Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7548-7586

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote:


On 25 Aug 2013, at 08:51, omd  wrote:


On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

COE: That is not ambiguous as it has exactly one reasonable interpretation.


I transfer Y5 to the Assessor (Oerjan).


I'm treating this as having failed.


Rubbish, that was also completely clear and effective!

Also you are currently dreaming, and are really a horse in a stable.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A major series of reforms.

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, omd wrote:


On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Sean Hunt  wrote:

No. New gameplay ideas are for when the core is working. It is not
right now. The four most important offices are all empty. We do not
have the resources to build new gameplay.


I am vaguely inclined to take a Keynesian approach to activity: lack
of it is a reason to start doing something new/interesting (although
it is also a very good reason to remove unused gameplay).


Wouldn't the Keynesian approach be to remove unused gameplay during times 
of activity, not inactivity?  I keep hearing that the failure to do have 
done the equivalent and then end up needing to do deep cuts during the 
recession itself is a main reason for the world (well at least European) 
economy's current mess...


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: A major series of reforms.

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:


Transfer Zombie G. to Fool, amend its text to "I perform the LEGAL
actions specified by the casher in the cashing message. I create a
promise identical to this one and transfer it to the casher.", and set
its expiry to the epoch.


This suddenly made me realize that the author destruction condition in the 
original promise (and many of the other Zombie promises) is almost 
entirely useless, since the casher can simply use the promise to create a 
new indestrucible promise.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Trying again

[Ørjan Johansen]

NttPF

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Tue, 20 Aug 2013, Joe Stefek wrote:


If this was a nomination for me, I decline my nomination.
--aperfectring

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Benjamin Schultz
 wrote:
  On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Charles Walker
   wrote:
  I initiate an election for the office of Herald.
  Nominations close four days after the publication of this
  message.


I nominate H. New Player aperfectring.

--
OscarMeyr

DIS: Re: BUS: The Tibetan Contest

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote:


      The Contestmastor


AAA! It should only apply to -keepor dammit! :(

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Ambassador-at-Large] Note on nommit

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Geoffrey Spear wrote:


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Craig Daniel  wrote:

Agora has never been invaded that I'm aware of,


My first registration was part of a very ineffective invasion (from
Nomicapolis, IIRC).


So ineffective that Agora never noticed? :P

(Although an _effective_ invasion which Agora never noticed would also be 
something.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: agoran language

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013, Benjamin Schultz wrote:


I thought Blob was the first Agoran to insist on being addressed with Spivak
pronouns.


Ah right I remember his viscous persona.  And he was probably not 
coincidentally also the author of the rule using one in that Nomic World 
ruleset I linked.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Ambassador-at-Large] Note on nommit

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013, Craig Daniel wrote:


Agora has never been invaded that I'm aware of, but is still a little
paranoid about it and has more robust mechanisms for trying to stop such
things in a hurry.


Agora _has_ invaded other nomics though.  I vaguely think the first time 
we did so (Rishonnomic) may also have been about the time we first made 
mechanisms to prevent it happening to us.  (I don't actually remember, 
though.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: agoran language

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013, Max Schutz wrote:


i am just curious and i don't there was EVER an explanation given but i see
e in liue he almost like pirate language i am just wondering if those
dialects are like designated agoran language


Yes, Agora traditionally uses the gender neutral Spivak pronouns: e, em, 
eir.


A quick search reveals that they were used already in the initial ruleset. 
Perhaps they were inherited from Nomic World, I found a single use in the
ruleset linked at 
.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3381 assigned to ais523

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013, Fool wrote in response to Craig Daniel:

I also notice that nothing stops anyone else from repeating what you just did 
and also winning. I'm sure a lot of people see this. And yet nobody's doing 
it. It sort of looks like nobody cares.


I understood ais523's judgement to mean that such scams could always be 
counterscammed by preventing some other aspect of the destruction before 
the 4 days of notice is up, e.g. by using Gerontocracy.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: Fwd: DIS: Ambassador's Survey - Your Chance To Win Great Prizes!

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:


If I'm not mistaken, this hasn't gone through yet.


I distinctly recall seeing it before.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Future of Agora

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, omd wrote:


although I suppose it's the job of an invasion to be polite,


Someone should have told that to the mongols.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Future of Agora

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:


On 4 August 2013 02:54,   wrote:

You may argue that after this long, there is probably *some* other reason why 
the platonic gamestate is wrong, and a few have been proposed over the years.  
But we try our best.


