of course.
Comments welcome.


Is this allowed by the "reasonably equal opportunities to judge" clause?

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Fixing Fingers

[Ørjan Johansen]

Below, surely?

Would have been strangely amusing if they'd both passed... I've started to 
dislike proposals written in a way that's super vulnerable to race 
conditions.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


I rescind the above proposal.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


I create and pend with 1 shiny the following
Title: Two Words
AI: 1.7
Text: In rule 2478, Vigilante Justice, add the word "either" after the
words "shall conclude the investigation by" but before the colon.
Also, before the words "if e believes that no rules violation occurred
or that it would", add the word "or"
--


From V.J. Rada





Proposal 7886 already contains a fix.

Greetings,
Ørjan.




--

From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Fixing Fingers

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


I create and pend with 1 shiny the following
Title: Two Words
AI: 1.7
Text: In rule 2478, Vigilante Justice, add the word "either" after the
words "shall conclude the investigation by" but before the colon.
Also, before the words "if e believes that no rules violation occurred
or that it would", add the word "or"
--

From V.J. Rada




Proposal 7886 already contains a fix.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: CFJ (Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7899-7904)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


If you just say "I vote as G. does" that to me reads like voting the
same as my current vote, which wouldn't change if I changed my current
vote.  I don't think there's anything in "I vote as G. does" that
makes it sound conditional.


Hm, that leaves the possibility that the ballot is actually invalid 
because of ambiguity of whether it's conditional or not.  From rule 683:


  4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
 the voting method.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Screw all of this

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


I _still_ did not receive this message. You're cursed.


How long before we notice someone has been playing for years, but we've 
never received eir messages...


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: proto: losing conditions

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


 A Checkered Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for
 violations of the rules that directly and substantially result
 in a Win.  When a Checkered Card has been issued and not been
 the subject of an open CFJ for seven days, [the win is revoked]


That doesn't actually say that the win stays if the CFJ Judgement says the 
Card was wrong. :P


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Such is karma

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:

If the majority of players are convinced to attack someone then there 
will not be enough people to punish the full attacking group.


But if they're a majority, then they can just pass a proposal anyhow.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: proto: losing conditions

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:

It may be valuable to have some actions (voting on a Decision, for 
example) be automatically disqualifying for some short amount of time (2 
hours or so) to help prevent timing scams.


Won't work because of the time gap between end of voting and resolution.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: proto: losing conditions

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Proto:  "losing conditions"


Seems this isn't really popular, but I'll point out a couple bugs anyhow:


 When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game,
 and those persons are not Disqualified from winning as
 described by the Rules, those persons win the game;


This seems a little unclear if there are several persons, only some of 
which are Disqualified.



 Until e publishes such an apology, as a penalty, the bad sport
 is disqualified from winning, and the bad sport's voting strength


Looking at the rest, I assume you didn't mean to make this 
disqualification be without a time limit?


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Such is karma

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


   While the Karma of the Community Chest is not equal to 0, the
   Herald CAN and SHALL publish a Notice of Honour specifying the
   Community Chest as a gainer or loser in place of a player; to
   be valid, it must be specified such that the result would move
   the Karma of the Community Chest closer to 0.  For selection
   players in such transactions, the Herald SHOULD use standards
   of behavior and game balance befitting the spirit of the game.


This has an interesting timing issue if the Community Chest is more than 
one step away from 0.  Thanks to "timely fashion", I think the Herald will 
_usually_ be able to spread the Notices so none are in the same week (and 
thus invalid) without breaking a time limit, but it could get awkwardly 
close...


Greetings,
Ørjsn.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:


I have started working on an economic simulation.


*Channeling Nick Bostrom...*

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:

If you don’t specifically call my attention to it, I can say with a 
straight face that I believe that there are no unpunished violations, 
but once someone brings it to my attention, that would be a lie.


There's a certain Bayesian problem here: If an average week is more likely 
to contain a violation you managed to ignore than not, then someone 
presenting evidence of this might make it illegal for you to continue 
doing this.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

assigned to _a_ judge, singular, implies or dictates only one judge at 
once.


