DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On 1/13/13 12:34 PM, omd wrote: THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET Last updated: 16 October 2012 Last proposal with recorded effect on this ruleset: 7317 Last change to this ruleset: by Rule 2380 Last ratification: Short Logical Ruleset of 24 June 2012 Last ratification date: 7 July 2012 Highest Rule ID number ever assigned: 2384 Claim of error: This ruleset fails to incorporate the effects of passed proposals 7319, 7321, 7325, and 7326. - woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Intents
On 1/14/13 6:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: For each of the following players, I intent, without objection, to make em inactive: Arkady FKA441344 moonroof Phlogistique Yally (None have sent a message to the lists in at least 2 months as far as I can tell, some of them as much as 5 months. Also, it's shocking to me that I'm still Active, but I appear to be.) I believe FKA441344 was already made inactive by omd around 18 Dec 2012. - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protect Assets
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 08:18, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 July 2011 23:54, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote: Set the power of rule 2166 (Assets) to 3. [Rationale: promises are assets at Power 3, so the defining rule needs to be, too.] Why? Many of the asset properties of promises don't fall naturally from the natural-language definition, and the asset rule defines many non-natural properties (such as sometimes-implicit transfers to the Lost and Found Department) of promises that substantially effect their operation. If any modification to the Asset rules would be effective at changing the properties of Promises, then clearly that gives a escalation scam at Power 2. If not, then the question is where that line is -- and it probably is ambiguous (perhaps even as to how much the generic asset rules apply now to promises), which is not so good for the stability of the rules. - woggle
DIS: Proto: Payment
Background: Currently, one can pay two FINE and a Spending Action with
the same Points.
Proposal: Payment (AI = 2)
{{
Create a new rule titled Payment with Power 2 and the following text:
To pay a unit of an asset is to destroy that unit while
designating exactly one purpose (such as satisfying an
rule-defined obligation or obtaining permission to perform a
rule-defined action) satisfied by that destruction.
To discard a unit of an asset is to transfer that unit to the
Lost and Found while designating exactly one purpose satisfied by
that transfer.
If more than one purpose is designated by the payer (or discarder),
then the destruction (or transfer) is not a payment (or discard).
Each instance of an obligation or payment-requiring action counts
as a separate purpose, even if the obligations or actions are
substantially identical.
Amend rule 2349 (Spending Points) by replacing the first paragraph with:
Where the Rules state that a player CAN perform an action 'as a
Spending Action', this means that the player CAN perform this
action by paying a number of Points in eir possession equal
to the cost of that action.
Amend rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing:
When in effect, the ninny SHALL, as soon as
possible, either destroy this amount of eir asset or transfer
it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged
to perform one destruction or transfer per case, even if
sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into
effect more than once.
with:
When in effect, the ninny SHALL, as soon as
possible, either pay or discard this amount of eir asset. The ninny
is only obliged to perform one payment or discard per case, even if
sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into effect
more than once.
}}
- woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: This message may not have been sent by
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 05:08, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 June 2011 17:34, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: I'm now seeing this on the first message in any thread to the lists if it was posted by a gmail user. I wonder if gmail's suddenly not liking how the mailing list is resending messages from gmail users. I bug reported it. I got sent to this page. http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=enanswer=175365 I think the problem is that the agora mailing lists are passing through DKIM signatures but changing the subject line (which is typically signed in a DKIM signature). http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-12 (sec 5.7) suggests that the mailing list should be configured to validate the DKIM signature, add a DKIM validation result header and a new DKIM signature, but I believe that this is not an easy task with current software. - woggle
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 3035-36 assigned to woggle
Proto-judgement follows:
On 6/17/11 8:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3035
== CFJ 3035 ==
At least one vote of FOR, FOR on the decision to adopt
Proposal 7077 is valid.
Caller: omd
Judge: woggle
Judgement:
History:
Called by omd: 17 Jun 2011 01:12:50 GMT
Assigned to woggle: (as of this message)
Caller's Arguments:
The mechanism for submitting multiple options which might
be the same already existed: submitting multiple ballots. A more
reasonable reading of which two of the available options requires
two different options, although Rule 683 clearly allowed/allows FOR,
PRESENT.
Judge's evidence: Attempted votes on P7077:
G.: {{
I vote:
7077 3 omd Fix fixed flexibility
FOR x FOR
}}
Walker: {{
7077 3 omd Fix fixed flexibility
FOR
}}
Tanner: {{
I vote:
7077 3 omd Fix fixed flexibility
FOR
}}
Murphy: {{
7077 3 omd Fix fixed flexibility
FOR
}}
ehird: {{
7077 3 omd Fix fixed flexibility
AGAINT
[...]
means FOR
}}
omd: {{
7077 3 omd Fix fixed flexibility
AGAINST
}}
Decision:
I protojudge CFJ 3035 TRUE.