If sufficient mail archives were obtained, I for one would find it an
interesting long-term collaborative project to attempt to reconstruct
the current platonic gamestate of Agora from scratch, with the goal of
figuring out how to align it with what we've been assuming the
gamestate is at the end.


Aside from G.'s arguments, I would like to point out that there have been 
times when game actions where taken outside the list, in particular at 
some times votes were sent directly to the Assessor.  Any undetected 
errors in recording these prior to the establishment of Ratification would 
seem to be utterly unfixable.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Future of Agora

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Fool wrote:

Ratification is a legal fiction. Lacanist obscurity implies that the goal of 
the participant is deconstruction, but only if consciousness is distinct from 
language; if that is not the case, we can assume that discourse must come 
from the masses. In a sense, several narratives concerning a mythopoetical 
totality exist.


Consciousness is part of the defining characteristic of truth, or rather the 
absurdity, and eventually the stasis, of consciousness. Thus, the rules are 
interpolated into a posttextual libertarianism that includes narrativity as a 
whole.


It could be said that the example of Lacanist obscurity exists already in 
rule 217, although in a more postsemantic sense. The rules are contextualised 
into a textual subcultural theory that includes language as a reality. 
Therefore, a number of theories concerning Lacanist obscurity may be found.


OK, please tell which Markov chain generator did you use for this.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Benjamin Schultz wrote:


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:



I dunno, I hear cats are quite proficient at using keyboards.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


I think you mean "sleeping on keyboards".


I fail to see how sleeping on is not using.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stuff

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Charles Walker wrote:

Davy I may, however, struggle with the requirement to be generally 
capable of communicating via email.


I dunno, I hear cats are quite proficient at using keyboards.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: May as well REALLY settle this

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Michael Slone wrote:


I think I'm missing something in the rules, though.  Actions
performed with notice require Agoran Satisfaction (1728(c)).
Rule 2124, which defines Agoran Satisfaction, appears to require
the action to fall into one or more of the following categories:
without N objections, with N supports, or with N Agoran Consent.
Where in the rules is it specified how Agora can be Satisfied with
an action to be performed with notice?


It does not say it has to fall into any category, it says that for each 
category it _does_ fall into, the corresponding requirement must hold.  If 
it doesn't fall into any, then there is no requirement needed.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7530-7547

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:


On 29/07/2013 7:46 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

See the recent TIME OUT scam... making someone not an eligible voter
does set their voting limit to 0.


I'm claiming you haven't made them not eligible voters in the first
place, even if you deregistered them.


That was the TIME OUT scam -- made someone inactive before resolution. And it 
would have worked if it weren't for those pesky kids.


I don't see anything in the Rules where activity changes affect votes on 
proposals after the voting period has already begun.  If that was judged 
to the opposite effect I would suggest a reconsideration.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7530-7547

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:


On 29/07/2013 7:33 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:


I assume Assessor.

Voting results for Proposals 7530-7547:


COE:

By Rule 1950, the eligible voting entities are set at the _distribution_
of the proposal. I am not sure whether your scam succeeds (well, I doubt
it succeeds at all, but hypothetically) at cancelling the votes already
cast by deregistering voters, but even if it did they would FAIL QUORUM
instead of passing.


See the recent TIME OUT scam... making someone not an eligible voter does set 
their voting limit to 0.


I'm claiming you haven't made them not eligible voters in the first place, 
even if you deregistered them.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:


If they dispose of their dictatorship quickly via win+trophy, Agora
typically tolerates them. (Sometimes there's a race where someone with a
power-1 dictatorship tries to get it at a higher power; normally the
time limit for that is long enough for the dictatorship to be removed
via proposal, and it's considered unsporting, but nonetheless
occasionally attempted, to use the dictatorship to prevent the proposal
taking effect correctly.)


I suspect scams that make it very hard to get whether it worked clearly 
resolved by CFJ (because neither CotC nor who is an eligible Judge is 
agreed upon, and the scammer's preferred option has _only_ himself as the 
options) are not too popular either :P


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:


On 29/07/2013 6:20 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:


The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused
deputy, with rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can
destroy a promise with notice IFF the sentence in its "destruction by
author condition" slot is true. So:

- Sentence A: I can do Y.
- Sentence B: IF (I can do X), THEN (Z is true).
- Rule 2337 says that (I can do X) IFF (sentence A is true)
- Rule 2337 says that (I can do Y) IFF (sentence B is true)


The way I read it Rule 2337 implies IF, not IFF.



One clause says IF. Another clause secures promise destruction, and there's 
no other instrument allowing it, so ONLY IF.