I don't think it does, especially in the context of the last part of the 
sentence.  It's perfectly readable as just an existential.



   When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN
   assign a valid judgement to it by announcement,


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in R991.

Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for me
with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same
message.


You'll need to judge it in the same message as well.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:


I have aimed to make this response as concise as possible.

我反对。我反对。


Like others, I'm doubtful that this works, but possibly for a different 
reason.


Although you may have many enough "我反对"s, _each_ of them is an action 
that is ambiguous as to which intent it is objecting to, thus they all 
fail.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


===Metareport===


Your tables are horribly misaligned.  I suggest using a programming editor 
that can actually handle monospace text.  (And don't use tab characters.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote:


To be honest - I only did it cuz I'm unsure if subject line only actions,
even if noted by the rules, even work.


I really cannot see why giving effect to subject lines shouldn't work when 
a rule (2463) _explicitly_ mentions it.


I still don't think rule 2463 works in the way tried here, though. 
The way we usually interpret dependent actions, the subject line would be 
on the _resolving_ message - the _intent_ still needs to be an ordinary 
announcement.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


This is Cuddlebeam-esque and I'm ashamed of myself. But I
will now copy and paste "Without objection, I intend to win by
apathy", until there is thousands of  copies of that text, each of
which is a seperate action. Under the precedent of several CFJs,


[snip]

I object - to the horrible formatting.

I am also just not quite tempted enough to register just to propose 
either/both:


* outlawing quoting huge parts of messages when not specifically 
responding to those parts
* nullifying actions buried after huge quotes or inside published 
documents


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


Oh yeah, I'm late on my ADoP report. By notifying you here it makes it
probably illegal to list that you believe no un-remedied rules
violations have occurred the preceding week. So you might have to use
your fifth summary judgement.


Hm, an actual obligation caused by a -discussion message...

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


Title: Make Your Home Shine
Author: o
Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan, V.J Rada
AI: 1.7



Ratify the following statement:

   {
   The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017.
   }


You need AI >= 3 for ratification.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


Do you want this distributed with this weeks distributions?


That's a still buggy version, so probably not.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


-Aris

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

Ugh, I missed a pledge, and I’m not sure that retroactive creation would work. 
I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and submit the following 
proposal in its place:

Title: Make Your Home Shine
Author: o
Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan
AI: 1.7

{{{
Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:

{
Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
pledges are secured.

To "pledge" something is to create a pledge with those terms. A
person CAN pledge by announcement.

To "retract" (syn "withdraw") a pledge is to destroy it. A
person CAN retract a pledge they own without objection.

To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in
any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the
Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an
intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting
player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should
be considered broken.

It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in.
}

Destroy every pledge.

Create a pledge owned by Quazie, whose terms are

{
I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
source info in the explanation).
}

Create a pledge owned by G., whose terms are

{
 This pledge is known as The Prosecutor's Office

 1.  I CAN revoke or alter this pledge by giving 4 Days Notice.

 2.  If a CFJ is submitted to The Prosecutor's Office (private or
 public to me, but not in Discussion), I shall follow the
 following formal process to resolve the matter of
 controversy:

 a.  I shall enter it into the bottom of the Judicial Queue.

 b.  At most once per day, and and most 5 times per week, I'll
 initiate an Agoran Call for Judgement on the CFJ on the
 top of the Judicial Queue (also barring judges as
 requested by the submitter).

 c.  By request, the submitter may remain anonymous.

 d.  Absolutely free of charge, as able, I'll research and
 add gratuitous arguments in favor of the submitter's
 position, and I'll not argue against the submitter's
 position except in private with the submitter.

