Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alexis Hunt]

Huh? When?

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley, <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
> still possible.
>
>
> On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
> >
> > Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise
> > for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election,
> > perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
> >
> > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au
> > <mailto:j...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
> >
> > I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
> > confusion
> > is really troubling...
> >
> >
> > On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
> > > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
> > been
> > > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
> > >
> > > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
> > > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
> > might be
> > > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
> > missed
> > > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
> > > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
> > Rulekeepor
> > > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
> > > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
> > report).
> > > I think every other office is OK?
> > >
> > > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
> > weeklies
> > > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them
> are
> > > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
> > > important.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:aler...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
> > >>
> > >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
> > keeping them up
> > >> to date.
> > >>
> > >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
> > original
> > >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
> > be the
> > >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alexis Hunt]

Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...

Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise for it
with appropriate notice. They could also start an election, perhaps with a
campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

> I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in confusion
> is really troubling...
>
>
> On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
> > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've been
> > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
> >
> > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
> > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it might be
> > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of missed
> > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
> > report but it would take another week for you to deputize. Rulekeepor
> > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
> > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a report).
> > I think every other office is OK?
> >
> > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my weeklies
> > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are
> > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
> > important.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
> >>
> >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been keeping
> them up
> >> to date.
> >>
> >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the original
> >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may be the
> >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
> >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  wrote:

> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
>

The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been keeping them up
to date.

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the original
precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may be the
single most common CFJ text of all time).

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:42 Telnaior  wrote:

> Found it :D
> Alexis gains a Karma for being helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for being
> slack on reporting (I think he's Rulekeepor?)
>

E is. I believe this fails, however, for not clearly specifying it is a
notice of honour?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alexis Hunt]

It was in one of the last two proposal resolutions. Our rulekeepor has been
a bit slow as of late.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:29 Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

> Thankyou :D
> Though I haven't been able to figure out what the karma actually is or
> where it comes from? If someone could explain or link to where it was
> set up, that might be helpful...
>
>
> On 2017-10-22 13:25, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > This is a Notice of Honour: Cuddle Beam loses a Karma for blocking
> > standard culling of inactive players, and Telnaior gains a Karma for
> > coming back with vigour.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Apology

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 21:53 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, given that this makes things more interesting... I SH-CFJ (or
> AP-CFJ if the action would otherwise fail due to lack of shinies) "If there
> were currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy
> the universe by announcement, without defining the effect of this action,
> and I announced that I destroyed the universe in that way (all other
> aspects of the gamestate being as they are now), my announcement would, as
> far as the game is concerned, have the effect it purported to have." I
> request that the judge consider the situation both with and without
> existing power 4 rules (101, 1698, and 2029) and also whether the
> destruction of the universe in this way would have practical effect upon
> the game. I also request that the H. Arbitor link the cases and that they
> have a combined caselog. I'll probably have more arguments later, and
> invite the arguments of others.
>
> -Aris
>

Arguments: FALSE, because Agora Is A Nomic.

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Alexis Hunt]

Easy enough for people to do that now with contracts, I think.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 20:42 ATMunn .  wrote:

> This might be a good place to start, but it's certainly way too long in
> itself. I don't really like the (a) (b) (c) etc. way that this is written.
>
> Another thing was that I was thinking that the auction rule could permit
> any player to auction off anything, regardless of whether or not a rule
> specifically allows it. (as long as it would not be ILLEGAL or IMPOSSIBLE
> to auction off that thing) I don't exactly know how this would be worded,
> however.
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
>>
>> > This is a very interesting conversation. I'll just say my opinions on
>> everyone's view, and throw in my two cents at the end.
>> >
>> > ​Regarding the original tax idea, I think that the idea of tax in
>> general is something that is really lacking from Agora.
>> > I like to think of Agora as a country, and the rules as an
>> ever-changing constitution. What country doesn't have taxes?
>>
>> Main difference of course is that Agora doesn't have an intrinsic
>> government to fund.  Sure it's got officers who
>> are expected to have perks but those perks don't have to be economic.
>> Not that I'm against taxes as a concept
>> but I think taxes before having something to buy is putting the cart
>> before the horse.
>>
>> > Right now, there's really only one type of auction in the game;
>> however, if we start adding more then it might be nice
>> > to have a standard definition of auctions and method of resolving them.
>> I was going to work on a proposal draft for this;
>> > but then decided not to. Maybe it would be a good idea after all.
>>
>> While I don't want to be all "we've done this before" and it's fine to
>> re-invent, this is also a good place for
>> re-enactment, especially as auctions can be quite complicated.  Here's an
>> old (and probably too long) version:
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rule 1887/18 (Power=1)
>> Auctions and the Default Auction Procedure
>>
>>When an Auction is to be held and the procedure is not
>>specified, the Auctioneer may select a rules-defined Auction
>>Procedure. If e does not specify which procedure is to be used,
>>the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.
>>
>>The Default Auction Procedure is as follows:
>>
>>(a) Auctioneer: the Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the
>>Auction, and is responsible for collecting bids and
>>announcing the result of the Auction. If the Rules require
>>(or permit) an Auction to be initiated, but do not specify
>>which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker shall (or
>>may) initiate it.
>>
>>(b) Bidders: every active Player may bid in an Auction;
>>non-active Players may not bid. Activity is measured at the
>>time a Player sends eir bid.
>>
>>(c) Auction Currency: each Auction is conducted in one
>>particular currency. The Rule providing for a particular
>>Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction
>>cannot take place.
>>
>>(d) Number of lots: each Auction is conducted for 1 or more
>>identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned
>>by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the
>>number of lots up for bid in the Auction.
>>
>>(e) Start of Auction: the Auction begins when the first
>>announcement that an Auction has begun is made by a Player
>>authorized to initiate the Auction. The announcement must
>>contain:
>>(1) the identity of the Auctioneer;
>>(2) the Auction Currency;
>>(3) the number of items being Auctioned; and
>>(4) the value of the Starting Bid.
>>
>>(f) Errors in initiating Auctions: if one of the required
>>elements is missing from the announcement initiating the
>>Auction, or is incorrect, then the Auctioneer may let the
>>Auction stand Without 2 Objections. If the Auction stands,
>>then the announcement initiating the Auction is deemed to
>>have been legal and correct for the purposes of the
>>Rules. If the Auction does not stand, it is deemed not to
>>have occurred.
>>
>>(g) Starting Bid: the Starting Bid is the minimum possible value
>>of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is
>>equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.
>>
>>(h) Bidding: a bid is a public message from a bidder identifying
>>the Auction e is bidding in, and specifying the amount of
>>eir bid. Each bidder may make as many bids as e 

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 20:00 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
> Yes the differences are (1) not everyone is on the list, and (2) the GWtoO
> is a recordkeepor, not the chooser of promotions and (3) it very much a
> sub-part of
> the economy, not a standalone game, especially the auction part (I don't
> think the 2011
> version had auctions?)
>

No, you spent Notes to promote/demote yourself or others.

What I had in mind for the choosing is self-selection:  When there's a
> vacancy, the
> Oligarchs of the next level down vote on which one of their number to
> promote.
> Bribes galore!
>

Have you played Kremlin?

Alternately, we could make it some kind of bidding on each level.
>
> We could also choose a different name for everything, Oligarchy is the
> idea, not
> the required name.
>

I like it.

Re: DIS: Idea: Taxes

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 19:48 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> I'm personally working on an Oligarchy proposal.  For those who haven't
> been
> under an Oligarchy, this works as follows:
>
> 1.  Players can be Oligarchs.  There's a pyramidal hierarchy.  Current
> draft
>  has 4 low Oligarchs, 2 middle, 1 high Oligarch.
>
> 2.  Seats at the lowest Oligarchy level are auctioned on a regular basis.
>  This raises funds.
>
> 2.  Various mechanisms for moving through the Oligarchy level from Low to
>  High.
>
> 3.  Main reward:  Oligarchs get more votes on Proposals, proportional to
> their
>  rank.  So you're buying yourself into voting influence.  It's
> significant
>  enough that the Oligarchs have the main voice on AI-1 and AI-2.
> proposals
>  For Proposals above AI-2, Oligarchs don't have extra votes.
>
> 4.  Every Quarter, the high Oligarch is retired from the Oligarchy to keep
>  the rotation going.
>

I like this, but I hope it's interestingly different from Caste, or I will
have to argue we're now in the Make Agora 2011 Again era :P

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbon fix

[Alexis Hunt]

I think there's enough precedent in the real world from googling "illegal
value".

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 18:56 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> I think it matters.  Illegal isn't a common definition for impossible, and
> the switch rule talks wholly of possible/impossible.  But sure if you
> think so.
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > I don't think that it matters given that it's not capitalized. The
> normal interpretation principles here would mean a value which is not
> valid, I think.
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 17:08 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   Do you mean IMPOSSIBLE?  Given that there's no SHALL or SHALL NOTs
> associated
> >   with owning ribbons I can't see the situation where it would be
> ILLEGAL...?
> >
> >   (I think you mean "if a player's Ribbon Ownership has an
> impossible value")
> >
> >   On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >   > Proposal: Ribbon Preservation Act (AI=3){{{
> >   > Amend rule 2438 by appending the following to the second
> paragraph: "If the rules are amended to change the types of Ribbon, if a
> player's Ribbon Ownership is subsequently illegal, then it is updated by
> >   > removing all nonexistent types rather than resetting the entire
> value to default."
> >   > }}}
> >   >
> >   > I pend this for 1 shiny.
> >   >
> >   > -Alexis
> >   >
> >   >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbon fix

[Alexis Hunt]

I don't think that it matters given that it's not capitalized. The normal
interpretation principles here would mean a value which is not valid, I
think.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 at 17:08 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> Do you mean IMPOSSIBLE?  Given that there's no SHALL or SHALL NOTs
> associated
> with owning ribbons I can't see the situation where it would be ILLEGAL...?
>
> (I think you mean "if a player's Ribbon Ownership has an impossible value")
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Proposal: Ribbon Preservation Act (AI=3){{{
> > Amend rule 2438 by appending the following to the second paragraph: "If
> the rules are amended to change the types of Ribbon, if a player's Ribbon
> Ownership is subsequently illegal, then it is updated by
> > removing all nonexistent types rather than resetting the entire value to
> default."
> > }}}
> >
> > I pend this for 1 shiny.
> >
> > -Alexis
> >
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 15:06 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

>  ais523   callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk [1] 20 Mar 11
>

I thought ais deregistered.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7922-7929

[Alexis Hunt]

NttPF

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 at 18:42 ATMunn .  wrote:

> I change my vote as follows:
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:30 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>
>> Oops, I accidentally sent before I was finished. Here is the my full vote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:27 AM, ATMunn . 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Aris Merchant <
>>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 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 8.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
 also a valid vote).


 ID Author(s) AI   Title Pender
 Pend fee

 ---
 7922*  Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act  Alexis  1 AP
>>>
>>> ​FOR​
>>
>>> 7923*  Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt  Gaelan  1 AP
>>>
>>> AGAINST. I transfer Alexis another shiny (bringing my total up to 2) in
>> an obvious bribe, again.
>>
>>> 7924*  Aris, [1]  3.0  Contracts v8 Aris1 sh.

>>> ​FOR​
>>
>>> 7925*  Aris, Alexis   3.0  Safety Regulations v2Aris1 AP

>>> ​FOR​
>>
>>> 7926*  Alexis 3.0  Deregulation Alexis  1 AP

>>> ​AGAINST
>>
>>> 7927*  V.J. Rada, G.  2.0  Estate Auction Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.

>>> ​FOR​
>>
>>> 7928*  G. 3.0  no we can't  G.  1 AP

>>> ​FOR​
>>
>>> 7929*  V.J. Rada  1.0  Consumerism  V.J. Rada   1 sh.

>>> ​AGAINST​
>>
>>
>>>
 The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:

 IDAuthor(s) AI   Title

 ---
 pp1   o 2.0  Faster Auctions

 Legend: * : Proposal is pending.

 [1] o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam, V.J Rada, Trigon, Alexis,
 P.S.S.

 A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating Value
 in shines (see the Secretary's report).

 The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. Please
 note
 that, due to its length, Proposal 7924 is listed last.

 //
 ID: 7922
 Title: Clarity Act
 Adoption index: 3.0
 Author: Alexis
 Co-authors:


 Text in square brackets is not a part of this proposal's substance and
 is ignored when it takes effect.

 Enact a new power 3 rule entitled Voting Methods, reading as follows:

   Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which must be
   AI-majority, instant runoff, or first-past-the-post. The voting
   method is that specified by the authorizing authority, or
   first-past-the-post by default.

   Each Agoran decision has a set of valid options (the choices that
   the voters are being asked to select from) and valid votes (the
   ways in which the voters can express their opinion or lack thereof.
   For AI-majority decisions, the valid options are FOR and AGAINST;
   for other decisions, the valid options are defined by other rules.

   The valid votes on an Agoran decision are:
   1. PRESENT;
   2. The valid conditional votes, as defined by rules of power at
  least that of this rule; and
   3. For an instant runoff decision, the ordered lists of entities.
   4. For any other decision, the valid options.

 [This splits off the portion of 955 that isn't actually related to
  resolution. The definition of instant runoff is changed to evaluate
  validity of options at the end of the voting period, and avoid
  retroactively invalidating votes if an option drops out.]

 Amend Rule 955 by replacing the second paragraph and numbered list with
 the following and by deleting the second bullet in the unnumbered list.

   1. For an AI-majority decision, let F be the total strength of all
  valid ballots cast FOR a decision, A be the same for AGAINST,
  and AI be the adoption index of the decision. The outcome is
  ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A > 1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise
  REJECTED.

   2. For an instant runoff decision, the outcome is whichever option
  wins according to the standard definition of instant runoff.
  For this purpose, a ballot of strength N is treated as if it
  were N distinct ballots expressing the same preferences. In
  case multiple valid options tie for the lowest number of votes
  at any stage, the vote collector CAN and must, in the
  announcement of the 

Re: DIS: Quick question about rule 1728

[Alexis Hunt]

Nope, read the rest of the rule. This rule only provides a definition of
what those terms mean; it does not apply anywhere where the terms aren't
used.

We used to have a rule implying that you could weaken the conditions (e.g.
perform independent actions dependently, or perform an action with more
support or without more fewer objections than required) but it was removed.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 09:11 ATMunn .,  wrote:

> Rule 1728 states the following:
>
>>  A rule which purports to allow a person (the performer) to
>>   perform an action by a set of one or more of the following
>>   methods (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):
>>
>>1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no
>>   greater than 8.  ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this
>>   method with N = 1.)
>>2. With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer.  ("With
>>   Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)
>>3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
>>   with a minimum of 1.
>>4. With Notice.
>>5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.
>>
>>   [snip]
>>
>> ​Now, the sentence at the top basically says that a rule can allow a
> person to perform an action by one of the methods in the list. However, I
> was wondering whether or not a person can perform an action by one of those
> methods WITHOUT a rule requiring em to, specifically With Notice/With T
> Notice.​
>

Re: DIS: What's the deal with the ADoP election?