I think if you are going to prove it's constructively valid, you need to 
be more precise on that point. (Not that I've checked yet whether it works 
with either IFF or just IF.)


I think constructively securing acts as "if not explicitly permitted, then 
not possible".  Which means it's (IF x THEN y) AND (IF (NOT x) THEN (NOT 
y)), which I think is _not_ constructively equivalent to x IFF y.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Gratuitous arguments for logicians

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:

The sentences in question are not directly self-referential or even 
mutually-referential. This is more of a Curry-flavoured confused deputy, with 
rule 2337 as the deputy. It says that the author can destroy a promise with 
notice IFF the sentence in its "destruction by author condition" slot is 
true. So:


 - Sentence A: I can do Y.
 - Sentence B: IF (I can do X), THEN (Z is true).
 - Rule 2337 says that (I can do X) IFF (sentence A is true)
 - Rule 2337 says that (I can do Y) IFF (sentence B is true)


The way I read it Rule 2337 implies IF, not IFF.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:


"received" is what the recent precedents indicate. (The rules require
the message to be "sent via" a public forum, rule 478, and it hasn't
gone via the forum until both the sender has sent it, and the recipient
has received it. Also I can't construct a circumstance where those
events happen out of order.)


What about sending a message publically by sending it to all players 
individually, as is still allowed?  Then the main recipient might receive 
it before it has finished sending to all players.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:


Finally, CFJ 866 seems to be relevant background reading too (and also
supports this verdict), and may be responsible for the TDoC confusion
(in that it holds that the /recipient's/ TDoC is what matters, not
the /sender's/ TDoC).


FWIW IMO as the original Judge, CFJ 866 holds that it is the recipient's 
TDoC that matters for when a message is _received_.  Whether Agora chooses 
to let a message take effect when sent or when received is a different 
matter, which may have changed during the years - I vaguely think that at 
the time votes may have been defined to take effect when _received_ by the 
Assessor.  Also note that at the time voting was allowed to be in private, 
thus public fora were not involved.


I would correspondingly find it natural for the TDoC of the sender to be 
consulted for when a message is _sent_, if the rules were otherwise 
silent, which however they currently are not (date stamps), albeit in a 
not very clarifying way.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

I would correspondingly find it natural for the TDoC of the sender to be 
consulted for when a message is _sent_, if the rules were otherwise silent, 
which however they currently are not (date stamps), albeit in a not very 
clarifying way.


Oh also I suspect one reason for my invention of TDoC was to clarify 
matters using concepts not intrinsically tied to using email - other means 
of sending private messages were allowed at the time (I once left my votes 
on Steve and Geoff's answering machine).


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, omd wrote:


Right.  Mailman is really "vintage" code... The list should now:
- rewrite date headers to be the actual time of receipt, as briefly
attempted before;
- include a new X-Timestamp header to provide additional precision if required;
- by default, only send back copies of list mail if the subject was
changed.  You can change this back to always on the list options page.
(If you had previously chosen never to receive copies, you don't need
to set that again.)


Let me go on the record as saying that I am disturbed by the first item, 
and positively hate the last one, since I am using the back copy as 
confirmation that the message got through.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Let's make timing scams more interesting

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:


More Interesting Timing Scams (AI 3, Proposal Fee Y20)

Add a new paragraph to rule 478, just before its last paragraph:
{{{
As an exception to the rest of this rule, no message is a public message
if, during the 1-hour period that ends when that message was sent, a
first-class player paid the Silence Fee (a Budget Switch) for the first
time that week.
}}}
[The idea is that you can stop a suspected votebomb or the like via
muting the lists an hour earlier. This is limited to 1 per week per
first-class player in order to avoid any potential of scams involving
chain-muting the lists. It's also not equivalent to just moving the
deadline 1 hour earlier; because silence can be effectively chained by
an alliance of players, it's not clear how many hours before the
deadline that a timing scam should be carried out. This shouldn't cause
R101 problems because most things can wait an hour, and it doesn't
remove anyone's right to participate in the fora, just their right for
their messages to actually do something.]



I note that this can just as well be used by the perpretators of a 
votebomb to allow them to make it early, and then silence any 
countermeasures until the end of the voting period.


Oh, and chaining silence may be somewhat tricky, since you have to wait 
enough for the next Silence Fee not to be canceled by the previous one.