-G.
}

Create a pledge owned by V.J Rada, whose terms are

{
However I now pledge to include more recapping of agoran events
in future newspapers.
}

Create a pledge owned by o, whose terms are

{
I pledge that, for the next month, if I have not yet paid a
total of 30 shinies under this pledge, and a player pledges to
pay me 6 Shinies within a month, I will pay em 5 Shinies in a
timely fashion.
}

Ratify the following statement:

{
The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017.
}

Create a pledge owned by Gaelan, whose terms are

{
I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
}

Ratify the following statement:

{
The only pledge owned by Gaelan was created on Sep 14, 2017.
}
}}}

There are other pledges in play, but in my view they are either already
discharged, or irrelevant, and it would not be in the game's interest
to carry them forwards.

-o

DIS: Re: BUS: QAZ is out

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote:


24 hours having passed, QAZ has been revoked.  Now that this is done,
explain what could've been done to stop this?


Um, you need to do the actual action.  With Notice is a dependent action, 
not automatic at the end of the period.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Assessing Votes

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:


Due to a stressful trip coming up this weekend and the size of the


There was a part of my brain that expected the rest of the message to 
contain "I deregister".


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: test

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:

This worries me. Is there something in the SLR that is incorrect? Given 
that your scam doesn’t work, I see little harm in you sharing.


The last paragraph of rule 2491 is duplicated. I don't see how that allows 
any scam though...


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: test

[Ørjan Johansen]

I received it too (but already deleted it, after briefly seeing if I could 
spot anything funny in the headers but I didn't), what's wrong with it?


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:


I received this, but I concur with Aris this could be a problem. I am slightly 
concerned that gmail users may be forming a cult of their own.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com




On Sep 18, 2017, at 8:22 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

test

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] The Lint Screen

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:


I create the proposal “The Lint Screen” with AI 1 by Gaelan:
{{{
Create a rule “The Lint Screen” with Power 1: {{
The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the Promotor with 
possible values including all lists of text. The default value is an 
empty list. The items in the list SHOULD contain a list of common errors 
in proposals. Any player CAN flip The Lint Screen by adding, modifying, 
or removing an item with Consent.

}}


"Agoran Consent"


Add this as a new paragraph to 2445 “How to Pend a Proposal:” {{
It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless the pended and at least one 
other player have publicly stated that they have reviewed (“linted”) the 
proposal for the issues listed in the Lint Screen.

}}


"Append this" - or is "Add this" unambiguous enough?

"unless the pender"

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3557 judged FALSE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


Just when I think I've resolved all the problems. *sigh* I file a
motion to reconsider CFJ 3557, and invite arguments about why exactly
I shouldn't just rule that CAN (or SHALL) implies "by announcement"
whenever it makes sense. Seems like a perfectly reasonable ruling, all
things considered.


The thing I'm worrying about is whether "it makes sense" includes "even if 
somewhere else defines a mechanism for the action".  E.g. the example of 
"The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal Pool at 
any time." (Admittedly "somewhere else" is the previous paragraph in that 
case.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:

   {
   Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
   is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
   pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
   pledges are secured.



Destroy every pledge.


I believe a proposal cannot destroy an indestructible asset.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Proto] IRV formalization

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:

Create a new rule, “Instant Run-Off Voting”, with power ??? and the 
following text:


When the voting method for an Agoran Decision is instant run-off, then, 
for that decision, a valid ballot consists of exactly one of the 
following:


* PRESENT.
* ENDORSE and the name of a person.
* A list of zero or more of the valid options for the Agoran Decision.

Ballots CAN include conditions. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a 
ballot consisting of a list CANNOT include conditions other than those 
that apply to the whole list.


[Plus some glue for defining the win condition for an IR vote, 
determining quorum, etc.]


I don't think creating a new rule is enough. There are already rules 
speaking about most of these things, and this would just conflict with 
them.


Or, actually, be redundant:  My cursory reading of the relevant rules 
tells me that the rules are _already_ saying everything this proposal 
does, except _possibly_ for the restriction on conditions - and only in so 
far as custom is to be lenient with expressing conditions - I think they 
still already resolve to conditions on the whole vote (i.e. list of 
options).