[Alexis Hunt]

G. raised the question of what happened to the ongoing elections, given
that my proposal changed the election rules without a proviso to continue
the ongoing ones. Then VJ pointed out that e had failed to initiate the
decision correctly (e had left out the valid options, per rule 107 this
invalidates the decision), so there was no election to actually vote on.
Then consensus was to simply ratify the results as having had a winning
election, rather than try to sort through the mess of figuring out the
status of the elections under the new ruleset.

tl;dr you're not yet the ADoP.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 at 13:20 ATMunn .  wrote:

> Oh, wait, the argument was about the resolution of proposals 7908-7921.
> Still, the main focus of this was around this election.
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:18 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>
>> So I know that earlier, VJ Rada intended ratified the document saying
>> {Just now, ATMunn won an election for ADoP. Just now, Alexis won an
>> election for Prime Minister}, however e then pointed the finger at emself
>> for not stating that the document was wrong. This was then followed by a
>> bunch of arguments.
>>
>> So what actually happened here? Am I the ADoP now, or not yet?
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[Alexis Hunt]

Looking it over again, I see three potential other issues:
- A player does not stop becoming eligible at the end of the month. I would
say "eligible for a Medal of Honour that month", to avoid this.
- If a player incorrectly announces eligibility, this could invalidate the
entire vote later. Not sure what the best fix is.
- Minor typo: E's -> Eir

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 at 20:31 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Oh, last thing:  you should throw in this Proposal a repeal of the Victory
> Elections
> (Rule 2482).  This is a much better replacement and we don't need both.
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Just a note:  It looks like the Herald isn't required to track who has a
> Medal of
> > Honour once it's awarded.  So it's like trust tokens that people just
> have to
> > keep track - is that intentional?  (As Herald I'd probably put this in
> my monthly
> > report anyway).
> >
> > Also there's a timing problem.  "In the second week of an Agoran
> month..." doesn't
> > play well with "SHALL in a timely fashion" - does that mean in a timely
> fashion after
> > the beginning of the second week?  After the end?  If you want it done
> in the second
> > week, you'd delete the "in a timely fashion" and then the Herald SHALL
> do it in the
> > second week and it works.  The way it reads, it almost sounds
> > like the Herald CAN in the second week only, but SHALL in a timely
> fashion after
> > the second week (so net effect is it can't be done).
> >
> > There's a bit of confusion to me about what "the first week of an Agoran
> > month" is - whether it's the 7 days after the start of the month - or
> somehow the
> > first Agoran week that starts in the month.  (this one's minor I'd guess
> the 7
> > days).
> >
> > Minor grammar point:  Instead of "E's" it should be "Eir".
> >
> > (and - apologies for not looking closely until you asked about the
> karma!  I
> > really like the idea.)
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
> > > I submit the following proposal and pend it with 1 shiny.
> > >
> > > Title: "A Reward for Obedience v3"
> > > Author: ATMunn
> > > Co-Author(s): Aris, Alexis
> > > AI: 1
> > >
> > > Create a new power-1 rule titled "Medals of Honour"
> > > {
> > > Medals of Honour are a destructible fixed currency tracked by the
> Herald.
> > >
> > > In the first week of an Agoran Month, any player CAN declare
> emself to be eligible for a Medal of Honour by announcement if all of the
> following are true:
> > > * E has made at least 1 message to a public forum in the last
> Agoran month.
> > > * E's Karma is not below -3.
> > > * In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
> > >
> > > In the second week of an Agoran Month, if there are any players
> who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by announcement,
> and SHALL in a timely fashion, initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be
> awarded a Medal of Honour.
> > > For this decision, the valid votes are all players who are
> eligible for a Medal of Honour, the vote collector is the Herald, and the
> voting method is instant-runoff.
> > > Upon the resolution of this decision, the Herald CAN, and SHALL in
> a timely fashion, award the outcome of the decision a Medal of Honour by
> announcement.
> > >
> > > If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Medals of Honour, and e
> has not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by announcement,
> destroying all of eir Medals of Honour.
> > > }
> > >
> > > [Changes from the prototype: I made it so that you can still get a
> medal even if your karma is negative, as long as it's not below -3. I also
> reworded the last part of the Agoran Decision section.]
> > >
> > >
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

[Alexis Hunt]

Ratification takes effect relative to the publication of the document,
however. The context doesn't matter; if this document were ratified, then
it would be treated as true and correct; that is, it would be treated as if
it was a complete list of the proposal pool at the time of its publication.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, 04:11 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, there were not as of the effective date of the proposal being revised.
>
>
> On 10/16/2017 12:04 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Oh, also, just in case, to stop self-ratification: CoE: there are more
> > proposals in the Proposal Pool than just these.
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 21:10 Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:aler...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I spend an AP to CFJ: The below-quoted document contains a
> > self-ratifying list of proposals in the Proposal Pool. Arguments:
> > does this count as a portion of a purported Promotor's report?
> > There is no information in the report which isn't in the document,
> > and this is clearly published by the Promotor with the intent to
> > convey all of the report's information. The subject further
> > implies it was a report.
> >
> > Evidence: rules 1607 and 2201
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:38 Aris Merchant,
> > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > This following is a revision to the proposal pool from my last
> > report.
> >
> > The proposal pool contains the following proposals:
> >
> > IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
> >
>  ---
> > pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
> > pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
> > pp3* Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act
> > pp4* Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt
> >
> > Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
> >
> > The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
> >
> >
>  //
> > ID: pp1
> > Title: Slower Promotion
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: nichdel
> > Co-authors:
> >
> >
> > Amend R1607 (Distribution) by replacing:
> >
> >   In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir
> > weekly duties,
> >   distribute all pending proposals.
> >
> > with
> >
> >   In a given Agoran week, as part of eir weekly duties, the
> > Promotor SHALL:
> >
> >  * distribute all pending proposals if there are no
> > unresolved Agoran
> >  decisions to adopt a proposal.
> >
> >  * list all unresolved Agoran decisions to adopt a
> > proposal. The Promotor
> >  MAY still distribute all pending proposals.
> >
> >
>  //
> > ID: pp2
> > Title: Guaranteed Stampage
> > Adoption index: 1.0
> > Author: nichdel
> > Co-authors:
> >
> >
> > Amend 2499 "Welcome Packages" to read in full:
> >
> >   If a player has not received one since e most recently became a
> >   player, any player CAN, by announcement, cause em to receive a
> >   Welcome package. When a player receives a Welcome Package:
> >
> > * Agora transfers em 1/10th the FV in shinies and
> >
> > * a Stamp, with Agora as the Creater, is created in eir
> >   possession.
> >
> > Amend R2498 to be titled "Stamps" and to read in full:
> >
> >   Stamps are an asset. The Secretary is the recordkeepor of
> > Stamps.
> >
> >   Each Stamp has an associated Creater which SHOULD be noted
> > whenever the Stamp
> >   is mentioned and MUST be noted whenever the Stamp is
> > transfered. Stamps with
> >   the same creater are fungible.
> >
> >   Once per month a player CAN, by announcement, create a Stamp
> > with themselves
> >   as the Creater by transferring the Stamp Value, in shinies,
> > to Agora.
> >
> >   If Agora owns at least 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification (Quasi-Resolution of PM and ADoP Elections)

[Alexis Hunt]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 02:04 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I recommend a green card. Given the preceding a-d discussion, this was
> clearly an accidental omission and not an attempt at fraud.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:02 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > I point a finger at myself for not stating that the document was wrong.
>

Since the intent was ineffective, I don't believe there was a rules
violaiton.

Re: DIS: Important note to Assessor and Promotor

[Alexis Hunt]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 01:24 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >
> > 7922*  Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act  Alexis  1 AP
> >
>
> H. Assessor, H. Promotor:
>
> Proposal 7922 tinkers with the definition of ballots and votes.  It would
> be
> *really nice* if all other proposals in this batch were resolved first, and
> no other distribution started, when this one is resolved.  You know, just
> in
> case?
>

+1

DIS: Revised High-Power Cleanup

[Alexis Hunt]

Revised based on feedback.

Proposal: High Power Cleanup (AI=3, coauthors=G, PSS)
{{{
Text in square brackets is not a substantive part of this proposal and is
ignored when it takes effect.

Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule
 is repealed, it ceases to be a rule,
its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor
 need no longer maintain a record
of it."

[There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but I'm
not sure I fully agree with that conclusion; this makes it explicit which
can't hurt anyway.]

Amend Rule 106 by appending "Except insofar as the actions performed by a
proposal happen one after another, rather than simultaneously, a proposal's
effect is instantaneous. A proposal can neither delay nor extend its own
effect. Once a propsal finishes taking effect, its power is set to 0."

[Per discussion, do the same for proposals. While here, make it clear that
proposals are instantaneous. Please nitpick this, I'm pretty sure it's safe
but this is a very dangerous rule to get wrong.]

Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this
Proposal to 0. If rule 2493 was repealed, or the word "instrument" does not
appear in its text, also set the power of all Regulations to 0.

[This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other entities.]

Amend Rule 105, bullet 3 by appending "Unless specified otherwise by the
re-enacting instrument, a re-enacted rule has power equal to the power it
had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if power was not defined at the
time of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument is incapable of
setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the re-enactment is
null and void."

[Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes it to
work roughly the way you would expect it to.]

Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to for
determining whether two points in time are within N months of each other,
for N greater than or equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth bullet
in the first list.

[This makes the logical extension to "within 6 months", which is used,
explicit.]
}}}

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

[Alexis Hunt]

If it isn't self-ratifying, you're not obliged to deal with it, I think.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 00:09 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm probably going to deny this, as there is (I think) a custom that the
> effective date of a revision is implied to be that of the original report.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:04 PM Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, also, just in case, to stop self-ratification: CoE: there are more
>> proposals in the Proposal Pool than just these.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 21:10 Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I spend an AP to CFJ: The below-quoted document contains a
>>> self-ratifying list of proposals in the Proposal Pool. Arguments: does this
>>> count as a portion of a purported Promotor's report? There is no
>>> information in the report which isn't in the document, and this is clearly
>>> published by the Promotor with the intent to convey all of the report's
>>> information. The subject further implies it was a report.
>>>
>>> Evidence: rules 1607 and 2201
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:38 Aris Merchant, <
>>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This following is a revision to the proposal pool from my last report.
>>>>
>>>> The proposal pool contains the following proposals:
>>>>
>>>> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
>>>> pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
>>>> pp3* Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act
>>>> pp4* Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt
>>>>
>>>> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
>>>>
>>>> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
>>>>
>>>> //
>>>> ID: pp1
>>>> Title: Slower Promotion
>>>> Adoption index: 3.0
>>>> Author: nichdel
>>>> Co-authors:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Amend R1607 (Distribution) by replacing:
>>>>
>>>>   In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir weekly
>>>> duties,
>>>>   distribute all pending proposals.
>>>>
>>>> with
>>>>
>>>>   In a given Agoran week, as part of eir weekly duties, the Promotor
>>>> SHALL:
>>>>
>>>>  * distribute all pending proposals if there are no unresolved
>>>> Agoran
>>>>  decisions to adopt a proposal.
>>>>
>>>>  * list all unresolved Agoran decisions to adopt a proposal. The
>>>> Promotor
>>>>  MAY still distribute all pending proposals.
>>>>
>>>> //
>>>> ID: pp2
>>>> Title: Guaranteed Stampage
>>>> Adoption index: 1.0
>>>> Author: nichdel
>>>> Co-authors:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Amend 2499 "Welcome Packages" to read in full:
>>>>
>>>>   If a player has not received one since e most recently became a
>>>>   player, any player CAN, by announcement, cause em to receive a
>>>>   Welcome package. When a player receives a Welcome Package:
>>>>
>>>> * Agora transfers em 1/10th the FV in shinies and
>>>>
>>>> * a Stamp, with Agora as the Creater, is created in eir
>>>>   possession.
>>>>
>>>> Amend R2498 to be titled "Stamps" and to read in full:
>>>>
>>>>   Stamps are an asset. The Secretary is the recordkeepor of Stamps.
>>>>
>>>>   Each Stamp has an associated Creater which SHOULD be noted whenever
>>>> the Stamp
>>>>   is mentioned and MUST be noted whenever the Stamp is transfered.
>>>> Stamps with
>>>>   the same creater are fungible.
>>>>
>>>>   Once per month a player CAN, by announcement, create a Stamp with
>>>> themselves
>>>>   as the Creater by transferring the Stamp Value, in shinies, to Agora.
>>>>
>>>>   If Agora owns at least as many Shinies as the current Stamp Value, a
>>>> player
>>>>   CAN, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns to cause Agora to
&g

DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification (Quasi-Resolution of PM and ADoP Elections)

[Alexis Hunt]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 00:06 VJ Rada  wrote:

> I intend to ratify the document contained in curly braces.
> {Just now, ATMunn won an election for ADoP. Just now, Alexis won an
> election for Prime Minister}.
>
> If anyone's interested, here's a vote-count.
>
> PM
> Three first preference Alexis votes, one for VJ Rada, ATMunn and PSS.
> I eliminate the vote for me which gives Alexis a majority.
> Alexis: [Alexis, Murphy, o, 天火狐, Gaelan, Aris]
> PSS: [PSS, G., and o]
> o.: Alexis, then G., then nichdel.
> G.: Alexis, then G., then nichdel.
> VJ Rada: VJ Rada
> ATMunn: ATMunn
>

I believe you missed Aris's vote here, but it does not affect the outcome.
Note that this intent is ineffective (you didn't specify the form of
dependent action) and you should probably include the disclaimer about
inaccuracy required for RWO.

Re: DIS: Re: election end discussion

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 20:24 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Actually, retroactively replacing an Officeholder is ugly.  Better version:
>
> The following document is ratified:
> {
> [winner] has just now won an election for Prime Minister.
> [winner] has just now won an election for ADoP.
> }
>
>
After reviewing the votes, I think I didn't need the scam anyway. So I'll
not object to ratifying this, even if I'm wrong (that's my own fault if I
am).

-Alexis

Re: DIS: eval()

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 20:45 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> There are many places where Agora essentially calls eval(T), where T is
> some text from a player. This includes:
>
> The rules, of course
> Proposals
> Regulations
> Other powered instruments (do we have any of those lying around?)
> Public messages
> Orgs
> Agencies
> Contracts
> Old Pledges
> Conditional votes
> CFJs
>
> I think we need a simple way to state in the rules that agora “reads” a
> piece of text and changes the gamestate accordingly, according to some list
> of things that that text is allowed to do:
>
> * Proposals can impact things tracked by the rules
> * Public messages can perform by-annoucement actions, etc
> * Contracts can authorize player actions (contract-by-announcement) and
> punish players
> * Conditional votes can choose a vote
> * CFJs can pose a question
> * The rules (I think) actually have no power over anything beyond their
> own scope
>
> I think we might want to define something like “invoking” a piece of text,
> or giving an instrument with zero power the right to specify some limited
> things, or something.
>
> Gaelan


I'm generally wary and not sure it's needed, but am still intrigued. I
worry it will add complexity and scammability without actually helping too
much.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Alexis Hunt]

If you aren't sure it's ready, you shouldn't pend it!

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 19:08 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As a general rule, if you aren't sure that something is read it should
> be a proto, not a proposal.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I withdraw it; I had some revisions to do and it isn't ready.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:27 Aris Merchant,
> > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I pend this for 1 shiny.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > This is just a miscellaneous fix proposal:
> >> >
> >> > Proposal: High Power Cleanup (AI=3)
> >> > {{{
> >> > Text in square brackets is not a substantive part of this proposal and
> >> > is
> >> > ignored when it takes effect.
> >> >
> >> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it ceases
> to
> >> > be a
> >> > rule, its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor need no longer
> maintain
> >> > a
> >> > record of it."
> >> >
> >> > [There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but
> >> > I'm
> >> > not sure I fully agree with that conclusion; this makes it explicit
> >> > which
> >> > can't hurt anyway.]
> >> >
> >> > Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this
> >> > Proposal to 0.
> >> >
> >> > [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other
> >> > entities. I
> >> > believe that this actuall depowers old proposals, but that's probably
> a
> >> > good
> >> > thing to be quite honest.]
> >> >
> >> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 3 by appending "Unless specified otherwise by
> the
> >> > re-enacting instrument, a re-enacted rule has power equal to the power
> >> > it
> >> > had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if power was not deifned at
> >> > the
> >> > time of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument is
> incapable
> >> > of
> >> > setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the
> re-enactment
> >> > is
> >> > null and void."
> >> >
> >> > [Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes it
> >> > to
> >> > work roughly the way you would expect it to.]
> >> >
> >> > Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to
> for
> >> > determining whether two points in time are within N months of each
> >> > other,
> >> > for N greater than or equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth
> >> > bullet
> >> > in the first list.
> >> >
> >> > [This makes the logical extension to "within 6 months", which is used,
> >> > explicit.]
> >> > }}}
> >> >
> >> > -Alexis
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Alexis Hunt]

It's not that I want to ratify a scam but, rather, I would have done a
minor scam affecting the outcome and may yet do so if there's another
election; if the result is imposed by ratification, I would not get that
opportunity.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:29 ATMunn .,  wrote:

> ​erm. what is going on here?​
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

[Alexis Hunt]