Not that any of these things make this less interesting.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador-at-Large] Foreign Relations

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:


Entreco Rule 8, Idealism:

  The state of Entreco is determined by what its players believe
  that it is. The state of the game can be changed by the
  consensus (including unintentionally, if a mistake is made in
  applying the rules, and the mistake is not caught quickly). 


Yowsers. What is the state of the game during periods when there is no
consensus? Is the state of the game retroactively altered if a period of
controversy is succeeded by the formation of a consensus?


Ooh, I smell a cultural collision!

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: The Wisconsin Line-Item Veto

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:


On Jul 13, 2013, at 4:01 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2013, omd wrote:

Proposal: The Wisconsin Line-Item Veto (AI=2)



When a Signed Copy is submitted, its Power is set to the minimum

   ^^^

of four and adoption index of the proposal, and then it takes

  ^^^

What Machiavelli said.  Are you sure it shouldn't be maximum.


Pretty sure. "The minimum of four and the adoption index" means "either four or the 
adoption index, whichever is smaller".


How did I manage to read that backwards :P

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: The Wisconsin Line-Item Veto

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2013, omd wrote:


Proposal: The Wisconsin Line-Item Veto (AI=2)



 When a Signed Copy is submitted, its Power is set to the minimum

^^^

 of four and adoption index of the proposal, and then it takes

   ^^^

What Machiavelli said.  Are you sure it shouldn't be maximum.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Alliance Shennanigans

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, John Smith wrote:

I intend with 1 ais523 support to join the alliance containing ais523.

CfJ, barring ais523: "If ais523 immediately replies to that intent with 'I support 
and do so', I become a member of the same alliance as ais523."

Arguments: 
With the current wording of Rule 1728, the person who says "I do so" performs 
the action, regardless of who the initiator is.  This results in ais523 joining the 
alliance.

Evidence:

ais523 is the only member of his alliance according to the most recent 
Registrar report.


I'm not sure why this is a scam or shenanigan, as either way it requires
ais523's support.  Seems like a straightforward use of the rule.


Except for ignoring the current Gerontocracy complication.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: several messages

[Ørjan Johansen]

...and on second thought, I don't think including the proof was actually 
necessary, since that only applies to the _text_ of the promise, not its 
condition. :P


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Ørjan Johansen wrote:


*sigh* pf

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

Oh hm, reading further it seems I must also include proof that the 
conditions are satisfied.

[snip]

DIS: Re: several messages

[Ørjan Johansen]

Oh hm, reading further it seems I must also include proof that the 
conditions are satisfied.


I once again attempt to cash this promise, with the message further below 
as proof the conditions are satisfied.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Ørjan Johansen wrote:


On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:


I submit the following promise:
Text:  As punishment, I transfer 10 Yaks to the casher of this
  promise.
Conditions for Cashing:  This promise has been in existence for
10 seconds or more, and G. has published a message at any time
after this promise was submitted.


I cash this, just because I think I maybe can.

Greetings,
Ørjan.




On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:





2 CFJs, requesting linked:

1. Immediately after this message is published, it will be IMPOSSIBLE
to cash the promise cited in evidence.

Arguments: Due to it violating my R101(ii and/or v) rights.
Evidence:

I submit the following promise, Vow of Silence:
Text:  As punishment for participating in the public fora, I transfer

 10 Yaks to the casher of this promise.

Conditions for Cashing:  This promise has been in existence for
10 seconds or more, and G. has published a message at any time
after this promise was submitted.



2.  Immediately after this message is published, it will be ILLEGAL
to cash the promise cited in evidence.

Arguments: Due to it violating my R101(ii and/or v) rights.
Evidence:

I submit the following promise, Vow of Silence:
Text:  As punishment for participating in the public fora, I transfer

 10 Yaks to the casher of this promise.

Conditions for Cashing:  This promise has been in existence for
10 seconds or more, and G. has published a message at any time
after this promise was submitted.

DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Ambassador-At-Large and Promotor Elections

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:


I hereby initiate the Agoran Decisions to select the holders of the
offices of Ambassador-At-Large and Promotor. The vote collector is the
IADoP; the eligible voters are the active first-class players.

The candidates for Ambassador-At-Large are Walker and Roujo.
The candidates for Promotor are omd and Machiavelli.

The voting period lasts for 7 days.


I see that Roujo is also the CotC.  Have you considered Rule 2378?