I think a source of confusion is that Rule 955 and Rule 2127 seem to use 
"option" in incompatible ways. Rule 955 is the only rule that explicitly 
considers a vote not necessarily to consist of a single option, while Rule 
2127 on the contrary defines conditionals under the assumption that a vote 
is a single option.


Assuming that the word "option" is _not_ meant to refer to the same thing 
in those two rules, the options listed in an IRV vote are _not_ themselves 
votes, and so already cannot be either PRESENT or ENDORSE.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


I publish the following ADoP weekly report.


The alignments are rather out of whack here (and not just the one with 
Japanese in).


Greetings,
Ørjan.


Informal Measures
Consolidation (number of filled offices over number of officeholders): 1.556
Late reports: (number of late reports as a percentage of reports): 23.53%
Empty offices (Empty offices as a percentage of offices): 17.64%

This report is effective as of 11pm GMT on 13 Sep
Date of Last Report: 2017-09-06

Note: The "holder" column self-ratifies
Office  Holder  Since   Last Election  Can Elect
-
Arbitor  Y
Assessornichdel  2017-06-05  2017-07-16
ADoP[1] V.J. Rada  2017-06-05  2017-09-13
Herald  G. 2017-09-06   2017-09-13
Prime Minister VJ[2] 2017-09-13   2017-09-13
PromotorAris2016-10-21   2017-05-26  Y
Referee o   2017-04-172017-06-09   Y
Registrar   PSS[3]  2017-04-18  2017-06-09  Y
Regkeepor   Aris  2017-09-13[4] 2017-09-13
Reportor 天火狐2017-09-13 2017-09-13
Rulekeepor  Gaelan  2017-05-17 2017-05-26 Y
Secretary   o   2016-11-06  2017-06-27
Speaker   CB[5]   2017-09-13[6]  2014-04-21  Never
SuperintendentY
Surveyoro   2017-05-08 2017-05-10   Y
Tailor  Y
Agronimist   Babelien 2017-09-13  Never   Y

[1]Associate Director of Personnel
[2]V.J. Rada
[3]Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
[4]Disputed, although Aris is the regkeepor, he may have held the
office earlier.
[5]Super disputed and does not self-ratify. Stands for Cuddlebeam
[6]Also disputed

Office  M[1]  Report  Last Published  Late[2]
---
ADoP[3]   Offices 2017-09-13   if i get
this done fast, no
Herald  Y Patent titles   2017-09-04
Promotor  Proposal pool   2017-09-11
Referee   Rule violations 2017-09-12
Registrar Players, Fora   2017-09-03   !
Registrar   Y Player history  2017-08-01!
Regkeepor Regulations 2017-09-07[4]
Reportor  The Agoran Newspaper2017-09-13
RulekeeporShort Logical Ruleset   2017-09-11
Rulekeepor  Y Full Logical Ruleset2017-08-25
Secretary OLEBaS[5]   2017-09-12
Secretary   Y Charters2017-09-02
SuperintendentAgencies (incremental) 2017-08-28 !!
Superintendent  Y Agencies (Full) 2017-08-01  !
Surveyor  Estates   2017-09-13
Tailor  Y Ribbons 2017-08-24
Agronomist   FarmsNever
---
[1] Monthly
[2] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed.
[3] Associate Director of Personnel
[4] Disputed
[5] Organizations, Lockout, Expenditure, Balances, and Shinies

===Events===
Not this week! I was considering breaking the tie in favour of o. for
this reason but I wanted regular elections to be ensured. I apologize
for my inefficiency in this regard.

[snip]

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Come What May

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


Sorry I was wondering whether to use it for elections or just for
reports. I pledge to do what Orjan said.


Thank you.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Draft] Make Your Home Shine, or, Contracts On The Cheap

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


Title: Make Your Home Shine
Author: o
Co-authors: CuddleBeam
AI: 1.7

For the purposes of clarity, no existing pledge is intended to carry 
over into this system, and this proposal does not imply the creation of 
any assets corresponding to existing pledges.