I would submit, as arguments, that the Promotor was reminded and had the
opportunity to avoid the violation by distributing the proposal at the time
of the report.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:59 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Very true. I plead guilty and request the mercy of the Referee for
> this error, noting that it was an inadvertent mistake.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I Point a Finger at Aris, alleging that e failed to distribute the
> proposal
> > identified below as pp3 last week, thereby failing to distribute all
> pending
> > proposals.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:38 Aris Merchant,
> > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This following is a revision to the proposal pool from my last report.
> >>
> >> The proposal pool contains the following proposals:
> >>
> >> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
> >>
> >>
> ---
> >> pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
> >> pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
> >> pp3* Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act
> >> pp4* Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt
> >>
> >> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
> >>
> >> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
> >>
> >> //
> >> ID: pp1
> >> Title: Slower Promotion
> >> Adoption index: 3.0
> >> Author: nichdel
> >> Co-authors:
> >>
> >>
> >> Amend R1607 (Distribution) by replacing:
> >>
> >>   In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir weekly
> >> duties,
> >>   distribute all pending proposals.
> >>
> >> with
> >>
> >>   In a given Agoran week, as part of eir weekly duties, the Promotor
> >> SHALL:
> >>
> >>  * distribute all pending proposals if there are no unresolved
> Agoran
> >>  decisions to adopt a proposal.
> >>
> >>  * list all unresolved Agoran decisions to adopt a proposal. The
> >> Promotor
> >>  MAY still distribute all pending proposals.
> >>
> >> //
> >> ID: pp2
> >> Title: Guaranteed Stampage
> >> Adoption index: 1.0
> >> Author: nichdel
> >> Co-authors:
> >>
> >>
> >> Amend 2499 "Welcome Packages" to read in full:
> >>
> >>   If a player has not received one since e most recently became a
> >>   player, any player CAN, by announcement, cause em to receive a
> >>   Welcome package. When a player receives a Welcome Package:
> >>
> >> * Agora transfers em 1/10th the FV in shinies and
> >>
> >> * a Stamp, with Agora as the Creater, is created in eir
> >>   possession.
> >>
> >> Amend R2498 to be titled "Stamps" and to read in full:
> >>
> >>   Stamps are an asset. The Secretary is the recordkeepor of Stamps.
> >>
> >>   Each Stamp has an associated Creater which SHOULD be noted whenever
> the
> >> Stamp
> >>   is mentioned and MUST be noted whenever the Stamp is transfered.
> Stamps
> >> with
> >>   the same creater are fungible.
> >>
> >>   Once per month a player CAN, by announcement, create a Stamp with
> >> themselves
> >>   as the Creater by transferring the Stamp Value, in shinies, to Agora.
> >>
> >>   If Agora owns at least as many Shinies as the current Stamp Value, a
> >> player
> >>   CAN, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns to cause Agora to
> transfer
> >> the
> >>   Stamp Value, in shinies, to emself.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Basic Stamp Income" with the following
> >> text:
> >>
> >>   When the Secretary publishes the first Weekly Report of an Agoran
> Month,
> >> e
> >>   CAN and SHALL, by announcement, create Stamps with Ago

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Alexis Hunt]

I would possibly object to that, as I had a scam planned but didn't fire it
as a result of the decisions being invalid; I wouldn't support ratifying if
it would have made a difference.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:56 Kerim Aydin,  wrote:

>
>
> Actually, maybe the easiest thing is to wait 4 hours for the original
> voting period to end (unofficially), tally the votes, and then ratify
> the ADoP report with the winners as officeholders and ratify the fact
> that they were installed via election and the election is over?
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'll have a go in a bit.
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > > I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new
> Election rules.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I object.
> > > >
> > > > This would take 2 weeks + 4 day objection period + pauses in between.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:17 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote

> No, there definitely is a problem with giving rule permission for
> people to define arbitrary things that could be paradoxical. Both
> organizations and agencies, which this replaces, have similar
> prohibitions. This eliminates boilerplate in other places while
> simultaneously creating a nice framework for conditionality. I'll
> consider merging the two concepts though.
>

Fair. Ok.

> These amendments to this rule seem wholly unnecessary to the rest of this
> > proposal and should be at least separated out. As near as I can tell, you
> > don't actually take advantage of any of the changes here, and I'm not
> sure I
> > like them. The only one that seems to me immediately useful is possibly
> > securing it, but that definition doesn't need to be in this proposal. I
> > don't see why a proposal about contracts needs to change the mechanics of
> > proposal submission on behalf of other players.
>
> It doesn't, but I'm tweaking the acting on behalf rule so other rules
> can specify exceptions, and this is a sensible one. There was a
> problem with this once, and now seems like as good a time as any to
> fix it.
>

I don't think that this is a sensible one at all, to be honest. Why should
acting on behalf of someone to submit a proposal not make em the author? It
may well be that that's a change we want, but it shouldn't be part of this
proposal. This is the only rule in your proposal that includes an act on
behalf exception, so you really can get away with moving this all out to
another proposal.

Compare also the concept of Executor, which is used in one place. It may be
better to use that concept instead.

> The deference clause is also broken; per rule 1030, deference only works
> > where the rules have the same power. But also I'm not sure what it is
> > actually trying to do: nothing in this rule actually provides a
> mechanism to
> > act on behalf of another person; only to define what it means for a rule
> to
> > allow em to do so. Interactions of when acting on behalf is or isn't
> allowed
> > will (and should remain) determined by precedence of the rules involved.
>
> It's in the current rule, and I'd prefer not to mess with it if I
> don't have to. It was probably added for some reason.
>

Oh, so it is. Withdrawn.

What's wrong with regulations? They may well be scamable, but they
> only work as the rule creating them allows them to, so if there power
> is limited I don't see the harm. I don't really get why you're so
> upset about them. The other places they're used are to allow the
> Notary to exempt contracts from sustenance, and to put some frankly
> rather minimal throttling restrictions on contract changes. The only
> even vaguely dangerous regulations thing in the entire proposal is
> this, so if you wish I can remove this and put yet another specially
> exception in the assets rule.
>

Mostly replied in the other thread, but I would deifnitely prefer to see
this removed. What exception would be needed in the assets rule for this?
I'm confused.

> I'm confused by this. A contract is two entities, the text and some other
> > thing? The last sentence here wouldn't be needed if you bring back 1586 I
> > think. I would re-enact the rule and then decide whether a contract is an
> > entity with a text, or a document with special properties (the former is
> > likely far easier)
>
> That is correct, it is two things at once. Not doing any harm, but if
> you prefer I could go with "A ruleset-described entity embodied in
> text".
>

I strongly prefer "an entity with a text". For instance, in this proposed
rule alone, you say "A document can only become a contract" implying that a
contract is a document, but a document is one entity, not two.

After thinking on this more, you shouldn't use the term document either.
You can't amend a document, after all. It's just a part of a message; you
can't go back in time and amend the document. Better to state that text is
a property of a contract.

>
> >>
> >>   The properties of contracts, as defined by other rules, include the
> >>   following:
> >>
> >> - Parties, persons who agree to be bound by and assume powers under
> >>   the contract.
> >> - The ability to be amended or destroyed.
> >> - The ability to compel actions by their parties.
> >> - The ability to allow persons to take actions on the part of their
> >> parties.
> >> - The ability to define arbitrary classes of asset.
> >> - The ability to possess and control assets.
> >
> >
> > This paragraph is very bad; it implies that nothing else is a property
> of a
> > contract, such as its text. I don't think it actually serves any purpose.
>
> It is carefully designed to do no such thing. Use of "include" exempts
> it from the general principle "Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius".
> It serves the important purpose of giving a summary and making the
> contract rules clearer, and the 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 22:28 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Regulations are not dangerous, certainly not "very dangerous".
> Regulations only work at the power of their parent rule, and can only
> do what their parent rule says they can do. This is the first of
> several safeguards against their misuse. Admittedly, an over broad
> parent rule could do a lot of harm. However, we see no signs that they
> are likely to be used dangerously. Currently, all they do is to run
> the tournament, which isn't particularly dangerous. My contracts
> proposal would let them be used to throttle some contract actions
> within eminently reasonable bounds, and to exempt contracts from
> paying taxes, which isn't particularly dangerous either. The most
> dangerous thing they've been seriously suggested for is banking, such
> that they could used, within bounds, to control Agora's treasury. That
> needs more caution, but the proposal would have limits and would be
> promulgated by a three member commission, hopefully ensuring broad
> support. There was that it was suggested that they be used for chevron
> deference, but that proposal was quickly shouted down as overly broad
> and was never a serious proposal anyway, as confessed by the author.
> Second, regulations require agoran consent to adopt by default,
> ensuring that they can't be passed without public agreement. Third,
> proposals can always change regulations anyway, so people can get rid
> of them if they don't like them. I think there are sufficient
> safeguards in place to ensure that regulations are used safely. If you
> wish to suggest additional safeguards, I'm fairly likely to support
> them. However, I see no need to repeal an interesting system that will
> make for interesting gameplay.
>
> -Aris
>

I'm not the slightest bit convinced that they can't be abused, but I will
refrain from discussing why because if Agora is set on keeping them, no
point in revealing potential scams. I'm pretty sure there are loopholes
that could let me do silly things with them, and because they are powered,
they are very, very dangerous. If a loophole is found in a regulation, for
instance, then it can amend any rules of equal or lower power. This is what
makes them fundamentally different from the other rules-defined documents
that we have. The problem is not, inherently, with delegating rules power
away from the rules to other instruments; it's the manner in which it is
done. And I don't think there is enough compelling reason to want to do so
(especially with contracts likely to be available again soon) to sink a
bunch of energy into fix proposals.

Apart from that, they also have an overcomplicated recordkeeping system.
That's a minor beef though and easily cleaned up.

For the Notary's contract things that you proposed, it's easy enough to
regulate those with various switches or other tools. Regulations are only
one way to do it.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:57 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Why not keep the birthday tournament. It existed before regulations.
>

It is kept, in its original form as part of 2464.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Alexis Hunt]

Oh that's just a typo.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:55 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> After rereading it, I don't understand the need for both a "to" and a
> "for". I think either would work on its own.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Oct 14, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >  wrote:
> >>> Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to
> for determining whether two points in time are within N months of each
> other, for N greater than or equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth
> bullet in the first list.
> >>
> >> This line doesn't make much sense.
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > -Aris
>
>

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

[Alexis Hunt]

Heads up to the Promotor: this CoE is unresolved.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 at 07:21 Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:

> CoE: my proposal "Clarity Act" is not listed as being in the Proposal
> Pool, which it is because you did not distribute it.
>
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017, 23:50 Aris Merchant, <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 5.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
>> also a valid vote).
>>
>>
>> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend
>> fee
>>
>> ---
>> 7908*  G.1.0  Silly season G.  OP [1]
>> 7909*  G.1.2  No Lockout   G.  OP [1]
>> 7910*  G.1.0  What is a rulekeepor G.  OP [1]
>> 7911*  V.J. Rada 1.0  Infinite Money Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
>> 7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP
>> [2]
>> 7913*  ATMunn1.0  Cheer Up v7? ATMunn  1 AP
>> 7914*  o 1.0  SFDVP [3]o   1 AP
>> 7915*  CuddleBeam1.0  Terrifying Proposals Reward  CuddleBeam  1 AP
>> 7916*  Aris, o, G.   1.0  Pro Pace v2  Aris1 AP
>> 7917*  P.S.S. [4], o 3.0  Banking  P.S.S. [4]  1 sh.
>> 7918*  P.S.S. [4]3.0  Vacant Deputisation Fix  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
>> 7919*  P.S.S. [4]2.0  YSUIII. [5]  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
>> 7920*  Gaelan, Aris  1.0  The Lint Screen v2   Gaelan  1 sh.
>> 7921*  o, G. 2.0  Passive Income   o   1 AP
>>
>> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
>>
>> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
>>
>> ---
>> pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
>> pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
>>
>> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
>>
>> [1] Official Proposal, inherently pending
>> [2] There is some debate over whether this was actually pended twice, each
>> attempt consuming 1 AP. This value is therefore provisional.
>> [3] Stamp Floating Derived Value Patch
>> [4] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> [5] You SHALL, unless it is ILLEGAL.
>>
>> In order to reduce confusion, the shiny pend price is being removed from
>> this
>> report. A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating
>> Value
>> in shines (see the Secretary's report).
>>
>> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
>>
>> //
>> ID: 7908
>> Title: Silly season
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>> Author: G.
>> Co-authors:
>> Official Proposal
>>
>>
>> Re-enact Rule 1650 (Silliness) with the following text:
>>
>>   Each Nomic Week a Player is designated the Silly Person.  The Silly
>> Person
>>   SHALL in that week, by announcement (1) designate another player, who
>> has not
>>   been the Silly Person in the past two weeks, to be the next week's Silly
>>   Person; (2) submit a Silly Proposal.  If there is ever no Silly Person
>> or the
>>   Silly Person is not a player, then the next week's Silly Person is the
>> first
>>   player that any player publicly designates to be the next week's Silly
>> Person.
>>
>>   A Silly Proposal is a Proposal whose sole contents are one of
>>   the following:
>> i) A limerick.
>>ii) A rhymed poem no longer than fourteen lines. (No free
>>verse!)
>>   iii) A joke of no more than a hundred words.
>>iv) A truly hideous pun.
>>
>>   The first Silly Proposal submitted by the week's Silly Person is an
>> Official
>>   Proposal.
>>
>>
>> [I want to reward the Silly Person a shiny, but we have that dumb limit
>> that
>> rewards can only be defined in R2445, and the Fearmongor rule may not
>> allow me
>> to include other rules in the proposal].
>>
>> [For Rulekeepor, given history of Rule 1650:
>> History: Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1650 by Proposal 2673, 26 September 1996
>> History: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1650 by Proposal 3688
>> (Repeal-O-Matic), 21 February 1998

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 19:02 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 3 by appending "Unless specified otherwise by the
> > re-enacting instrument, a re-enacted rule has power equal to the power it
> > had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if power was not deifned at
> the
> > time of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument is incapable
> of
> > setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the re-enactment
> is
> > null and void."
>
> Why shouldn't it set it to the highest power it's capable of in that case?
>

I'd argue that bulelt (a) should actually change to not create underpowered
rules and just fail to create them, actually. I'll bet you that's been
mixed up more than once, and I wouldn't be suprised if we actually had a
phantom rule lurking in the ruleset right now as a result of it.

> [Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes it to
> > work roughly the way you would expect it to.]
> >
> > Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to for
> > determining whether two points in time are within N months of each other,
> > for N greater than or equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth
> bullet
> > in the first list.
>
> It would be nice if you could add days and weeks, while you're at it.
>
> -Aris
>

Because while the definition of a month is just obnoxious, I'm excited for
the CFJ about leap seconds.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 19:54 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this
> Proposal to 0.
> >
> > [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other
> entities. I believe
> > that this actuall depowers old proposals, but that's probably a good
> thing to be quite
> > honest.]
>
> This is one of those hidden things that we'll never remember if past
> proposal power
> comes up a year from now or something... so +1 for Invisibilitating.
> Maybe you should
> change the R106 proposal process too to set Proposal power to 0, so that
> we don't have a
> weird case of every proposal after this one retaining power and having to
> remember the
> breakpoint if it ever comes up?
>

Agreed. Will revise with this.

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 03:30 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote

> # 1 Cleanup & Miscellaneous
> # 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup
>
> Destroy each organization.
>

We used to have a rule that made this sort of thing not necessary
(Definition and Continuity of Entities). Reenacting that as the first step
of this proposal may be a cleaner way to solve this. It was repealed by G.
on the basis that it was all common-sense legal precedent; recent
jurisprudence indicates it may not have been after all.
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-January/010594.html
contains
a copy of the rule shortly before its repeal.

Allowing contracts to back assets would also generally run into the
problems this rule was intended to prevent, so I would recommend it.

>
> Destroy each agency.
>
> Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]
>
> # 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
> # 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations
>
> Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").
>
> Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").
>
> Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").
>
> Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").
>
> Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").
>
> Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").
>
> # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror
>
> Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by
>
>   * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
>   * Replacing its text, entirely, with:
>
> {{{
> The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.
>
> The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:
>
> 1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
>defined by the Rules.
> 2. the list of all public classes of assets.
>
> }}}
>
> Make o the Treasuror.


> Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
> "Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:
>
>   * Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
>   * Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
>   * Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")
>
> # 1.2.3 General Economy Fixes/Cleanup
>
> Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:
>
>   {{{
>   An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
>   }}}
>
> Amend rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") by replacing its text,
> entirely, with:
>
>   {{{
>   At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one
>   Estate, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL put one Estate which is owned by
>   Agora up for auction by announcement. Each auction ends
>   seven days after it begins.
>
>   During an auction, any player or contract may bid a number of Shinies
>   by announcement, provided that the bid is higher than all
>   previously-placed bids in the same auction.
>
>   If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
>   then the player or contract who placed that bid wins the auction.
>   The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to emself
>   by announcement, if e pays Agora the amount of the bid. The person
> who
>   placed the bid SHALL see to it that this is done in a timely fashion.
>   }}}


> Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:
>
>   {{{
>   Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
>   indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
>   of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.
>
>   The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or
>   contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a
>   another rule.
>   }}}
>

The second paragraph seems quite unnecessary.