[...]
  If the Clerk of the Courts ever holds the office of
  Ambassador-At-Large, then, rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding, the Ambassador- At-Large becomes Assumed.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: My First CFJ

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote:


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Lindar Greenwood
 wrote:

I initiate a CFJ on the following:

The common vernacular for someone who does something is Xor, where a Xor Xes.
By rule 2408 the 'recordkeepor' is the title for one who keeps records
(or recordkeepes).
By rule 2404,2405,1769, and many more, the 'Promotor' is the title for
one who promotes.
Therefore, the term 'player' is incorrect.


Note that we also have officers, officeholders, voters, publishers,
performers, and owners.  Generally, only capitalized titles get the
"or" treatment.


FWIW, as I recall this spelling idiosynchrasy started early in the game 
with a misspelling of "Rulekeepor", perhaps the first "officer" position 
to be added besides the original Speaker.  (Although to digress, I think 
for quite some time the Speaker itself was kept outside the Officer 
system.)


It was later extended to other offices, but back in my day the unusual 
spelling was only applied to the suffix "-keepor".  It definitely did 
_not_ apply to more general "-er" suffixes, and I recall at least one 
suggestion for doing so (possibly "Bankor") was discarded.  Of course this 
did not prevent a fondness for officer titles whose normal English 
spelling ended in "-or" as well.


However I see that the current ruleset contains "Yak Herdor" and (not an 
office) "recruitor".  I think all the other "-or" suffixes I could find 
are acceptable English spelling (although "Promoter" vs "Promotor" seem to 
have similar numbers of Google hits.)


Also, the capitalization customs have changed greatly, in earlier periods 
it was almost mandatory to capitalize nearly every Agora-specific term. 
Although this had already been reduced last I was a Player.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 assigned to G.

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:

Generally I don't think it's true the "meta-agreement" is subject to amendment
by even "true" nomic. There are still limits. What if we made Agora purport to
be played by the NZ All Blacks?


This would paralyze the rule until we waited for a confirmed NZ person to post,
or would just create a legal fiction of role-playing.  It's not a problem.


And on the bright side, we might get a Haka.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote:


I meant "buggy requirement" as a hypothetical in my quote (as in,
"satisfies the requirement if it's bugged").

FWIW, I meant omd's interpretation when I wrote the rule originally. Not
that that really counts for anything. (And not that either
interpretation is obviously broken.)


Before Steve pointed out the ambiguity, I also read it with omd's 
interpretation.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote:


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

Did 4 days pass since the declaration of intent already, and if it did so,
given the strong precedence claims, does that mean the action can now be
performed? (Since no Elders have objected yet.)


Yes.  In fact, it could be performed even if Elders objected, and I'm
not sure if the argument that the action "depends on objections" is
correct.  I just mistakenly thought Machiavelli meant that the
Gerontocracy is irrelevant to time limits in general, and was thus
unaware of that CFJ.


Um no, if Elders object _before_ the attempt to act, Rule 2357 says that 
Agora is not Satisfied with the intent, and so point (c) of Rule 1728 
would not be complied with.


What I'm unsure of is whether, and how long, it is necessary to wait for 
objections before performing the action.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Would I be an Elder if I registered?

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:


R2357:

  An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered
  continuously for at least 32 days, and also registered for at
  least 128 days total (not necessarily contiguously).

I was registered continuously from 1 July 1994 until 19 June 2004. If I
registered now, would I instantly be an Elder? I think I would be, as the
Rule is written. If the Rule had meant to prevent this, it should have said
..."registered continuously for 32 days since eir most recent registration,
etc."


Hmmm...

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013, omd wrote:


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Tanner Swett  wrote:
Pretty sure the Gerontocracy is irrelevant. The only things that matter 
(pretending Lindar's message was effective) are that Fool announced 
intent within the correct time period, Fool is authorized to perform 
the action, the action depends on support, Lindar has supported the 
action, and Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent.


See scshunt's recent CFJ.


Hm so if I am understanding correctly:
* without Gerontocracy, there would be no time limit before the action 
could be performed, since it only would depend on Support.
* with Gerontocracy, it automatically depends on Objections, and so a time 
limit applies. (Currently 4 days as far as I understand.)
* The provisions in the Gerontocracy rule about right to Object take 
precedence over all other relevant rules, and are worded without any 
consideration of time limits.


Did 4 days pass since the declaration of intent already, and if it did so, 
given the strong precedence claims, does that mean the action can now be 
performed? (Since no Elders have objected yet.) If not, does every 
Dependent action have to wait until the Gerontocracy ends?


Greetings,
Ørjan (not registered, so if anyone else wants to use the above arguments 
for anything, feel free.)