For even more clarity, say it directly:

All previously existing pledges are hereby destroyed and do not carry over 
in any way into the system created by this proposal.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Proto: Banking and Bonds

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:


As a suggestion, it might be good to add that there is a Newbie Funding
reserve, something like this?:

The Newbie Funding Reserve are the shinies that are contained within
Agora's balance level of 0 and 50.

Agora cannot make any transfer to grant shinies to others except grant
Welcome Packages if the Newbie Funding Reserve isn't full.


Slightly buggy: It should be "if it would cause the Newbie Funding Reserve 
to become less than full", or else the balance is probably going to end 
up hovering in the 40s.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Come What May

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


I initiate an election for the office of Agronomist, as no election for this office 
has happened in the last 90 days (r. 2145). I stand for >>election for this 
office, but if a player who has no offices would like the job, I would prefer that 
Agorans vote for them before me.


I initiate the Agoran decision for the determination of Agronomist.
The quorum is 2.0 and the vote collector is the ADoP. I vote by
endorsing o.


I'd like to ask you to _please_ use the customary [ADoP] etc. tag for (at 
least bigger) officer actions.  It's how I search for them in my 
mailbox...


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Retracting my CoE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


I retract my recent CoE. The latest secretary's report is NOT a tissue
of lies. Carry on.


As far as I can tell, there is still no general allowance for retracting 
actions.


Greegins,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rewards

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


Is it possible to use the "any player may assign an unassinged CFJ to
emself without three objections" rule?


Doesn't work because it's not unassigned.  We even had a recent CFJ that 
people don't stop being judges by being deregistered (as Sprocklem just 
was).


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


Rule 1551:
"When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at
the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had been
minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate
as possible. Such a modification cannot add inconsistencies between
the gamestate and the rules, and it cannot include rule changes unless
the ratified document explicitly and unambiguously recites either the
changes or the resulting properties of the rule(s). If no such
modification is possible, or multiple substantially distinct possible
modifications would be equally appropriate, the ratification fails."


I suddenly notice that the rule has two different "modified", the "as 
if" modification and the actual present one that emulates it.  And that it 
would be rather disastrous if the rule change prohibitions applied to the 
latter... but it's ambiguous enough that best interests of the game 
probably chooses the saner interpretation.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Test of Confidence

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:


But if you're really that incensed by me playing the game, I'm happy to
take my ball and go home. Just say the word.


That gave me a vision of "what if deregistrations were as easily triggered 
as registrations".


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


7887*  Aris  3.0  SLR Ratification Aris1 sh.


AGAINST.

I’m strongly pro-ruleset-ratification, as it has not been done since 
well before I joined the game. However, ratifying that version at this 
point in the sequence of proposals may invalidate proposals within this 
distribution, more or less at the whim of the Assessor. Furthermore, I’m 
not a fan of including the entire ruleset by reference.


Let’s coordinate to ratify the ruleset more carefully. This also might 
be a good use case for Ratification Without Object, rather than 
Ratification by proposal, as RWO requires unanimity.


As already mentioned, RWO won't work and ratifications are designed to be 
"essentially" retroactive. And the ruleset version ratified is even a year 
old, so it's not going to interact with the current chaos unless 
ratification itself is broken somehow.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

I am still interested, but I would like to note to ais, that I did not 
receive his original message to which you are replying.


Ironically ais523 always has problems with your messages being spam 
filtered, but his email workaround this time didn't seem to get to several 
gmail users.


I received it, anyway.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7876-7898 [sic]

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:


Why the switcheroo on university funding?


E's circumventing eir own pledge.  Not very good at holding a grudge I 
guess. :P


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Proto] The Lint Screen

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:


{{{
The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the 
[Rulekeepor/Promotor] with possible values including all lists of text. 
The items in theIt SHOULD contain a list of common errors in proposals.


"theIt"? Maybe add something about silly editing errors ;)

Any player may flip The Lint Screen by adding, modifying, or removing an 
item with Consent.