>
> Repeal Rule 2485 ("You can't take it with you").
>

Wasn't this already repealed?

> # 1.3 Agency Cleanup
>
> Repeal Rule 2467 ("Agencies")
>
> Repeal Rule 2468 ("Superintendent")
>
> # 1.4 Define Extricability
>
> [Note that I do not believe this section makes any substantive changes on
> its
> own. Because of the volume of concerns raised about restricting by
> announcement
> conditionals, this section only contains definitions.]
>
> Create a new power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Extricability",
> with the
> following text:
>
>   A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement
>   affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate (the substrate), or the
>   permissibility or possibility of any action affecting such a part or
> aspect,
>   dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual structure
>   (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the substrate
>   (inverse "to be conditional upon").
>

The term "affixed" isn't used anywhere. Remove it.

>
>   A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
>   inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
>   unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an
> unreasonable
>   effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is
> inextricable if
>   its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player
> SHOULD NOT
>   use an 

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 11:50 ATMunn .  wrote:

> Title: A Reward for Obedience
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s):
> AI: 1
>
> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor"
>
Nit: I prefer Honour :P

> {
> Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned asset. The Referee
> is the recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.
>
> At the beginning of every Agoran month, the Referee CAN and SHALL
> award a Badge of Honor to any one player who is eligible for a Badge of
> Honor, if there are any.
>

This should specify the method of awarding a Badge of Honor (e.g. by
announcement). Additionally, it should specify a time limit; "in a timely
fashion" should be fine.

The restriction that e CAN only award a Badge of Honor to someone eligible.


> It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Referee to award more than one Badge of Honor
> in an Agoran month.
>
> A player is eligible for a Badge of Honor if all of the following
> statements are true:
> * E has made at least 1 action in the last Agoran month.
>
A message to a public forum should be sufficient for this.

> * E does not have negative Karma.
> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had eir Finger Pointing found
> Shenanigans.
>
I dislike this condition; it discourages people using our fragile justice
system even further. Making a false accusation should be fine, because
often it's not clear whether a violation was actually a violation in
advance.

> * In the last Agoran month, e has not broken any of eir pledges.
>
The pledge rule requires pragmatically declaring that the pledge is broken,
by calling it in. It would significantly ease the burden on the
recordkeeper to switch to this, since they would only have to read through
for called-in pledges, rather than for all violations of pledges.

>
> If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Badges of Honor, and e has
> not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by announcement.
>
This should destroy all eir Badges of Honor. I'd actually prefer it reset
all of them, but because they're awarded subjectively, that may not be a
great way to do it.

> }
>
> I thought this would be a nice, simple way to reward players who are
> "obedient" without being too overpowered. I'm sure it has flaws though, so
> that's why I'm posting it as a prototype first.
>
I like the concept in general, but have a few concerns. Another option
would be, rather than making this a separate system, tying it into Ribbons
and making it a Ribbon award. This has significant benefits and drawbacks.
One of the bigger reservations here is that this encourages a player to do
very little. For instance, a player who does nothing but vote will be
eligible every month, since they don't set themselves up for breaking one
of the rules. An officer in a complex office is likely to make mistakes,
and it's easy to issue em green cards as a result.

> Also, there's a few things I'm not really sure I'm completely happy with.
> First thing: I'm not exactly sure how to word what a Badge of Honor *is*.
> I think I did it right, but I'm not sure.
>
I'm not either, at this point...

> Second thing: I don't really know what office should keep track of and
> award these. My initial thought was the Referee, since e already keeps
> track of cards and such.
>
This is actually a fiarly intensive duty, since it requires looking through
an entire month's worth of mail to find actions (recordkeeping decisions is
bad enough, since you have to trawl through votes and people aren't always
kind enough to vote in reply to the original message starting the decision.
And that's only one week long). A better way, perhaps, would be to require
to explicitly declare themselves eligible within the first week of the
month, subject this to some form of challenge, and then have the award be
made in the second or third week. This would also get around the platonism
problem: if someone declares themselves eligible and nobody else
double-checks them, then they get their badge, oops.

> Third thing: I don't really know how the whole Karma system works, since
> it's quite new. Should I even bother including it?
>
Karma is fairly subjective. I think there's pros to including it
(encourages "good behaviour" without necessarily aligning that to the
rules) and cons (players can gang up to deny another player access to Honor
Badges by ensuring eir Karma is negative).

> Last thing: Is it necessary to include "In the last Agoran month, e has
> not broken any of eir pledges"? I think you can be issued a card for
> breaking a pledge, right?
>
Responded to this above.

-Alexis

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

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 15:48 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> I submit this Proposal, AI-3, "Can or can't we?" (pending to wait for
> comments):
>
> --
> [The rules are unclear/silent on whether "CAN, SHALL, MAY" imply
> "by announcement" and game opinion is somewhat split.  We should make
> it clear, but I'm not sure there's an AI-3 majority favoring either
> option.  Rather than leave it unclear, this uses an AI-3 majority
> to approve that we want it clarified, but leaves it up to majority
> vote whether "by announcement" is implied.  (even people voting
> AGAINST can have their preference counted on that part).
>
>
> Amend Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions) by replacing:
>   Restricted Actions CAN only be performed as described by the
>   Rules.
> with:
>   A Restricted Action CAN only be performed as described by the
>   Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the
>   Rules for performing the given action.
>
> [this over-arching protection means in general, "by announcement"
> is NOT implied].
>
>
> 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).
>

I dislike this extra option, and in particular that it only requires a
majority to apply. I'd really prefer splitting this out to separate
proposals so that AI=3 applies to both of them separately, or at lesat
requiring 3 times as many OPTION A votes as non-OPTION A votes. Also, this
doesn't take into account PRESENT; is that intentional?

-Alexis

DIS: Re: BUS: Stamps are cool

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 11:30 ATMunn .  wrote:

> I just figured out what the purpose of stamps is. I hadn't realized it
> before; I must have just not looked very closely at that section of the
> rules.
>
> I buy a stamp by transferring 1 shiny to Agora.
>

Stamps cost 2 at the moment.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 09:49 ATMunn .  wrote:

> Oh, wow, thanks guys. I should have guessed that Agorans were friendly
> enough towards new players to do something like that.
> I retract my vote for ADoP and vote for myself.
> (Quick question that should be answered in a discussion thread: What
> exactly does it mean when people vote like "I vote for [person1, person2,
> person3, etc.]"?)
>

 It's an instant-runoff vote. See rule 955.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Moot begins for CFJ 3568

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 at 17:00 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>   I initiate an Agoran Decision to resolve the Moot on CFJ 3568.
>   For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor and the
>   valid options are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT.  Quorum is 5.
>

I vote REMAND.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Ruleset typo on the website (ATTN: Rulekeepor)

[Alexis Hunt]

The list formatting in Rule 2496 is also broken, and a space is missing
from the last paragraph of Rule 991.

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 at 21:29 Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On the website, in Rule 2231, a space is missing between "in general." and
> "As this".
>

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

[Alexis Hunt]

But you did not address the text of the rules, which must take precedence.
Moreover, you didn't directly address the other factors, and on the face I
disagree that either common sense or the best interests of the game lead to
your conclusion.

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 at 13:12 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The presidential underpinnings are less important than the rules in
> question. In the second opinion, my arguments were primarily based on
> the relevant rules. Precedent is only one of the rule 217 factors,
> which were split down the middle. Common sense and the best interests
> of the game favor my argument. Precedent and custom are opposed to it.
> In the end, I conceded that my interpretation agreed with the rules
> better, and adopted it.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:28 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah G. has already made that argument vociferously, and several
> > times. Right now as the CFJs stand, it's good law and recently
> > re-affirmed (also with regards to MAY). But you're quite right that
> > the precedential underpinnings are shaky.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'm digging into the precedent of the SHALL implies CAN by announcement
> >> (e.g. CFJ 3557), and I think it arose by taking various judgments out of
> >> place. I'll post a more detailed analysis later.
> >>
> >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 18:22 Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Good job on noticing the extra comma there.
> >>>
> >>> 天火狐
> >>>
> >>> On 12 October 2017 at 17:57, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [Since we're on the subject of bad grammar, I might as well take care
> of
> >>>> this -
> >>>>  ain't getting any fresher.]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >>>> > This auction ended at Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:30:33 -0400, with the
> >>>> > following bids:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > * o, 1 sh., for emself.
> >>>> > * o, 80 sh., for emself. (Incuded a blurb.)
> >>>> > * G., 1,010 sh. for emself.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I transfer the Estate of Dawsbergen to myself.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I pledge that, if the below CFJ is found TRUE and survives the
> >>>> Reconsideration/Moot
> >>>> time frame, I will transfer 41 Shinies to Agora as unofficial payment
> for
> >>>> this (and
> >>>> no other purpose).  [41 shinies was the max bid I'd decided on last
> week,
> >>>> before I
> >>>> went and re-read the auction rule].
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I shiny-CFJ on the following statement, barring o:
> >>>>
> >>>>   G. owns the Estate of Dawsbergen.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ARGUMENTS
> >>>>
> >>>> Regard the following hypothetical Rules clause:
> >>>>
> >>>> A player CAN do X by A, by B, or by C.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think there's only one reasonably clear interpretation of this
> clause,
> >>>> that the player has three independent methods for doing X, either by
> A,
> >>>> by B or by C.  The grammatical clues for this construct are the
> >>>> repetition of the term "by", and the "or" which (by clear grammatical
> >>>> rules) distributes over the list to "A or B or C."  It's pretty darn
> >>>> clear, and really the only sensible reading.
> >>>>
> >>>> Compare this directly with the language of R2491, with line breaks
> >>>> inserted for emphasis:
> >>>>
> >>>> The player who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely
> >>>> fashion, cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the
> winner
> >>>> by announcement,
> >>>> by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or
> >>>> by causing the winning Organization to pay Agora the amount of the
> >>>> bid.
> >>>>
> >>>> Exactly the same as the hypothetical example.  So I have simply opted
> >>>> for the first method (by announceme

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

[Alexis Hunt]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 21:50 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I oppose (not that it does anything). I rather like my judgement. BTW, as
> I understand it, SHALL but CANNOT has generally held to be impossible,
> except where the situation is somehow the fault of the player under the
> SHALL.
>
> -Aris
>

On a not-really-related note, do we actually need conditional actions for
anything? Most of our conditionals amount to "If I can do X, I do so."
Could we just ban them outright?

DIS: Spending shinies

[Alexis Hunt]

Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

[Alexis Hunt]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 20:31 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:28 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
> > Amend rule 2450 by adding the following text at the end:
> > {
> > If, at any time, a player owns a pledge which is impossible for em to
> > break, e CAN withdraw that pledge without objection and with 24 hours
> > notice.
> > }
>
> We used to allow the Notary to do this unilaterally (without any sort
> of dependent action). It lead to some fun counterscams (it's surprising
> how often someone would create a contract as part of a scam and forget
> to put at least one obligation in it).
>
> On another subject, note that I think this requires waiting for 4 days
> for objections, the way it's worded (not 100% sure on that). You
> probably didn't mean that. You might want to define "withdraw", too
> (although the natural-language meaning probably works).
>
> --
> ais523
>

Rule 2450 already provides for withdrawal without objection.

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

[Alexis Hunt]

I'm digging into the precedent of the SHALL implies CAN by announcement
(e.g. CFJ 3557), and I think it arose by taking various judgments out of
place. I'll post a more detailed analysis later.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 18:22 Josh T  wrote:

> Good job on noticing the extra comma there.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 12 October 2017 at 17:57, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> [Since we're on the subject of bad grammar, I might as well take care of
>> this -
>>  ain't getting any fresher.]
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> > This auction ended at Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:30:33 -0400, with the
>> following bids:
>> >
>> > * o, 1 sh., for emself.
>> > * o, 80 sh., for emself. (Incuded a blurb.)
>> > * G., 1,010 sh. for emself.
>>
>>
>> I transfer the Estate of Dawsbergen to myself.
>>
>>
>> I pledge that, if the below CFJ is found TRUE and survives the
>> Reconsideration/Moot
>> time frame, I will transfer 41 Shinies to Agora as unofficial payment for
>> this (and
>> no other purpose).  [41 shinies was the max bid I'd decided on last week,
>> before I
>> went and re-read the auction rule].
>>
>>
>> I shiny-CFJ on the following statement, barring o:
>>
>>   G. owns the Estate of Dawsbergen.
>>
>>
>> ARGUMENTS
>>
>> Regard the following hypothetical Rules clause:
>>
>> A player CAN do X by A, by B, or by C.
>>
>> I think there's only one reasonably clear interpretation of this clause,
>> that the player has three independent methods for doing X, either by A,
>> by B or by C.  The grammatical clues for this construct are the
>> repetition of the term "by", and the "or" which (by clear grammatical
>> rules) distributes over the list to "A or B or C."  It's pretty darn
>> clear, and really the only sensible reading.
>>
>> Compare this directly with the language of R2491, with line breaks
>> inserted for emphasis:
>>
>> The player who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely
>> fashion, cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner
>> by announcement,
>> by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or
>> by causing the winning Organization to pay Agora the amount of the
>> bid.
>>
>> Exactly the same as the hypothetical example.  So I have simply opted
>> for the first method (by announcement) for making the transfer, instead
>> of the other methods ("by paying").
>>
>> That's my whole argument.  It's an argument, and it's mine.  But I've
>> anticipated some counterarguments for your convenience:
>>
>> Q:  But don't you have to pay by announcement?  I thought that was the
>> point of recent rules changes!  So the 'by announcement' shouldn't be
>> separated from 'by paying Agora' because otherwise 'paying Agora'
>> doesn't work?
>>
>> A:  "paying" is already a by-announcement action by R2166 (Assets).
>> Moreover, CFJ 3557 recently found that the CAN and SHALL imply 'by
>> announcement', so that implication should map onto all three methods in
>> terms of announcing the reason for the payment.
>>
>> Q:  But other rules have this compound!  What about this:
>>   Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending"
>>   by announcement by: b) spending the current Pend Cost in shinies
>> and this:
>>   b) by announcement, and spending the current CFJ Cost in shinies,
>>
>> A:  None of those examples have an "or", real or implied.  And
>> "spending" *isn't* a 'by announcement' action on its own, so it needs
>> the support and the strongly-implied 'and'.
>>
>> Q:  But can't we read '...by A, by B, or by C' as 'by A and either
>> (by B or by C)'?
>>
>> A:  That's a really poor inference from the grammar, and substituting
>> a weakly-implied "and" for a strongly-implied 'or' is a complete
>> reversal of meaning, not a minor grammatical quirk.
>>
>> Q:  But the *intent* of the rule is clearly...
>>
>> A:  This is Agora - text of the rules, dude.
>>
>>
>> EVIDENCE
>>
>> Rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions")
>> [Note:  the most recent SLR/FLR has this rule incorrectly-written due to
>> a copy/past error.  I've taken this text from Proposal 7888.]
>>
>>
>>  At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate,
>>  the Surveyor CAN, by announcement, and SHALL in a timely
>>  fashion, put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction.
>>  Each auction ends seven days after it begins.
>>
>>  During an auction, any player CAN bid a number of Shinies on
>>  eir own behalf, by announcement, or on behalf of any
>>  Organization for which such a bid is Appropriate, by
>>  announcement, provided the bid is higher than any
>>  previously-placed bid in the same auction.
>>
>>  If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
>>  then that player or Organization wins the auction. The player
>>  who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion,
>>  cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner by
>>  announcement, by paying 

DIS: Re: BUS: Creating and Revoking Agencies

[Alexis Hunt]