R683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) specifies that an author submits a
ballot ... by publishing a valid notice indicating which two of the
available options e selects but also specifies that a ballot is valid
only if identifies *the* option selected by the voter (emphasis added).
Noting that the requirement for two options is on the notice and not
the ballot, I find the two of the available options restriction
requires ballots to be submitted in pairs and valid notice is a notice
containing one or more valid ballots.
Then there are several issues to consider:
* whether the options need to be distinct. Based on Agora's preference
for mathematical terms (R754), I rule that they do not;
* whether FOR x FOR is a vote of FOR twice. This seems like a clear
attempt to specify voting for FOR more than once. Since FOR clearly
isn't a number and R683 mentions the possibility of selecting two
options, I rule that x clearly enough delimits two votes for P7077 in
G.'s response to the distribution; and
* whether R2280 is sufficient for a vote of FOR to be a vote of
FOR, FOR:
If players can select non-distinct options, then they could specify
reasonable short hands for two non-distinct options and still indicate
which they are selecting. R2280 serves to provide this short-hand for
all players, so I rule that FOR clearly specifies FOR, FOR (when the
voting limit is 2 for the decision).
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3036
== CFJ 3036 ==
Under the ruleset in place during the decision to adopt Proposal
7077, a vote of FOR is implicitly treated as FOR, FOR
I protojudge CFJ 3036 TRUE.
- woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: A New Idea
On 4/14/10 12:45 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Proposal: The Gameplay-o-Matic (AI=1.9, II=2)
{{{
Enact a new Rule with power 1.9, entitled Fragments, with the
following text:
{{
If
- e has not already done so, or
- if at least two other players done so so e last did so, or
- three days have passed since e last did so,
a player may publish a Fragment. A Fragment SHOULD be a short
CAN publish to trigger R2125(c)'s document clause and add
self-ratification of the list of fragments in the Granulator's report.
(possibly as small as a sentence) body of text intended to become
a portion of a Rule. A new Fragment SHOULD bear some relation to
existing Fragments.
The Granulator is an office, and eir weekly report includes a
listing of all Fragments.
and their authors
Fragments have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Granulator.
The Granulator CAN, without 3 Objections, cause all Fragments to
cease to be Fragments.
}}
Enact a new Rule with power 1.9, entitled Defragmentation Proposals
with the following text:
{{
When submitting a Proposal, it is a Defragmentation Proposal if
all of the following conditions are met:
- In the same message in which it is submitted, the author
explicitly states that e intends it to be a Defragmentation
Proposal.
- In the same message in which it is submitted, the author lists
at least 4 Fragments, each of which would have their text
added to the Ruleset were the Proposal to take effect. These
Fragments make up the Proposal's Inode.
initial
A player CAN, without objection from the Proposal's author, add a
(or the Proposal's author CAN by announcement)
Fragment to a Defragmentation Proposal's Inode if, were the
Proposal adopted, that Fragment's text would be added to the
Ruleset.
On an Agoran Decision to adopt a Defragmentation Proposal, the
list of Fragments in the Proposal's Inode along with their
authors is an essential parameter. The Promotor's report shall
include the same information for each such Proposal in the report.
When a Defragmentation Proposal is adopted, the author of the
Proposal is awarded a Leadership Token. Additionally, each player
who authored one or more Fragments in the Proposal's Inode is
awarded Leadership Tokens equal to one third the number of such
Fragments e authored, rounded up. Lastly, all Fragments cease to
be Fragments.
Please specify whether this occurs before or after the proposal takes
effect.
If a Fragment that is a member of a Defragmentation Proposal's
Inode ceases to be a Fragment, it is still treated as one for the
purpose of rules relating to that Proposal. For this reason, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Granulator not restart the numbering of
Fragments.
distinct from any ID number previously assigned to an entity of that
type in R2161(b) already prohibits that.
}}
If there does not exist a rule entitled 'Leadership Tokens', enact a
rule entitled 'Leadership Tokens' with the following text:
{{
Leadership Tokens are a currency tracked by the Granulator. A
player CANNOT destroy (redeem) Leadership Tokens in eir
possession except for one of the following effects:
(a) A player CAN redeem 3 Leadership Tokens in eir possession
to satisfy the Winning Condition of Leadership.
(b) A player CAN redeem 1 Leadership Token in eir possession
to destroy up to 6 Rests e owns.
(c) A player CAN redeem 1 Leadership Token in eir possession
to award emself 7 ergs.
}}
Change the power of the rule entitled 'Leadership Tokens' to 1.7.