It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless two players have publicly 
stated that they have reviewed (“linted”) the proposal for the issues 
listed in the Lint Screen. [Note that this has no teeth; if necessary, 
any proposal can still be passed]

}}}


For easier maintenance, the pending should require naming and/or quoting 
the reviewers.  Otherwise someone would need to track this too.


* actions which would be problematic if performed too frequently have a 
time limit. [Agency spam scam]
* the changes described in the proposal can be discerned from the 
proposal itself, without needing to reference the current ruleset, i.e. 
by specifying titles of changed rules and providing previous text 
instead of replacing rule text entirely [pet peeve of mine. Don’t know 
if anybody else minds]


I mind it too, unless it replaces the _entire_ rule - not just because I 
want to see what it changes but also because I imagine race conditions 
like one proposal splitting a paragraph and another editing a later one 
by number...



* all rules are created with sufficient power, and the AI is high enough
* created rules are formatted correctly.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [very early proto/idea] Inter-Nomic Currency

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:


Also, I've found this as a public paste on Pastebin a while ago which
suggests that there is another Nomic out there, although I haven't been
able to find it (or the coup never happened): https://pastebin.com/dEwyiMRq


I've never heard of it but I recognize comex and Ienpw_III who're old 
Agorans and sometimes on the IRC channel.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Shiny Weather

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


 Determining the weather to be Improving sets the Supply Level
 25% higher (rounded down).  Determining the Supply Level to
 be Deteriorating sets the Supply Level 25% lower (rounded up).


I think you mispled one "weather" as "Supply Level".

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Card Reform and Expansion v2

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


Amend Rule 2474, "Green Cards", to read in full:

 A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor, accidental,
 and/or inconsequential infraction. A Green Card is also appropriate for any
 infraction for which no other type of Card is appropriate. It appropriate to


"It is appropriate"


 issue a Green Card to a non-player person who plays the game, for the
 infractions previously described. When a person is issued a Green Card, e
 is ENCOURAGED to travel to the United States.
 When a Black Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 days, any player
 CAN once, with Agoran Consent, Slam the Door at the bad sport. After the Door
 is Slammed at a person, e CANNOT not register or take any game actions for


"CANNOT register"

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Card Reform and Expansion v2

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


 When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL
 investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL
 conclude the investigation by:

  - issuing a Card to the pointed-at person by announcement whose
reason is rooted in the allegation;

  - if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it
would be ILLEGAL to issue a Card for it, announcing the
Finger Pointing to be Shenanigans.


I was going to complain that it now reads like the investigator _always_ 
has to do the first item.


Then I checked, and it already does.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Restraining Bolt

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


I don't think this one is needed, because the definition of distribution
resolves to an Agoran decision initiation, described as a publishing action
elsewhere. In fact adding "by announcement" might do more harm than good.


It shouldn't do any harm as far as I'm concerned. I distribute
proposals like this:

"I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 3.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
also a valid vote)."

That phrasing works fine either way.


My worry was that it could allow "by announcement" to be used _instead_ of 
publishing all the required information. But I see rule 103 will take 
precedence anyway.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Restraining Bolt

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


   {{{
   In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year, the
   Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a Birthday
   Tournament for that year; the Herald CAN also delegate the
   responsibility for creating or running the tournament to
   another player, with that player's consent, by announcement.
   }}}


Misses the initial SHALL (it is clear from the rest of the rule that it's 
not speaking about making a Proposal).



   Amend rule 1607 ("Distribution") by replacing the third paragraph
   with:

   {{{
   The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
   Pool at any time, by announcement. The Promotor SHALL NOT
   distribute proposals which are not pending.
   }}}


I don't think this one is needed, because the definition of distribution 
resolves to an Agoran decision initiation, described as a publishing 
action elsewhere. In fact adding "by announcement" might do more harm than 
good.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


Rule 2431 doesn't seem to restrict where specifications can be made.


"With Agoran Consent" is sufficient to restrict this to being done via 
the public fora, because rule 1728 specifies that an action with that 
constraint can be done by announcement (“thereby allows em to perform 
the action by announcement if…”).


I mean the specification by a competing Player in the second paragraph, 
there's no Consent on that.