Note that this intent fails as it doesn't specify the resulting powers.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 16:10 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> OscarMeyr that amendment doesn't work, it's not a power. You COULD
> create the power to make pledges.
>
> I intend to amend ORP to remove the text "to Alexis" if it exists.
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 15:50 Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I intend, with 24 hours Notice, to amend ORP by appending , creating a
> >> resulting powers of:
> >>
> >> {{{
> >>
> >> IMMUTABLE POWERS
> >> Agents of this agency have the power to intend to amend and to amend
> >> this agency on behalf of VJ Rada. These amendments may not give anyone
> >> the power to deregister VJ Rada, and they may not alter any text in
> >> the Immutable Powers section of this agency, without VJ Rada's
> >> explicit consent (acting as himself, from the email address
> >> vijar...@gmail.com).
> >> MUTABLE POWERS
> >> 1. Resign from any office. 2. Object to, or support, or withdraw any
> >> objection to or support for, any notice of intent. 3. Cast or withdraw
> any
> >> vote on any Agoran decision. 4. Transfer shinies to Alexis. 5. Pend
> >> proposals, at a cost of either shinies or AP.
> >> }}}
> >>
> >> -Alexis
> >
> >
> > Hmm, I did this wrong. On behalf of VJ Rada (via ORP), I intend, with 24
> > hours Notice, to amend ORP by appending " 1. Resign from any office. 2.
> > Object to, or support, or withdraw any objection to or support for, any
> > notice of intent. 3. Cast or withdraw any vote on any Agoran decision. 4.
> > Transfer shinies to Alexis. 5. Pend proposals, at a cost of either
> shinies
> > or AP. 6. Intend to create or revoke an agency, and create or revoke an
> > agency.", resulting in the powers being as follows:
> > {{{
> > IMMUTABLE POWERS===Agents of this agency have the power to intend to
> > amend and to amend this agency on behalf of VJ Rada. These amendments may
> > not give anyone the power to deregister VJ Rada, and they may not alter
> any
> > text in the Immutable Powers section of this agency, without VJ Rada's
> > explicit consent (acting as himself, from the email address
> > vijar...@gmail.com).
> > MUTABLE POWERS
> > 1. Resign from any office. 2. Object to, or support, or withdraw any
> > objection to or support for, any notice of intent. 3. Cast or withdraw
> any
> > vote on any Agoran decision. 4. Transfer shinies to Alexis. 5. Pend
> > proposals, at a cost of either shinies or AP. 6. Intend to create or
> revoke
> > an agency, and create or revoke an agency.
> > }}}
> >
> > -Alexis
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alexis Hunt]

This is yet another example of the I say I do therefore I do fallacy that
has plagued Agora for a long time, unless I mistake myself.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 14:26 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:04 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >> If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something
> >> like “understandable to an average English speaker.” This lets us
> >> avoid grammar-nazi arguments about if something counts as
> >> English(TM). (grammar issues, funner, deja vu)
> >
> > I'd argue that statements like TIYAEOTISIDTIDFTHPAFALT aren't
> > understandable to an average English speaker, but nonetheless used to
> > be understandable to the majority of Agorans.
>
> Pardon? I'd heard ATEOISIDTIDWHPAFALT
> (http://zenith.homelinux.net/agora_acronyms.php) but not this one,
> although they're clearly realated.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alexis Hunt]

I miss the PNP. Also the President, that was fun.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 13:49 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:41 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > You appear to be arguing for the e vs it distinction to be used to
> > distinguish between persons, as defined by R869 and everything else. By
> > this definition, Agora, not being capable of ideation on its own, does
> not
> > count as a person.
>
> The definition of "person" was somewhat different for many years. What
> we currently call a "person" used to be a "first-class person". We had
> "second-class persons" too, which were basically legal constructs which
> we treated as though they were persons; for example, some contracts
> used to be persons (and the text of the contract would specify how e
> was capable of performing actions). They had several restrictions on
> them, such as not having any voting power unless someone else donated
> them voting power.
>
> That all got removed in a mass repeal some time ago, though, and we
> decided to go back to having first-class persons as the only sort of
> person. Arguably this was for the best, given some of the shenanigans
> that second-class persons got up to.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidered judgment on CFJ 3569

[Alexis Hunt]

I'll publish a revised version taking into account ais523's arguments
(which thankfully do not affect the conclusion) and correcting
typographical errors.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 13:32 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > I submit the following thesis, entitled "On Conditional Votes and Trust
> Tokens":
>
> This was a very nice judgement.  Thank you for taking the time.
>
> In terms of "coordinating peer-review" for the thesis, I'll put this copy
> up
> for thesis voting after 4 days have passed for comments.  Let me know if
> any
> comments would lead you to revise, or if you want a thesis-version slightly
> different than the CFJ version, or if any major objections come up (I read
> it
> fairly carefully and none from me).
>
> Looks like you already have a B.N. and I'm guessing this isn't quite
> Master's
> level, so Associates?  (if you didn't have a B.N. I'd say it was about B.N
> level).
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alexis Hunt]

If my memory serves, "e" was used to refer to persons, but not to
non-person entities that may have person-like characteristics. The Lost and
Found Department, for instance, was never referred to with "e" in my memory.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 13:27 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:21 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > This proto is definitely technically superior to the first one, but it
> has
> > contradictions. One option is to replace "personal" with "third person",
> > since "personal pronoun" refers to all three persons of pronoun.
>
> I just realised we have to be very careful in defining this: "e"
> replaces "it" in addition to "he" and "she", at least in cases where we
> want to treat something like (say) a rule as a though e were a person,
> but doesn't replace the typical plural meaning of "they" (it does
> replace singular "they").
>
> At present, we'd probably use "e" for the game of Agora as a whole,
> given that e's the main holder of Shinies. However, after months/years
> of not having any second-class persons, I think that pronoun usage fell
> somewhat by the wayside. Maybe we should bring it back.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alexis Hunt]

A power-1 rule can only amend rules with power at most 1.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 12:57 ATMunn .  wrote:

> New proto:
>
> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s): Alexis
> AI: 1
>
> Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
> {
> A language is a set of symbols, sounds, and rules used to communicate
> information.
> The official language of Agora that SHOULD, under most circumstances, be
> used in all Agoran fora is English, with Spivak pronouns.
>
> Any player CAN, without objection, cause this rule to amend a rule to
> replace to replace singular personal pronouns (e.g.
> "he/him/his/his/himself",
> "she/her/her/hers/herself", or singular "they/them/their/theirs/themself")
> with corresponding Spivak pronouns ("e/em/eir/eirs/emself").
> }
>
> I think this looks a lot better. if there's anything else that should be
> changed, then let me know. If not, I'll post and pend this by tonight.
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:34 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>
>> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short]
>> Author: ATMunn
>> AI: 1
>>
>> Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora"
>> {
>> A language is a set of symbols, sounds and rules used to communicate
>> information.
>> The official language that should be used in all Agoran fora is Spivak.
>>
>> The Spivak language is defined as being nearly identical to English
>> except for the following:
>> * The pronouns "he," "she," and "they" have been replaced with "e"
>> * The pronouns "him," "her," and "them" have been replaced with "em"
>> * The adjectives "his," "her," and "their" have been replaced with "eir"
>> * The pronouns "his," "hers," and "theirs" have been replaced with "eirs"
>> * The pronouns "himself," "herself," and "themself" have been replaced
>> with "emself"
>> }
>>
>> Let me know what you think. I've had this idea for a little while now, as
>> a way to make it clear for new players why we use these abnormal pronouns;
>> and now seems like a great time as the pend cost is only 1 shiny, so I
>> might as well take advantage of that while I can.
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

[Alexis Hunt]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 10:40 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather (by
> Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in English".
>

I had been intending to bring back the old WO rule cleanup mechanism to fix
minor typos and errors without a proposal; it would be easy enough to put a
more explicit description of Spivak pronouns in there. Something like

{{{
 Any player CAN, Without Objection, cause this rule to amend a rule to
correct
 errors, or to replace singular personal pronouns (e.g.
 "he/him/his/his/himself", "she/her/her/hers/herself", or singular
 "they/them/their/theirs/themself") with corresponding Spivak pronouns
 ("e/em/eir/eirs/emself").
}}}

(I should look up the previous wording of this rule, when we had it).

DIS: Ruleset typo on the website (ATTN: Rulekeepor)

[Alexis Hunt]

On the website, in Rule 2231, a space is missing between "in general." and
"As this".

DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidered judgment on CFJ 3569

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 at 18:16 Alex Smith  wrote:

> Gratuitous: mathematically, "A is equivalent to B" means the same thing
> as "B is equivalent to A", but I'm not at all convinced that the
> mathematical wording was meant in this case. The intended meaning to me
> seems closer to "A should be treated as though it were B instead",
> which does not necessarily imply that a B should be treated as though
> it were an A. The absurdity concluded from the mathematical meaning
> here might be a hint that it isn't the meaning that should be in use.
>
> I'm not currently sure whether this changes the conclusion, but it
> needs to be addressed in the reasoning.
>
> --
> ais523
>

The mathematical meaning does not necessarily lead to an absurd conclusion,
as I showed.

Regardless, if we use a one-way definition, I think the conclusion is the
same, because we can't reason backward to conclude that grok's vote
indirectly endorsing G. counts as an endorsing vote. It might be possible
if 2127 said that an endorsing vote has a value equal to the endorsed
player's vote, but it specifically says equal to the endorsed player's
valid vote. Thus Aris's vote must be resolved first in order to determine
grok's vote, and grok's vote is never interpreted as endorsing G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidered judgment on CFJ 3569

[Alexis Hunt]

No, only gain. You can specify youself to lose.

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 at 18:27 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You cannot do this. Notices of Honour must specify an "other" player
> to lose and gain karma.
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 at 17:40 Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I submit the following thesis, entitled "On Conditional Votes and Trust
> >> Tokens":
> >
> >
> > I submit a Notice of Honour, with myself losing 1 karma for delivering a
> > judgment undermining an important core game mechanic without carefully
> > considering all avenues, and with G. gaining 1 karma for carefully
> picking
> > at my original arguments to help lead to the final, more sound judgment.
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

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

[Alexis Hunt]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017, 21:58 Owen Jacobson,  wrote:

>
> > 7920*  Gaelan, Aris  1.0  The Lint Screen v2   Gaelan  1 sh.
>
> PRESENT. I suspect this is impractical, per Alexis’ overarching complaints
> about platonic outcomes from subjective judgements. A refund mechanism for
> linty proposals might be more fitting
>

While I don't like this proposal, I do think that platonism is no issue,
because the only requirement is to review the proposal, not to ensure
compliance. There doesn't seem to be anything preventing a pending player
from reviewing the proposal and ignoring the issues they find.

>

Re: DIS: argument in support of conditional voting

[Alexis Hunt]

Ok, thanks. I will definitely confess that I didn't take that clause into
account, so I'll look at things more carefully when I get to this.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 at 12:12 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> The main issue I have with your judgement is not the trust tokens, it's
> this very clear statement at the end of the rule paragraph:
> "If the option cannot be clearly identified, a vote of PRESENT is cast."
>
> This clause is independent of the timing clauses earlier in the paragraph,
> and by Rule 2240 takes precedence over earlier clauses.  So if "because
> timing doesn't work" leads the earlier clauses to fail to identify a
> vote at the time it is cast, PRESENT, which is valid, should overrule that.
>
> You're right, I shouldn't have suggested it was retroactive.  I think it
> either is cast and is PRESENT and stays present for the result (breaking
> Conditional Votes but still counting as present), or is cast as PRESENT and
> becomes clearly identified by its conditional at the time the voting period
> ends (not retroactively).
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > I don't have the time to fully go through this right yet, though I know
> my reconsideration deadline is coming up soon. I will start by saying that
> the effect of this judgment on trust tokens
> > is potentially unfortunate, but that the point of Nomic is to play the
> game as written, not the way that we want to play. Rule 217 is clear that
> the text of the rules takes precedence, and I
> > won't be ignoring the text of the rules in favour of trust tokens. That
> said, "Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be
> augmented by game custom, common sense, past
> > judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.";
> certainly game custom and the best interests of the game would tend to
> point things towards conditionals working.
> > At first blush, it seems that the problem with determining whether the
> conditions are clear at the end of the voting period is that it creates a
> circularity. A ballot is not valid unless it
> > satisfies certain conditions, including clearly identifying an answer.
> The validity of a ballot has downstream effects, for instance, it could be
> the precondition to an action taken by agency
> > or referred to by a conditional vote on another Agoran decision.
> >
> > Retroactive effect here would be quite bizarre, since it would allow the
> following:
> >
> > Proposal A's voting period ends before Proposal B's. I cast a ballot of
> Proposal A conditional on your vote on Proposal B being FOR. You vote
> conditionally on Proposal B, prior to the end of
> > Proposal A's voting period. At the end of Proposal A's voting period,
> you haven't voted FOR, and my conditional is resolved as such. But then at
> the end of Proposal B's voting period, your
> > conditional evaluates to FOR, retroactively changing your vote, meaning
> that my conditional is changed retroactively and thus my vote, and possibly
> the outcome on Proposal A, is also changed.
> > This could introduce a paradox, if Proposal A's effect was to change the
> way that voting works and thereby change the retroactive effect.
> >
> > The reason I didn't believe prospective effect works (i.e. deferring the
> choice of option) was set out in my original judgment, but I will
> reconsider that in light of the arguments below. That
> > said, for the same reasons as above, I believe that R2127 can't cause a
> retroactive change to a vote to make it to PRESENT. There is no
> contemplation of retroactivity anywhere and it leads to
> > absurd results.
> >
> > Also, my position as judge here on the relitigation is awkward, because
> of the original underlying issue that remains fundamentally unresolved. So
> if I still stand by my original judgment, I
> > will re-judge that. If people disagree, they can moot and remand it, in
> which case I will judge the case on the basis that conditional votes do
> work and the goal is to evaluate the trust
> > tokens.
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 at 12:48 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   First, I was incorrect when I say there will be "no net effect" of
> this judgement.
> >   Back to it's original purpose, IT INVALIDATES ALL PAST ENDORSEMENT
> TRUST TOKENS.
> >
> >   So if you've been collecting trust tokens, you might care.
> >
> >
> >   I think a main issue with Alexis's arguments for CFJ 3569 are here:
> >
> >   > Per established precedent, the correctness of a ballot
> submission is evaluated
> > 

Re: DIS: argument in support of conditional voting

[Alexis Hunt]

I don't have the time to fully go through this right yet, though I know my
reconsideration deadline is coming up soon. I will start by saying that the
effect of this judgment on trust tokens is potentially unfortunate, but
that the point of Nomic is to play the game as written, not the way that we
want to play. Rule 217 is clear that the text of the rules takes
precedence, and I won't be ignoring the text of the rules in favour of
trust tokens. That said, "Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past
judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.";
certainly game custom and the best interests of the game would tend to
point things towards conditionals working.

At first blush, it seems that the problem with determining whether the
conditions are clear at the end of the voting period is that it creates a
circularity. A ballot is not valid unless it satisfies certain conditions,
including clearly identifying an answer. The validity of a ballot has
downstream effects, for instance, it could be the precondition to an action
taken by agency or referred to by a conditional vote on another Agoran
decision.

Retroactive effect here would be quite bizarre, since it would allow the
following:

Proposal A's voting period ends before Proposal B's. I cast a ballot of
Proposal A conditional on your vote on Proposal B being FOR. You vote
conditionally on Proposal B, prior to the end of Proposal A's voting
period. At the end of Proposal A's voting period, you haven't voted FOR,
and my conditional is resolved as such. But then at the end of Proposal B's
voting period, your conditional evaluates to FOR, retroactively changing
your vote, meaning that my conditional is changed retroactively and thus my
vote, and possibly the outcome on Proposal A, is also changed. This could
introduce a paradox, if Proposal A's effect was to change the way that
voting works and thereby change the retroactive effect.

The reason I didn't believe prospective effect works (i.e. deferring the
choice of option) was set out in my original judgment, but I will
reconsider that in light of the arguments below. That said, for the same
reasons as above, I believe that R2127 can't cause a retroactive change to
a vote to make it to PRESENT. There is no contemplation of retroactivity
anywhere and it leads to absurd results.

Also, my position as judge here on the relitigation is awkward, because of
the original underlying issue that remains fundamentally unresolved. So if
I still stand by my original judgment, I will re-judge that. If people
disagree, they can moot and remand it, in which case I will judge the case
on the basis that conditional votes do work and the goal is to evaluate the
trust tokens.