DIS: Re: BUS: hi oerjan

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2013, Elliott Hird wrote:


I intend, with 3 elder support, to declare a gerontocracy.


Is the joke that I've been a Player before y'all and still am not an 
Elder? (Or even registered.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement, CFJ 3343

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:


On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Ed Murphy  wrote:

3343:  FALSE

If any party's constitution actually authorized party members to act on
its behalf, then such an inference would be valid.  However, no party's
constitution currently does so.



I intend to appeal this judgment with 2 support, as I think that this
fails to adequately address the complex and nuanced ISIDTID arguments,
and in particular the amount of authority that the ruleset gives to a
Party constitution beyond that given by the rules.


Isn't a more obvious problem with the judgement that it ignores the usual 
meaning of the word "generally" in the statement? I.e. that it refers to a 
generality that is _not_ dependent on the current state of any party's 
constitution?


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Sudden epiphany

[Ørjan Johansen]

Agora is older than Eternal September...

Greetings,
Ørjan.

RE: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:


My dim recollection is that it took a kind of high level scam (in the sense
of loophole exploitation, there was no attempt to win) to move away from the
Mutable/Immutable distinction. But we didn't get straight to the Power
system - that came later. The intermediate stage involved the definition of
a class of 'Semimutable' rules. A loophole permitted these to take
precedence over the Immutable Rules, and hence (temporarily) to amend
Immutable Rules with less than unanimous support.


Ah yes, that triggers my dim recollection too :)

[snip]

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, omd wrote:


INACTIVE PLAYERS (8)

PlayerInactive since
----
Pavitra   31 Mar 13
Kolja  7 Apr 13
Wooble 7 Apr 13
Machiavelli   13 May 13
Tomas 21 May 13
ais52326 May 13
Henri 17 Jun 13
Max Schutz23 Jun 13

[1] legal fiction; actually 4 Jun 13


That seems to be a dangling [1].

Greetings,
Ørjan.

RE: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Chuck Carroll wrote:


I also have an idea or two about how a group of players could get around the
requirement of unanimity for making a rule mutable against a single player
determined to prevent all such transmutations.


My vague memory is that something like that is how Agora got its 
Mutable/Immutable distinction changed into the Power system - I think 
there were no votes requiring unanimity involved.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

RE: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013, Chuck Carroll wrote:


A very similar thought had occurred to me, except the Speaker could do even
better than independently selecting a Judge for each possible set; e could
link the sets in such a way to maximize the probability that the same Judge
is selected for each set. I'll demonstrate with a simple case of two
proposals and four voters; the actual situation would be more complex but
the principle is the same.


Heh, that seems so simple in afterthought, I cannot remember if that was 
ever done in Agora when I was around...


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: irc session reminder (XX players may be interested)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote:


There will be an irc session in celebration of Agora's birthday in the
##nomic channel on Sunday 30th June (tomorrow) starting at 21:00 UTC.


I am a little confused by this.

Agora's birthday is Sunday 30th June, but in the +1200 (New Zealand) 
timezone, which does not intersect Sunday 30th June 21:00 UTC.


Is this supposed to start at 21:00 UTC during Agora's birthday (in which 
case it has already started) or at 21:00 UTC during UTC 30th June (in 
which case it's in a little less than 22 hours)?


I guess I should just drop by ##nomic to check :)

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Informally Happy birthday

[Ørjan Johansen]

Happy birthday, Agora!

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: You know...

[Ørjan Johansen]

Someone should probably update the agoranomic webpage not to say "2010" 
everywhere hth.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:


And we have a last minute registration, Ørjan. Just in time to lose!


Yay!

* resolves to read proposals before voting on them in the future :P

Greetings,
Ørjan, still an old-timer in spirit.

Re: DIS: Re: Boo!

[Ørjan Johansen]

Hi Blob and Chuck!

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013, Malcolm Ryan wrote:


Ørjan, hello!

Blob

On 29/06/2013, at 12:50 AM, "Chuck Carroll"  wrote:


Hi!

-Original Message-
From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On
Behalf Of Ørjan Johansen
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 9:58 AM
To: Agora Discussion List
Subject: DIS: Boo!

Sometimes you just have to be there.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Registration

[Ørjan Johansen]

I register as a player in Agora XX
(I hope this is how it is done.)

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Boo!

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:


Hello old friend! I thought of you several times today. How are you?


"It's complicated".

Greetings,
Ørjan. (I haven't said this for years!)

DIS: Boo!

[Ørjan Johansen]

Sometimes you just have to be there.

Greetings,
Ørjan.