Rule 2495 is unclear on what needs to be public.


Less so than you’d think, by the same coin, but there are some unbound 
CANs here.


I guess it's just the first paragraph (applies to a SHALL too).

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


ninja'd


*MWAHAHAHA*

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


"Using existing terminology (I hope correctly), an action which CAN be
performed, if the rules impose no other constraints, can be done in
any way at all"

Here's a list (it's quite short) of CANs w/out "by announcement", "w/o
objection" or anything similar.
"The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal Pool
at any time."


This is fine because distribution is defined more precisely elsewhere.


"A player CAN expedite a proposal whose adoption index is at most 1.5,
in a message containing the character string "[Expedition]" in the
subject line,"


I think this is also fine, assuming the message has to be the same in 
which e performs the listed option.



"then the Prime Minister CAN and SHALL, once and in a timely fashion,
appoint a Laureled player to the office of Speaker."
"Once per week and except as otherwise forbidden by this rule, the
current Prime Minister CAN issue a Cabinet Order and perform the
action(s) authorized by that Order."


Yep, got those too.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


Nope the text for CAN is this: "

CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.


Hm so searching for CAN...

Rule 2431 doesn't seem to restrict where specifications can be made.

Rule 103 doesn't seem to say how the Prime Minister can appoint a Speaker.

Rule 2451 doesn't require announcement of Cabinet Orders themselves, nor 
for assigning emself as judge (the other two options have publishing 
requirements elsewhere).


Rule 2495 is unclear on what needs to be public.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: MAYS that should be CANS PLEASE READ THIS WE'RE SO FUCKED

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

I looked through every MAY, there's no probs having it imply CAN in all 
cases.


Hm looks like you're right. I guess the need for the opposite is so rare 
it can just be written more explicitly.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: MAYS that should be CANS PLEASE READ THIS WE'RE SO FUCKED

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

I already looked through these and posted a less elaborate list, although:


"A Reward is a specified amount of shinies associated with a Reward
Condition. For each time a player meets a Reward Condition, e MAY
claim the specified award exactly once within 24 hours of meeting the
Reward Condition."
No rewards either. ALL REWARDS WERE ILLEGAL


No, I think this one is fine, "claim" is a natural communication action 
and the next paragraph gives it effect.



"If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most recently
registered, any player MAY cause em to receive one by announcement."
NO WELCOME PACKAGES AA


There's already a proposal to fix this one.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Shinies and Stamps Omnibus Fix Thread

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:

1a. Whatever fix we undertake should _not_ somehow resurrect actions we 
had all understood, within the context of that mistaken reading of the 
rules, to be ineffective or impossible at the time they were performed.


There are a few shiny transactions that clearly didn’t happen no matter 
what version of the rules you use, such as my attempt to claim a reward 
for a proposal which had not been assessed.


As I recall, both of Cuddlebeam's Stamp scam attempts fall under this too, 
but not Gaelan Steele's response.


(Otherwise, your 1-3 are pretty much what I thought too.)

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Agoran Offices: Should there be more of them?

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


P.S. Yellow Card apology word lists appear to have the same MAY/CAN bug.


I don't think that counts, because "specify" is a common sense ability 
that persons have naturally.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Floating Intent attempt

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document:
  { On Mon Sep 4 21:49:56 UTC 2017, the Floating Value was set to 16. }


Hm, I've recently been thinking about ratification a bit, and this happens 
to hit one of my quibbles.


  When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be
  if, at the time the ratified document was published, the
  gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified
  document as true and accurate as possible.

Now, although you are ratifying a document about Sep 4, your document is 
clearly _published_ now on Sep 8.


This means that it's _now_ that the minimal modification is calculated. 
And dependent on what has gone on between Sep 4 and now, this may not be 
the same as the minimal modification that would have been applied on Sep 4 
itself.


In particular, it is possible that it would affect only the Floating Value 
itself, and not the result of any other events (like actions assuming a 
flawed Floating Value) happening between Sep 4 and now.