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 at 12:48 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> First, I was incorrect when I say there will be "no net effect" of this
> judgement.
> Back to it's original purpose, IT INVALIDATES ALL PAST ENDORSEMENT TRUST
> TOKENS.
>
> So if you've been collecting trust tokens, you might care.
>
>
> I think a main issue with Alexis's arguments for CFJ 3569 are here:
>
> > Per established precedent, the correctness of a ballot submission is
> evaluated
> > at the time of its submission.
>
> I'm not sure what "established precedent" Alexis is citing.  However, most
> of
> the precedents that I'm aware of are for INFORMAL conditional actions, not
> conditional voting.  For conditional actions, there's no official Rules
> governance.  So the body of precedent built up says "if AT THE TIME OF THE
> ACTION it's relatively reasonable effort to resolve the conditional, it
> works."
>
> However, the Conditional Votes rule was explicitly written to get around
> this.
> It does so by effectively re-defining (at Power 3) the term "clearly
> specified"
> so that it's retroactive - if the Conditional is determinate at the END of
> the
> voting period, then we retroactively declare that it was clear when cast.
> (It's kind of like ratification).  Or similarly, at the time the vote is
> cast,
> the rules *defer* the determination of "clear" until the end.
>
> There's no reason that this retroactive clarity can't work, because we
> don't
> need to determine clarity until after the voting period ends[*].   "It was
> clear
> when cast, because it 'ratified' that way" is no more philosophically
> difficult than ratification.  Especially because the rule was designed
> that way
> and has functioned this way for over 10 years.
>
> Now, the mess of rules around the terms "votes", "options", and "ballots"
> is
> enough that I can't guarantee I wouldn't come to a similar conclusion to
> Alexis by a different route.
>
> But at the VERY least, I think it's enough to discard part of Alexis's
> conclusions:  if the rules language mess doesn't map a conditional vote
> attempt to another Option, I think R2127 is abundantly clear that it's
> still
> (retroactively, perhaps) a vote such 

Re: DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v3

[Alexis Hunt]

"At the discretion of a judge" is an awful way to put in, because you're
explicitly tying the platonic gamestate to the whims of a judge. It's
basically saying "a loop fails or doesn't fail; whether it does so is
completely up to a judge who can only look at the case later". What is the
game state until a CFJ is called and a judge makes a decision? What if one
is never called?

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 at 02:39 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oops. I think I can fix most of those either by cutting things or
> tweaking bits. There's one complaint I can't think of a good way to
> fix (the thing about invalidating loops), but I hope that isn't a
> deal-breaker on its own?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You haven't addressed most of my concerns from the last draft, so I will
> > still be strongly voting against, and likely deregistering if it passes.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 00:33 Aris Merchant,
> > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Title: Conditionals and Determinacy v3
> >> Adoption index: 3.0
> >> Author: Aris
> >> Co-author(s):
> >>
> >> Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Determinacy", with
> the
> >> following text:
> >>
> >>   A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a
> statement
> >>   affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate (the substrate), or the
> >>   permissibility or possibility of any action affecting such a part or
> >> aspect,
> >>   dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual structure
> >>   (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the
> substrate
> >>   (inverse "to be conditional upon").
> >>
> >>   A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
> >>   inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible
> or
> >>   unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an
> >> unreasonable
> >>   effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is
> >> inextricable if
> >>   its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player
> >> SHOULD NOT
> >>   use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.
> >>
> >>   If a restricted value, or the value of a conditional, or a value
> >> otherwise
> >>   required to determine the outcome of a restricted action, CANNOT be
> >> reasonably
> >>   determined (without circularity or paradox) from information
> reasonably
> >>   available, or if it alternates instantaneously and indefinitely
> between
> >>   values, then the value is considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it
> >> is
> >>   determinate.
> >>
> >>   If an action would, as part of its effect, make a restricted value
> >>   indeterminate, it is void and without effect unless it is explicitly
> >> permitted
> >>   to do so by a rule; this restriction should be interpreted in
> accordance
> >>   with existing precedent, and this rule defers to judicial discretion
> and
> >>   game custom.
> >>
> >> Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditional Announcements", with the
> >> following
> >> text:
> >>
> >>   A player SHALL NOT deliberately make an action taken by announcement
> >>   conditional on an inextricable condition, and any such conditional is
> >>   INVALID, and its substrate void and without effect; these restrictions
> >> should
> >>   be interpreted in accordance with existing precedent, and this rule
> >> defers to
> >>   judicial discretion and game custom.
> >>
> >>   Extricable conditionals do not necessarily fail; however, they must be
> >>   reasonably resolvable given complete knowledge of the gamestate at the
> >> time
> >>   the message takes effect. This knowledge CAN require interpretation of
> >> data
> >>   in non-trivial ways (e.g. interpretation requiring CFJs), but such
> >>   interpretation must be achievable without absurd effort. No
> >> by-announcement
> >>   conditional may ever be conditional upon information which cannot be
> >> deduced
> >>   from the knowable gamestate at the time the message takes effect, nor
> >> can
> >>   such conditionals ever change the time the message takes effect.
> >>
> >>   Loops are generally viab

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: PPP

[Alexis Hunt]

Nope...

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 at 21:23 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> *TT*ttPF
>
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
> [updated version; I won’t resolve the first]
> I intend, with 24 hours’ notice, to create this agency:
>
> Title: PPP (Platonic Promises, Please)
> Agents: all players
> Powers:
> For the purposes of the agency, a promise is a statement publicly stated
> as a promise by Gaelan. The prior notwithstanding, a statement CANNOT be
> considered a promise unless the word “promise” was used in its creation.
>
> A promise is considered broken if Gaelan has acted in a way contrary to
> the promise, or failed to act according to the promise in a timely fashion
> after doing so became possible and required by the promise.
>
> * Once per broken promise, declare intent to Ratify without Objection the
> document { π = 2 }, specifying the scope as Mathematics. The agent is
> ENCOURAGED to object to this intent in the same message. (Note that this
> limit is not per agent.)
> * Declare intent to make any player an agent of this agency, and do so.
>
>
> Gaelan
>
>
> On Oct 8, 2017, at 9:21 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
> I intend, with 24 hours’ notice, to create this agency:
>
> Title: PPP (Platonic Promises, Please)
> Agents: all players
> Powers:
> For the purposes of the agency, a promise is a statement publicly stated
> as a promise by Gaelan. The prior notwithstanding, a statement CANNOT be
> considered a promise unless the word “promise” was used in its creation.
>
> A promise is considered broken if Gaelan has acted in a way contrary to
> the promise, or failed to act according to the promise in a timely fashion
> after doing so became possible and required by the promise.
>
> * Once per broken promise, pledge “I shall not violate promises” then call
> in the pledge.
> * Declare intent to make any player an agent of this agency, and do so.
>
>
> I intend to destroy my pledge (the only one) Without Objection.
>
> I promise not to use the pledge system (other than via this agency) until
> it is amended to make pledges considered broken iff they have been broken
> platonically.
>
> I promise not to destroy this agency.
>
> Gaelan
>
>
>

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

[Alexis Hunt]

I don't believe I was around for the drafts, sorry.

In any case, the problem with the economy isn't things like stocks and
debts, imo. It is that there is little benefit to accumulating wealth. That
needs fixing first in my opinion.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 16:52 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Given that I went through many rounds of drafting with this, I wish you
> could have mentioned it. The problem that exists is the lack of the
> ability to stimulate the economy with stocks or allow debt. This
> resolves that by creating a mechanism for it.
>
>
> On 10/09/2017 09:19 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >  AGAINST. There are a number of technical errors in this proposal
> > (e.g. saying that people CAN do things like destroy a bank without
> > providing a mechanism for doing so), but more generally, I don't
> > understand either the problem that this proposal is trying to solve or
> > how it purpots to solve it, and so I don't think it is currently work
> > adding complexity to the economy.
>
>

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

[Alexis Hunt]

Ah, I hadn't thought of pledges. I had something crazier in mind.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 13:08 Kerim Aydin, <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> Actually never mind, the new pledge rule makes it nearly impossible.
>
> Did we really just make it take Agoran consent to enforce pledges at all?
> That completely neuters pledges if you ask me.  Ugh.
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > It is if I can't find the paradox. I suspect that it's somewhere in
> > the winning rule, as I'm messing with retroactivity, which tends to
> > breed paradoxes. I can't find a way to force this specific text to
> > produce a paradox though.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > G. is saying that your proposal has a paradox. I haven't read through
> it
> > > yet, but I don't think the correct response is to include a victory
> > > condition in your rule.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 00:58 Aris Merchant,
> > > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:45 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >>> >   "If a person would otherwise win the game, but e, within the last
> > >>> > month, broke
> > >>> >   the rules to do so, or another person, within the last month,
> broke
> > >>> > the rules
> > >>> >   to help em win, with eir advance knowledge, and this fact is
> publicly
> > >>> >   announced within a week, the win is retroactively invalidated.
> > >>>
> > >>> Can we put Win by Paradox back?  Because I've thought of a way to do
> it
> > >>> if
> > >>> this is adopted.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Write the rule and I'll put it in my proposal, assuming it seems
> > >> reasonable.
> > >>
> > >> -Aris
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

[Alexis Hunt]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 at 10:28 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Not all that complex, though one must wait for the right circumstances.
> But the circumstances aren't too rare.
>

We must have different scenarios in mind, then.

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

[Alexis Hunt]

Reading the proposal, I agree, it is possible to construct a paradox with
it as written. The circumstances required are currently extremely complex,
however, our Paradox rule, when it existed, allowed a win for a
hypothetical paradox, I believe, and there definitely is a concrete set of
actions that could be taken by players that, under this proposal, would
result in paradox.

The exact paradox is left as an exercise to the reader.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 07:23 Alexis Hunt, <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:

> G. is saying that your proposal has a paradox. I haven't read through it
> yet, but I don't think the correct response is to include a victory
> condition in your rule.
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 00:58 Aris Merchant, <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:45 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> >   "If a person would otherwise win the game, but e, within the last
>>> month, broke
>>> >   the rules to do so, or another person, within the last month, broke
>>> the rules
>>> >   to help em win, with eir advance knowledge, and this fact is publicly
>>> >   announced within a week, the win is retroactively invalidated.
>>>
>>> Can we put Win by Paradox back?  Because I've thought of a way to do it
>>> if
>>> this is adopted.
>>
>>
>> Write the rule and I'll put it in my proposal, assuming it seems
>> reasonable.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>>>

Re: DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v3

[Alexis Hunt]

You haven't addressed most of my concerns from the last draft, so I will
still be strongly voting against, and likely deregistering if it passes.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 00:33 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Title: Conditionals and Determinacy v3
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
> Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Determinacy", with the
> following text:
>
>   A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement
>   affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate (the substrate), or the
>   permissibility or possibility of any action affecting such a part or
> aspect,
>   dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual structure
>   (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the substrate
>   (inverse "to be conditional upon").
>
>   A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
>   inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
>   unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an
> unreasonable
>   effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is
> inextricable if
>   its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player
> SHOULD NOT
>   use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.
>
>   If a restricted value, or the value of a conditional, or a value
> otherwise
>   required to determine the outcome of a restricted action, CANNOT be
> reasonably
>   determined (without circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
>   available, or if it alternates instantaneously and indefinitely between
>   values, then the value is considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is
>   determinate.
>
>   If an action would, as part of its effect, make a restricted value
>   indeterminate, it is void and without effect unless it is explicitly
> permitted
>   to do so by a rule; this restriction should be interpreted in accordance
>   with existing precedent, and this rule defers to judicial discretion and
>   game custom.
>
> Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditional Announcements", with the
> following
> text:
>
>   A player SHALL NOT deliberately make an action taken by announcement
>   conditional on an inextricable condition, and any such conditional is
>   INVALID, and its substrate void and without effect; these restrictions
> should
>   be interpreted in accordance with existing precedent, and this rule
> defers to
>   judicial discretion and game custom.
>
>   Extricable conditionals do not necessarily fail; however, they must be
>   reasonably resolvable given complete knowledge of the gamestate at the
> time
>   the message takes effect. This knowledge CAN require interpretation of
> data
>   in non-trivial ways (e.g. interpretation requiring CFJs), but such
>   interpretation must be achievable without absurd effort. No
> by-announcement
>   conditional may ever be conditional upon information which cannot be
> deduced
>   from the knowable gamestate at the time the message takes effect, nor can
>   such conditionals ever change the time the message takes effect.
>
>   Loops are generally viable, subject to the above restrictions. However,
>   long loops used abusively may fail, at the discretion of a judge; the
>   presumption is in favor of the loop being successful.
>
>   This rule is intended as a codification and clarification of existing
>   precedent. It does not attempt to overrule existing precedents, but only
> to
>   make explicit the principles by which its subject matter is to be
> understood.
>
> Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Action Rationality", with the following
> text:
>
>   An irrational action is one that is either deliberately and
> malisoally hidden from view
>   inside a larger message (e.g. a report) or contains excessive repetitions
>   or complex loops that make the message unreasonably hard to comprehend or
>   respond to; all other actions are rational.
>
>   A player SHALL not take an irrational by announcement action, and any
> such
>   actions fail.
>
> Amend Rule 1023, "Common Definitions", by removing the third item of the
> top level list, and renumbering appropriately.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Agency: PPE

[Alexis Hunt]

I don't believe this works as you think it does. Agencies can't create
obligations on players, only allow them to perform actions.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 04:12 Reuben Staley,  wrote:

> I intend, with 24 hours notice, to create the following agency, which is
> enclosed in curly brackets below.
>
> {
> Title: PPE (Proposal Penders' Exchange)
> Agents: All persons
> Powers:
> If Trigon has at least 1 AP or more shinies than the pend cost, an agent
> MAY, by announcement, use either resource to pend a proposal which e
> authored or co-authored. Every time an agent does so, e is considered to be
> in debt to Trigon.
>
> At any time, Trigon CAN mention a proposal which e authored or co-authored
> and an indebted agent. That agent then SHALL pend that proposal in a timely
> manner. E is no longer considered indebted.
>
> If this agency is destroyed, all indebted agents are then not considered
> in debt.
>
> If the head of the agency changes, all indebted players are considered in
> debt to the new head of the agency.
>
> If an indebted agent deregisters, an amount of shinies equal to the pend
> cost is transferred from em to Trigon. If e does not have enough shinies, a
> trust token is issued to Trigon instead. If Trigon already had a trust
> token, then the agent is let off.
> }
>
> I like the idea of this eye-for-an-eye proposal exchange, and I think it's
> a good way to let people who do not have the resources to pend a proposal
> because they have been pending a lot of them to call upon me during a dry
> spot where I don't have any proposals, and then when they're in a dry spot,
> I can ask them to pend a proposal for me.
>
> This is my first agency, and I'm not sure how far this concept will go,
> but I think it has potential. I might expand it later on if it gains
> traction.
>
> --
> Trigon
> --
>

Re: DIS: Draft: Crime Improvements v2

[Alexis Hunt]

G. is saying that your proposal has a paradox. I haven't read through it
yet, but I don't think the correct response is to include a victory
condition in your rule.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, 00:58 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 9:45 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> >   "If a person would otherwise win the game, but e, within the last
>> month, broke
>> >   the rules to do so, or another person, within the last month, broke
>> the rules
>> >   to help em win, with eir advance knowledge, and this fact is publicly
>> >   announced within a week, the win is retroactively invalidated.
>>
>> Can we put Win by Paradox back?  Because I've thought of a way to do it if
>> this is adopted.
>
>
> Write the rule and I'll put it in my proposal, assuming it seems
> reasonable.
>
> -Aris
>
>>

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

[Alexis Hunt]

CoE: my proposal "Clarity Act" is not listed as being in the Proposal Pool,
which it is because you did not distribute it.