This might be close enough in this case, since it's only 4 days apart, but 
it's something to think about if you try to pass a bigger ratification 
later.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: not-buying a not-stamp

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

Rule 2467 may not enable creating Agencies - that's a "MAY", so I'm a 
bit surprised no one seems to have picked up on this. If "may"s are a 
problem, amendment, revocation and use is also impossible.


This is resolved because of ratification of the reports, within which it 
is included.


That's probably true for creation, amendment and revocation. I don't think 
it's true for every possible use.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Agoran Offices: Should there be more of them?

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:


Proto: Royal Flush
When you possess all different card colors, you win the game


OK I laughed.

Greetings,
Ørjan, who never lols though.

DIS: Re: BUS: not-buying a not-stamp

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


I transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies, to create a Stamp.

I know this is very likely impossible, I'm not trying to mislead anyone.

But if we ratify everything to what would-have-been, I want my cheap stamp.


I'll just note that the currently awaiting Ratification Without Objection 
won't help you here, since it only affects past holdings and doesn't fix 
the MAY issue itself.


Also, I searched for may/MAY in the last posted Ruleset.  I found only one 
"MAY" people seem still to have missed, but there are a lot of cases where 
"may" is used in a way that would break if it were synonymous with "MAY" 
rather than "CAN".


Rule 478 may not enable changing Forum publicity.

Rule 2493 may not enable enacting/modifying regulations.

Rule 2500 may not prevent someone going negative AP.

Rule 2431 may not prevent more than one simultaneous competition. (Unclear 
since it's not really about actions.)


Rule 208 and 955 should probably use "can" instead of "may", in principle.

Rule 991 may not enable barring from judgement.

Rule 2492 feels like it's probably okay, but still probably should use 
"CAN".


Rule 2467 may not enable creating Agencies - that's a "MAY", so I'm a bit 
surprised no one seems to have picked up on this. If "may"s are a problem, 
amendment, revocation and use is also impossible.


Rule 2464 may not enable repealing tournament regulations.

Rule 2491 may not allow bidding on auctions. (Depends on whether a bid is 
just an announcement.)


Rule 2483 makes me queasy. Can I own Shinies, even if I may not?

Rule 2485 may not enable heir flipping.

Rule 2480 may not enable flipping Festivity.

Rule 2495 should probably use "can" instead of "may".

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:

This appears to be more valid, though I’ll still need to sanity-check 
it. Notably, several rewards which I had previously thought would be 
invalidated are instead permitted. I’ve still avoided breaking any 
proposals or CFJs, but given the duration, I can only attribute that to 
the AP system taking up most of the slack.


How does this interact with already effected self-ratifications, and with 
flipping of the Floating Value?


Evil grin,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Stamp destruction

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:


So the mass-stamp destruction scam did work?


Even if the MAYs were to be ignored, your attempts still would fail for 
the other reasons, although Gaelan Steele's attempt might have worked.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Proto: Cards are liquid Assets

[Ørjan Johansen]

A previous economic system included a currency, Blots, which could be 
spent to resolve penalties early.


When I was around, the currency was Indulgences, and Blots were the 
penalties you could remove with them.


(At one point the definition was 1 Blot = -1 Indulgence, but that was 
changed later when currencies became more asset-like, or something.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


"Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this
rule change fails due to ambiguity?"

No because "currently" refers to when the proposal was promulgated and
it is abundantly clear which rule I mean: there is only one "Rewards"
with the sentence being replaced.


I am not convinced. It is customary for proposals to contain conditions 
like "if proposal  has passed", which only make sense if conditions 
are evaluated when the proposal takes effect.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7869-7871

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, nichdel wrote:


In the rule currently not assigned a number called "Rewards", replace the text
 {{  * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies.}}
with
 {{ *Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies. This reward can be claimed
 a maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and once per office
 per month for a monthly report.}}


Since the rule now _has_ been assigned a number, does that mean this rule 
change fails due to ambiguity?


Greetings,
Ørjan.