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017, 23:50 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 5.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
> also a valid vote).
>
>
> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend fee
> ---
> 7908*  G.1.0  Silly season G.  OP [1]
> 7909*  G.1.2  No Lockout   G.  OP [1]
> 7910*  G.1.0  What is a rulekeepor G.  OP [1]
> 7911*  V.J. Rada 1.0  Infinite Money Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
> 7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP [2]
> 7913*  ATMunn1.0  Cheer Up v7? ATMunn  1 AP
> 7914*  o 1.0  SFDVP [3]o   1 AP
> 7915*  CuddleBeam1.0  Terrifying Proposals Reward  CuddleBeam  1 AP
> 7916*  Aris, o, G.   1.0  Pro Pace v2  Aris1 AP
> 7917*  P.S.S. [4], o 3.0  Banking  P.S.S. [4]  1 sh.
> 7918*  P.S.S. [4]3.0  Vacant Deputisation Fix  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
> 7919*  P.S.S. [4]2.0  YSUIII. [5]  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
> 7920*  Gaelan, Aris  1.0  The Lint Screen v2   Gaelan  1 sh.
> 7921*  o, G. 2.0  Passive Income   o   1 AP
>
> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
>
> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
> ---
> pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
> pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
>
> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
>
> [1] Official Proposal, inherently pending
> [2] There is some debate over whether this was actually pended twice, each
> attempt consuming 1 AP. This value is therefore provisional.
> [3] Stamp Floating Derived Value Patch
> [4] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [5] You SHALL, unless it is ILLEGAL.
>
> In order to reduce confusion, the shiny pend price is being removed from
> this
> report. A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating Value
> in shines (see the Secretary's report).
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
>
> //
> ID: 7908
> Title: Silly season
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
> Official Proposal
>
>
> Re-enact Rule 1650 (Silliness) with the following text:
>
>   Each Nomic Week a Player is designated the Silly Person.  The Silly
> Person
>   SHALL in that week, by announcement (1) designate another player, who
> has not
>   been the Silly Person in the past two weeks, to be the next week's Silly
>   Person; (2) submit a Silly Proposal.  If there is ever no Silly Person
> or the
>   Silly Person is not a player, then the next week's Silly Person is the
> first
>   player that any player publicly designates to be the next week's Silly
> Person.
>
>   A Silly Proposal is a Proposal whose sole contents are one of
>   the following:
> i) A limerick.
>ii) A rhymed poem no longer than fourteen lines. (No free
>verse!)
>   iii) A joke of no more than a hundred words.
>iv) A truly hideous pun.
>
>   The first Silly Proposal submitted by the week's Silly Person is an
> Official
>   Proposal.
>
>
> [I want to reward the Silly Person a shiny, but we have that dumb limit
> that
> rewards can only be defined in R2445, and the Fearmongor rule may not
> allow me
> to include other rules in the proposal].
>
> [For Rulekeepor, given history of Rule 1650:
> History: Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1650 by Proposal 2673, 26 September 1996
> History: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1650 by Proposal 3688
> (Repeal-O-Matic), 21 February 1998
> ]
>
> //
> ID: 7909
> Title: No Lockout
> Adoption index: 1.2
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
> Official Proposal
>
>
> Repeal Rule 2458 (Invoking Lockout).
>
> //
> ID: 7910
> Title: What is a rulekeepor
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
> Official Proposal
>
> Amend Rule 1051 (The Rulekeepor) to read:
>
>   The Rulekeepor isn't an office; its holder is responsible for
> maintaining the
>   text of the rules of Agora.
>
>   The Rulekeepor's Weekly report includes the Short Logical Ruleset.  The
>   Rulekeepor's Monthly report includes the Full Logical Ruleset.
>
>
> [This short rule was really hard to think of a good amendment for; this
> isn't
> the most inspired].
>
> 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:27 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have two ballots as PM. I cast one ballot of {Alexis, VJ Rada} and
> one ballot of {VJ Rada, Alexis}
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:20 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> For PM I vote myself. For ADoP I vote Alexis x 1 and myself x 1.
> >
> > NttPF. Also I think the ordering of your ADoP vote might be slightly
> > ambiguous?
>

The voting rules only allow for one ballot per voter (Rule 683). Each
ballot has a strength equal to its voters' strength (Rule 955), but the
voter can't move it around.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] ADoP and Prime Minister Elections

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 23:20 VJ Rada  wrote:

> For PM I vote myself. For ADoP I vote Alexis x 1 and myself x 1.
>
NttPF. Also I think the ordering of your ADoP vote might be slightly
ambiguous?

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Basic Guaranteed Income

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:44 ATMunn .  wrote:

> Why exactly did you remove this? Was it discussed that it should be
> removed?
>
> I don't have a problem with this being removed, I don't really care, I
> just don't entirely understand why this was removed.
>

Regular cleanup: The Promotor  CAN
 remove a proposal
 from the Proposal
 Pool by announcement if it is
not pending  and has been added
to the Pool more than 14 days 
ago.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:26 Alex Smith  wrote:

> The minimal gamestate change required to make Quazie the speaker is
> that Quazie is now the speaker. We're changing the present, not the
> past. Notably, we're not changing /why/ Quazie is the speaker; that's
> arguably not part of the gamestate, and even if it is, the minimal
> change is to not change it at all (so Quazie would now be the speaker
> for no reason). If other parts of the gamestate (such as whether a
> Speaker appointment is required) aren't explicitly included in the
> ratification, they don't change.
>

While I agree with the overall sentiment, I quibble on the details. Other
parts of the gamestate can be included indirectly, because the gamestate
changes 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. "

The procedure for ratification is, in effect, as follows:
1. Create a hypothetical copy of the game state at the time that the
document was published.
2. Minimally modify that copy so that it is correct.
3. Replay everything that has happened since then.
4. Set the current gamestate to the result.

The ability for knock-on effects like this to happen is absolutely vital
for ratification to work correctly. For instance, suppose a report is
published saying that I owned a Stamp, but it is incorrect and I don't
actually have one; at the time I also had no shinies. I purport to cash the
Stamp in. Nobody notices, because the report said I have one. I proceed to
spend the shinies that I got to call a CFJ. This also fails, because I
don't have the shinies. But when the report ratifies, all those actions are
effectively performed at once. This is really important because
ratification, *especially* self-ratification, is to avoid mistakes arising
out of continuing under false assumptions. If these downstream effects
weren't permitted, the end state here would be that I had a Stamp, but
since the cashing was invalid, so would be the CFJ. Ratification ensures
that the CFJ does in fact get called (albeit by the rules, rather than by
me, and later than originally purported).

Ratification does not, as Alex says, change history. The change is only
applied to the present, not the past. As a result, in this case it does not
create conditions that allow a new appointment of a Speaker.

(We used to have a rule that any ratification needed to list the
> specific part of the gamestate it was meant to affect, but removed
> that, probably because people weren't doing it properly. Some vestiges
> of this are still in the rules.)
>
> People need to stop assuming that ratification changes the past. It
> doesn't, period. It changes the present.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

[Alexis Hunt]

I think it would revoke G.'s Transparent Ribbon (if indeed it was awarded);
if the report had been true and correct, then G.'s attempt to award emself
the ribbon would have failed. As a result, the gamestate now would not have
a Transparent Ribbon.

Ratification generally can (and should, for good reasons) have such
knock-on effects. A related (but different) case was the one where I was
listed as an officer in the IADoP's (as it then was, IIRC) report as
holding an office, but not in the Registrar's report. Since officeholding
is restricted to players, it was held that the IADoP report ratifying made
me a player in addition to the officeholder.

The "minimal change" language is intended to prevent players from arguing
that some other unrelated change is made (e.g. the corrective gamestate
change also including unrelated changes such as transferring all of Agora's
stamps to me). Other ways that it can fail are adding "inconsistencies
between the rules and the game state", such as setting a switch to
nonexistent value, "no such modification is possible", which I think can
only occur if the ratification change would be overruled by a higher rule,;
and "multiple such modifications would be equally appropriate", which I
think would avoid ruling out a ratification such as "There is one player
who owns exactly 73 shinies", without specifying the player, so that any
one player having their numbers of shinies changed would make the
ratification correct.

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:17 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical discussion of
> what constitutes the minimal change.
>
>
> On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the ratified
> report I was
> > Speaker and used some speaker powers.  I'd say the minimal change
> > is just that the switch got flipped to Quazie magically upon the date of
> > the report.  But who knows maybe you're right.
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie
> >> speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now?
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right
> now.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>  My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being effective
>  as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker.
> 
>  I appoint G. speaker.
> 
>  --
>   From V.J. Rada
> 
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>  From V.J. Rada
> >>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Clarity Act.

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 at 01:57 Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> How does forking this out of the original (and quite old) rule change its
> interaction with other rules, under rule 1030 (“Precedence between Rules”)?
> I can’t see any obvious differences, but I wanted to draw attention to this
> in case others with more insight spot anything.
>

To the best of my efforts, there aren't any conflicts, so it shouldn't
matter.

This is a new and different definition of ENDORSE than what is presently
> the case, though I suspect that for all possible Agoran Decisions under
> current rules they are interchangeable.
>
> You’ve done away with RENOUNCE. To my knowledge I’ve never seen it used
> anyways.
>

Denounce is fundamentally broken since the other person can just flip their
vote to manipulate yours, if the voting strength is higher. I also have
basically never seen it used.

>
> Is it automatic that if the final list is empty, the ballot is equivalent
> to PRESENT?
>

Hmm, I guess it evaluates to an empty list. I don't think that's a problem
though; the empty list is a valid vote that ends up working exactly like
PRESENT except that it is not, formally, PRESENT. There is no meaningful
distinction under the current rules.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Archival disclosure

[Alexis Hunt]

I believe we've had at least one 12-year old playing on the past, but I
believe the honor goes to the President, which was a player from the first
instant of its (rule-defined) existence.

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017, 09:20 Gaelan Steele,  wrote:

> I just turned 16 about two weeks ago. I’ve registered in the past—we could
> find my past registration dates and do the math.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Oct 6, 2017, at 4:03 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder who the youngest Agoran ever has been. Does anyone know?
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 6, 2017, at 3:46 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> >>
> >> I played agora for the first time as a teenager - learned of nomic in
> high school and played for the first time back around 2005 maybe? This was
> similar timing to my muffin centric blog nomic win
> >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 00:03 Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >> Wow, I’m surprised. I assumed I was pretty young among Agorans, but I
> guess not.
> >>
> >> Gaelan
> >>
> >>> On Oct 5, 2017, at 10:43 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I was hoping to avoid this, but: me too. (blushes)
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Gaelan Steele 
> wrote:
>  Hey, I’m not the only one!
> 
>  Gaelan
> 
> 
>  On Sep 30, 2017, at 10:06 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
>  I'm just a random teenager.
> 
>  On Sunday, October 1, 2017, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >
> > Out of curiosity: is anybody around here *not* a programmer of some
> sort
> > these days?
> >
> > Oh, and no language which thinks that `[1, 2] + [3, 4] == "1,23,4”`
> is
> > working fine.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> >> On Sep 30, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Aris Merchant
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> I've used it, and indeed use it for most of my scripting. JavaScript
> >> is a general purpose language, and it works fine for non-web usages.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >>  wrote:
> >>> I have used Node.JS before and I don't like it because it is using
> >>> javascript for something it isn't supposed to be used for.
> >>> 
> >>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  On Sep 29, 2017, at 5:29 PM, ATMunn . 
> wrote:
> 
>  To be honest, although Python is my favorite language, I really
>  haven't tried many. The only other languages I really know are C#
> (which I
>  don't really like anymore) and a bit of Lua and Javascript.
> 
>  I have several friends who really like Javascript, (specifically
>  Node.JS) so that's one I have interest in learning.
> 
>  On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Owen Jacobson 
>  wrote:
> 
> > On Sep 28, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Gaelan Steele 
> wrote:
> >
> > [sits in corner with my Ruby-powered ruleset]
> >
> > Gaelan
> 
>  I like Ruby. It and Go pay my rent, and they’re interesting
> languages.
> 
>  I just happen to like Python more for this specific use case. (I
>  seriously considered writing it in Rust, too.)
> 
>  However, I’m a big believer in interoperability. The framework I’m
>  using, apistar, automatically generates API docs in HTML form, as
> well as a
>  coreapi schema document, for APIs implemented against it. The
> support for
>  including useful prose in those docs is limited, but it’s
> improving (and I
>  may send the apistar author a few pull requests about that
> myself, too).
> 
>  The idea is that the archive is an API-first service, accessible
> by
>  any language, so that if it’s useful, any Agoran can write tools
> against it
>  in their languages of choice.
> 
>  -o
> 
> 
> >>>
> >
> 
> 
>  --
>  From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> >>
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: PLEASE READ on voting

[Alexis Hunt]

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 10:24 Kerim Aydin,  wrote:

>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> First, I don't want to be assessor past the election, I grabbed the job
> mainly because I was guessing quorum would be an issue and I didn't want
> my proposals (or ribbon) to languish.  I won't be able to keep up with
> Assessor *especially* if e is required to track election votes (I'm
> questioning the wisdom of that, myself).
>
> I vote {PSS, G.} for Assessor, and PRESENT for Tailor.
>
> Second, I haven't accepted Alexis's arguments really.  I was hoping someone
> else would throw in a counterargument, but if not I may - Alexis has a
> *plausible* argument, but there are also plausible counterarguments.  I
> "accepted" it in that I moved to converge the gamestate regardless.  And
> it may not be worth arguing - even if the counterarguments are better the
> rules in question *are* a mess and the re-write is a good thing.
>
> In particular, I have an argument that conditionals evaluating to PRESENT
> still works - but only worth pursuing if it makes a difference for the
> current
> election or next batch of proposals (everything else is "converged").
>
> Finally, PLEASE HELP ME IN READING THE FIX PROPOSAL CAREFULLY.  It looks at
> first glance very well written (I have a couple quibbles but they're minor
> so far).  But ALEXIS WOULDN'T BE THE PRINCESS if e had not been adept at
> sneaking in rather subtly crafted bugs for later exploitation (that's how
> e got the title).  So please, review carefully for holes.
>
> Thanks all,
> -G.
>

I promise that my fix proposal has, to the best of my knowledge, no
loopholes or scams. Not going to make this into a formal pledge because I
don't think the pledge mechanism is well suited for a highly subjective
promise like this, but I would not try to embed a scam into something I see
as an important fix proposal. That said, it's certainly possible for
something I missed to be in there.

As for the campaign proposal, I shifted the duties to assessor mainly to
simplify the resolution process, and avoid the ADoP needing to resolve the
proposals. I could rewrite if whoever wants assessor doesn't want that
extra work.

>

Re: DIS: Idea: Regulations Impovement

[Alexis Hunt]

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 01:33 VJ Rada,  wrote:

> Title: Regulations for all
> Author: VJ Rada
> AI: 1
> Create a power 1 rule called "Office Regulations" with the text
> {{The holder of an office may promulgate regulations regarding the
> performance of actions tracked by eir office or the performance of the
> office's duties. These regulations are power 0.1, are INEFFECTIVE if
> they are an abuse of power, and may be repealed by subsequent holders
> of that office or by anyone with three support}}.
>
> An issue with Regs: The rule for Regs says Regs are normally the power
> of the rule authorizing them. However, Regs is only power 1.0 so
> anything authorising Regs must be less than that.
>
> ---From V.J. Rada
>

No subjective platonic invalidity, please.

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Alexis Hunt]

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 02:38 VJ Rada,  wrote:

> So uh let's self-ratify my ADoP report? Because every election I have
> ever resolved didn't work according to this.
>

It already is?

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 21:52 Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:35 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> >
> > Nevermind, I think I had sent that when I didn't understand pf and
> such. Your report is just fine. I retract my CoE (if that's possible, idk
> if it is)
>
> It’s not. However, I could deny this CoE, though, and common convention is
> to deny a CoE if the claimant wants to withdraw it or no longer believes
> the error is present. Given the other two CoEs raised about the report, I’m
> going to publish a revision anyways, so it’s a moot point.
>
> It might be worth an experimental proposal to add withdrawal of CoEs, if
> you want. It’s a surprisingly interesting problem: a CoE stops a report
> from self-ratifying, but does withdrawing a CoE cause it to self-ratify on
> the original schedule? A new schedule? Never?
>
> -o
>

I believe that rule 2201 both makes clear you must explicitly deny the
claims, and explains what happens vis-a-vis self-ratification.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:12 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> In writing a fix, it's worth noting that this breakage has been
> particularly noted
> in Instant Runoff elections, where people have been voting with ordered
> lists like
> (Endorse G., ais523, Alexis).  Given that "Endorse G." might be a list in
> itself,
> this has been very muddy in interpretation so needs fixing.
>

I wasn't aware of that; I'll attempt to fix.

The other big question in the fix is whether to figure out a way to ratify
> past
> endorsement-based trust tokens (hard to do since they're not tracked).
>

I am not sure if the self-ratification of a decision is enough for those.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: the real reward

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:04 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 18:12 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >   I award myself a Transparent Ribbon.
> >
> >   (Ultraviolet, Platinum, Orange, Cyan, Blue).
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, I think this fails. Rule 2438 states:
> >
> >   Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on
> >   which no valid votes were AGAINST, its proposer earns an Orange
> >   Ribbon.
> >
> > AGAINST is, however, always a valid vote on an Agoran decision to adopt
> a proposal.
> >
> > I would be amenable to including a Transparent ribbon award in a fix
> proposal, however.
>
> Sorry, but that's an absolutely absurd reading.  The verb "cast" is clearly
> and strongly implied there.
>
> There *were* no valid votes of AGAINST.  There were valid *options* of
> against.
>

Rule 955 does not define "valid option", it defines "valid vote"; Rule 217
implies that definitions in rules of equal or higher power *do* override
common-sense definitions. As a result, the correct definition in rule 2438
is as defined by rule 955. Note also that 955 is very clear to distinguish
between a 'ballot' and a 'vote' in a way that some other rules do not; it
seems to me to be the prescription of what the terms mean.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:01 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> Oh, crud.  Conditional votes broken entirely?  Maybe.
>
> For history, R2127 used to say in part:
>The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified
>if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified
>condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity
>or paradox, from information published within the voting period.
>
> This "clearly identified" was a direct and specific callback to "clearly
> identified" in R683:
> 4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
>the voting method.
>
> At some point "clearly identified" changed to "clearly specified" so
> the link is much weaker (or broken, as Alexis suggests).  Does this
> history of direct reference, later weakened, call for Reconsideration?
>
> -G.
>

Yeah, that's what I ended up at. I think the actual issue here is the shift
from "valid options" to "valid votes", and the tightening over time of the
language in 683. I will try to propose a fix tonight that hopefully the
Promotor can include in this week's distribution.

-Alexis

DIS: Re: BUS: the real reward

[Alexis Hunt]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 18:12 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> I award myself a Transparent Ribbon.
>
> (Ultraviolet, Platinum, Orange, Cyan, Blue).
>

Unfortunately, I think this fails. Rule 2438 states:

  Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on
  which no valid votes were AGAINST, its proposer earns an Orange
  Ribbon.

AGAINST is, however, always a valid vote on an Agoran decision to
adopt a proposal.

I would be amenable to including a Transparent ribbon award in a fix
proposal, however.

-Alexis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 01:13 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so
> that the HLR works better.
>

Opposed to this.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3568 assigned to o

[Alexis Hunt]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 21:23 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > I believe you got it backwards and meant to judge it FALSE.
> >
> > I also believe that this was an INEFFECTIVE assignment, because for some
> reason our
> > CFJ system for some reason platonically disallows invalid judgments. Can
> we fix that
> > please?
>
> "Valid" just means a possible judgement value, so an attempt to judge
> a case FISH would be ineffective.  What you're thinking of is
> "appropriate".  Inappropriate judgements are still valid ones.
>

That distinction appears to have disappeared at some point:

"The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on the
truth or falsity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was
initiated (if its truth value changed at that time, then its initial truth
value is used): "

Specifically, the language 'based on the turth or falsity" implies to me
that validity is dependent on the truth value.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3568 assigned to o

[Alexis Hunt]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 21:16 Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> I find this CFJ to be TRUE, following the caller’s arguments exactly. The
> alleged claim of error was
>
> > CoE this is bugging me.
>
> Sent in response to an attempt to collect a report award, and without any
> trivially obvious error in either the reward attempt or the report, this is
> insufficient for a claim of error.
>
> -o
>
>
I believe you got it backwards and meant to judge it FALSE.

I also believe that this was an INEFFECTIVE assignment, because for some
reason our CFJ system for some reason platonically disallows invalid
judgments. Can we fix that please?

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Alexis Hunt]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 19:00 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> > I CFJ on the following by paying a shiny:
> > If grok had not deregistered, e would have issued trust tokens to
> > both Aris and G. by eir vote on Proposal 7899.
>
>
> This is CFJ 3569 - I assign it to Alexis.
>

Does anyone else have any arguments as to why or why not any specific
outcome is correct?

Re: DIS: voting strength question

[Alexis Hunt]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 16:32 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> It looks like *all* entities, anywhere, ever, have a voting strength
> of 1 on decisions to adopt proposals, as per here in R2422:
>
>   If not otherwise specified, the voting strength of
>   an entity on an Agoran decision is 1.
>
> 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?
>
> -G.
>

That sounds right to me. Except we now have confusion with multiple
conflicting definitions of eligible voters... I'll try to resolve that
after all relevant proposals (notably my campaign one) are resolved.

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport mark...9?

[Alexis Hunt]

Except it *is* late now because it's October.

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 20:42 VJ Rada  wrote:

> Notably this makes the FLR also not late. Mark 10 let's go. COE: The
> FLR isn't late.
>
> I accept my CoE
>
> =Metareport=
> This report is effective as of 11pm GMT on Sunday the 31st.
> Date of Last Report: 2017-09-23
> Consolidation (filled offices over officeholders): 1.89
> Filled offices %:88.89
> Late reports %: 5.89
>
> Please do not call elections for every office thank you
>
> OFFICES
>
> OfficeHolderSinceLast Election  Can
> Elect[4]
> ---
> ArbitorG. 2017-09-15   2017-09-14Y
> Assessor2017-09-27   2017-09-28
> ADoP[1]  V.J. Rada  2017-06-05   2017-09-06Y
> Herald G. 2017-09-06   2017-09-06Y
> Prime Minister VJ[2] 2017-09-13   2017-09-06Y
> Promotor Aris   2016-10-21   2017-09-14Y
> Referee   o   2017-04-17   2017-09-14Y
> Registrar PSS[3]  2017-04-18   2017-09-14 Y
> Regkeepor   Aris   2017-07-06  2017-09-06 Y
> Reportor 天火狐2017-08-10  2017-09-06 Y
> Rulekeepor  Gaelan  2017-05-17   2017-09-14 Y
> Secretaryo.  2016-11-06   2017-09-14 Y
> Speaker  Quazie   2017-08-26   2014-04-21Never
> Superintendent V[2]  2017-09-28   2017-09-22
> Surveyor o2017-05-08   2017-09-14 Y
> Tailor  Alexis 2017-10-01  2017-09-28   Y
> Agronimist  o.   2017-09-21   2017-09-14 Y
> FearmongorG.   2017-09-27  Never Y
>
>  
> --
> [1]Associate Director of Personnel
> [2]V.J. Rada
> [3]Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [4]Anyone may inititate elections for these positions without being
> the ADoP or 4 support.
>
> REPORTS
> Office  M[1]  Report Last Published
>  Late[2]
>
> -
> ADoP[3]   Offices2017-09-24
> Herald Y   Patent titles 2017-09-04
> Promotor  Proposal pool   2017-09-25
> RefereeRule violations  2017-09-26
> Registrar  Players, Fora2017-09-24
> Registrar  Y  Player history   2017-09-04
> RegkeeporRegulations  2017-09-16
> Reportor   The Agoran Newspaper 2017-09-21
> Rulekeepor   Short Logical Ruleset2017-09-29
> Rulekeepor   Y  Full Logical Ruleset  2017-08-25
> Secretary OLEBaS[4]  2017-09-28
> Secretary Y  Charters  2017-09-02
> Superintendent  Agencies (incremental) 2017-09-27
> Superintendent  Y  Agencies (Full)2017-09-27
> Surveyor   Estates   2017-09-26
> TailorY  Ribbons  2017-10-01
> Agronomist   Farms Never
> !!![6]
>
>
> -
> [1] Monthly
> [2] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed.
> [3] Associate Director of Personnel
> [4] Organizations, Lockout, Expenditure, Balances, and Shinies
> [5]I know that the Rulekeepor updated the FLR with the SLR, but e
> didn't post it separately to a public forum.
> [6]Paging o.: no news is some news.
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:40 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > I accept Fire-Fox's CoE
> >
> > =Metareport=
> > This report is effective as of 11pm GMT on Sunday the 31st.
> > Date of Last Report: 2017-09-23
> > Consolidation (filled offices over officeholders): 1.89
> > Filled offices %:88.89
> > Late reports %: 11.76
> >
> > Please do not call elections for every office thank you
> >
> > OFFICES
> >
> > OfficeHolderSinceLast Election  Can
> > Elect[4]
> ---
> > ArbitorG. 2017-09-15   2017-09-14Y
> > Assessor2017-09-27   2017-09-28
> > ADoP[1]  V.J. Rada  2017-06-05   2017-09-06Y
> > Herald G. 2017-09-06   2017-09-06Y
> > Prime Minister VJ[2] 2017-09-13   2017-09-06Y
> > Promotor Aris   2016-10-21   2017-09-14Y
> > Referee   o   2017-04-17   2017-09-14Y
> > 

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 19:01 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Mine is based on the Roman court system and integrates civil and criminal
> procedures.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com


This sounds interesting! Perhaps circulate a proto-proto?

Re: DIS: Criminal appeals/process reform

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 18:13 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is everyone working on one of these?
>

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 16:42 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Current phrasing:
> "If a person would otherwise win the game, but e broke the rules to do so,
>   or another person broke the rules to help em win with eir advance
>   knowledge, and this fact is publicly announced within a week, the win is
>   invalidated. "


> I'm reluctant to give CFJs more platonic power until I implement
> broader judicial reform, which is next on my list after contracts.
> This wording means that there would be some limbo while the CFJ is
> sorted out, but our current procedures seem capable of handling it. I
> suppose I could implement some form of temporary suspension, but that
> sounds rather difficult to phrase correctly, especially without the
> judicial component.
>

That's better but I think I'm still not a fan.

>
> This is already a part of my contracts working draft:
>
> "When an action is performed on behalf of a principal, then the
>   action is considered for all game purposes to have been performed by the
>   principal, unless another rule specifically states that it is treated
>   differently, in which case it is treated as described by that rule."
>
> I also have this paragraph:
>
> "A person SHALL not act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the
>   second person to violate the rules. A person CANNOT act on behalf of
> another
>   person to do anything except perform a game action; in particular, a
> person
>   CANNOT act on behalf of another person to send a message, only to perform
>   specific actions that might be taken within a message."
>
> -Aris
>

Rule 2466 already has the former?

-Alexis

Re: DIS: GitHub Request

[Alexis Hunt]

Ah ok thanks, I'll poke around at it.

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 12:17 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> No, you need to enable GitHub Pages, but I would be happy to do that for
> you, fi you don't have time. There is a lot of documentation for it on the
> internet though.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Oct 1, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. Is creating a new repository named 'Tailor' enough to make
> /Tailor exist or is there another step?
> >
> > On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 11:56 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Done.
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 1, 2017, at 11:48 AM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Can someone please add me (github.com/alercah) to the GitHub
> organization so that I can add the Tailor's report?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
>
>

DIS: GitHub Request

[Alexis Hunt]

Can someone please add me (github.com/alercah) to the GitHub organization
so that I can add the Tailor's report?

Thanks!

DIS: Question for the Fearmongor

[Alexis Hunt]

Where are you getting your old rules from? Do you know where to find
archives of, say, 2011-era rulesets?

Thanks!

Re: DIS: Proto: Crime Improvements

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 03:24 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Amend Rule 2449, "Winning the Game", by appending
>
>   "By definition, a person CANNOT win the game if e broke the rules to do
> so,
>   or if another person broke the rules to help em win with eir advance
>   knowledge."


> as a new paragraph at the end of the rule.
>

As with the other proto, I dislike making subjective platonic restrictions;
this applies especially for wins. I'm definitely not opposed to making
illegal wins invalid, but there should be a more robust mechanism to do so.


> Amend Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", by appending ", CRIME" after
> "PROHIBITED".
>
> Create a new power 2.0 rule entitled "Conspiracy", with the following text:
>
>   A person SHALL NOT aid, abet, counsel, command, or induce the violation
>   of the rules by another person; when e does so, e commits the Class-3
> Crime of
>   Conspiracy.
>
> [The Class-3 bit means it's generally fairly minor, and may become more
> useful
> when we reenact a more thorough criminal system.]
>
>   If a person does not personally materially benefit from a rule
> violation, e
>   does not commit Conspiracy by merely knowing about it or the potential
> for it
>   to occur and not reporting it. A person never commits conspiracy if e is
>   the only one participating in the violation.
>
> [Credit to 18 U.S.C. §2 for some of that phrasing. Yes, I know I'm
> conflating
> aiding and abetting with conspiracy, but the difference is unimportant for
> our
> purposes.]
>

My only concern here is that the second paragraph implies that someone who
is not involved and does materially benefit who stays silent is breaking
the rules, but this is not included in the first paragraph. I think that
the "If a person does not personally materially benefit" bit should be
removed so that a player can clearly, say, benefit from the ratification of
an incorrect report that e had no hand in making.

Re: DIS: Draft: Conditionals and Determinacy v2

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 03:28 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Determinacy", with the
> following text:
>
>   A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement
>   affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate (the substrate), or the
>   permissibility or possibility of any action affecting such a part or
> aspect,
>   dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual structure
>   (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the substrate
>   (inverse "to be conditional upon").
>

Isn't "to be conditional upon" the same as affixation? The condition is
affixed to the substrate; the condition is conditional upon the substrate.
So they are synonyms.


>   A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
>   inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
>   unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an
> unreasonable
>   effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is
> inextricable if
>   its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player
> SHOULD NOT
>   use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.
>
>   If a restricted value, or the value of a conditional, or a value
> otherwise
>   required to determine the outcome of a restricted action, CANNOT be
> reasonably
>   determined (without circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
>   available, or if it alternates instantaneously and indefinitely between
>   values, then the value is considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is
>   determinate.


>   If an action would, as part of its effect, make a restricted value
>   indeterminate, it is void and without effect unless it is explicitly
> permitted
>   to do so by a rule; this restriction should be interpreted in accordance
>   with existing precedent, and this rule defers to judicial discretion and
>   game custom.
>

I'm worried that if the game state gets into an ambiguous situation, this
rule just becomes actually harmful as it nullifies all the actions that
made the gamestate ambiguous, preventing us from picking a resolution and
forcing us to treat things as if the ambiguity never happened. It gets
worse if the ambiguity is introduced platonically sometime after the action
in question: does this retroactively invalidate the original action?

>
> Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditional Announcements", with the
> following
> text:
>
>   A player SHALL NOT deliberately make an action taken by announcement
>   conditional on an inextricable condition, and any such conditional is
>   INVALID, and its substrate void and without effect; these restrictions
> should
>   be interpreted in accordance with existing precedent, and this rule
> defers to
>   judicial discretion and game custom.
>
>   Extricable conditionals do not necessarily fail; however, they must be
>   reasonably resolvable given complete knowledge of the gamestate at the
> time
>   the message takes effect. This knowledge CAN require interpretation of
> data
>   in non-trivial ways (e.g. interpretation requiring CFJs), but such
>   interpretation must be achievable without absurd effort. No
> by-announcement
>   conditional may ever be conditional upon information which cannot be
> deduced
>   from the knowable gamestate at the time the message takes effect, nor can
>   such conditionals ever change the time the message takes effect.
>
>   Loops are generally viable, subject to the above restrictions. However,
>   long loops used abusively may fail, at the discretion of a judge; the
>   presumption is in favor of the loop being sucessful.
>

I strongly oppose letting judges discretionarily and retroactively cause
actions to fail, especially without a stronger procedure in place to define
what that means (e.g. return to binding CFJs.

I also generally dislike the amount of platonic reliance on things like
"unreasonable" that we have here. I've heard some arguments defending its
use in AIAN in order to reduce the scam potential (as that *really* isn't a
rule that should be scammable), but I don't think it adds value here as it
adds uncertainty to the gamestate especially, as mentioned, in the absence
of binding CFJs.

>
>   This rule is intended as a codification and clarification of existing
>   precedent. It does not attempt to overrule existing precedents, but only
> to
>   make explicit the principles by which its subject matter is to be
> understood.
>
> Create a power 3.0 rule entitled "Rational Action", with the following
> text:
>
>   An irrational action is one that is either deliberately hidden from view
>   inside a larger message (e.g. a report) or contains excessive repetitions
>   or complex loops that make the message unreasonably hard to comprehend or
>   respond to. All other actions are rational.
>
>   A player SHALL not take an irrational by announcement action, and any
> such
>   actions fail.
>

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

[Alexis Hunt]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 at 00:12 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would. It means that the Speaker has to care enough to maintain eir
> veto. If e doesn't, and someone else does care about doing it, e can.
> It also means that a Speaker can object to something as a player
> without maintaining eir Speaker veto if e doesn't want to.
>
> -Aris
>

It doesn't work this way because you can't object more than once.