}}}
-woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: In before Kelly
On 3/23/10 8:22 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Proposal: In before Kelly (AI = 1, II = 0, please) Amend Rule 2287 (Props) by replacing this text: Once per week, each player CAN transfer a prop from one player to another, with this text: Once per week, each player CAN transfer a prop from one player to another by announcement, [Rule 2166 only provides this mechanism when the player transfers one of eir own props.] Ratify the alleged Air Traffic Controller Report that Murphy published within the past hour, containing the text An upcoming fix proposal will attempt to ratify this report. Rule 1551/13 (Power=3) Ratification [...] Ratifying a public document is secured. - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Intentionally ttdf
On 10/13/09 10:06 AM, Alex Smith wrote: I call for judgement on the statement It is possible to submit a Call for Judgement by sending a message to a Discussion Forum., submitting it to the Justiciar. Arguments: The Justiciar probably reads the discussion fora, at least occasionally, so is likely to receive the message. Although the rules for creating each type of CFJ imply that it has to be done by announcement, rule 2246 does not; so the issue is whether rule 2246 allows the creation of judicial cases (which default to inquiry due to rule 991), or whether it only applies to judicial cases that already exist. I am pretty sure that you can't just create judicial cases like this. (Particularly, initiating every subtype of judicial case is regulated., not to mention that the CotC would be required to track these hypothetical cases even if I ignored them.) Therefore, as Justiciar, I am considering this ineffective. - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2693 assigned to BobTHJ
On 9/23/09 11:50 PM, Pavitra wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
This judge's opinion is that such a Hard Deregistration is exercised
by the player ceasing to be involved in the Agoran forums and
essentially ignoring the game. When such occurs, R101 vii is fulfilled
as Agora makes no attempt to impose any penalty upon a absent player
other than to deregister them.
I pledge: {
This pledge is named Acid Test.
Pavitra SHALL NOT deregister.
Pavitra CAN terminate this pledge by announcement.
}
I CFJ, II-2: {
If Pavitra were to deregister now, explicitly invoking eir
R101(vii) right, the only appropriate judgement in a criminal
CFJ against em for violating the Power-2 R1742 by violating
Acid Test by deregistering would be GUILTY/DISCHARGE.
}
Arguments:
R1742/18:
... However, if a player is found GUILTY
of violating this rule by failing to act in accordance with
an Equitable contract, then the only appropriate sentence is
DISCHARGE, unless the failure pertains to a previously-imposed
equity judgement.
(Though I believe R101 prevents the judgment of GUILTY since it
proscribes anti-MAY-deregister interpretation of the pledge itself and
not just the rules.)
- woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2688 assigned to BobTHJ
On 9/16/09 12:08 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2688 = Criminal Case 2688 = ais523 violated the Power-1 rule 1742 by failing to act in accordance with the PerlNomic Partnership contract by attempting to modify it other than by the proposal mechanism. Note: Apparently, I wasn't thinking very hard when I specified that Power, because R1742 of course has Power 2 and has not had Power 1 for a while. Surprisingly, this doesn't affect the criminal case much. - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Justiciar] CFJ 2670a assigned to BobTHJ, Wooble, ehird
On 9/10/09 4:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: comex wrote: Appeal 2670a Panelist: BobTHJ Decision: Panelist: Wooble Decision: Panelist: ehird Decision: I missed recording this in the database until now, and (in the process of attempting to do so) noticed that the assignment was invalid (the panel is ineligible because ehird is supine). H. Justiciar ais523, would you please assign a valid panel to this (alleged) appeal? woggle is the Justiciar. Must've been looking at an old report or something. I redirect the request accordingly. I am quite confident the appeal does not exist. If Murphy's pending CFJ finds otherwise, I will act accordingly. -woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA and IBA actions
On 8/23/09 2:48 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: [snip] I harvest 2663, 2664 (recent CFJ numbers) for 4 WRV. These harvests failed because I harvested those CFJ numbers earlier in the week (and apparently didn't remember that I did this). - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2628-29 assigned to woggle
On 7/10/09 10:39 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: Charles Reiss wrote: On 7/9/09 10:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2628 == CFJ 2628 == My judicial rank is 4. Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2629 == CFJ 2629 == My judicial rank is 42. I judge both of these FALSE. Though we may decide to make exceptions to the II range when ordinary tracked IIs would come to have an impossible II value, judicial rank is defined as a switch for which no such discretion exists; the rules define the procedure for us: Rule 2162/1 (Power=2) Switches [...] b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch, exactly one of which is designated as the default. No other values are possible for instances of that switch. [...] If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible value, it comes to have its default value. [...] R2226's with the same range and default as interest indices is clearly a reference to R2153's definition, meaning that the possible values for the judicial rank switch are 0, 1, 2, and 3 and the default value is 1. Thus, plainly if coppro's judicial rank would have become 4 or 42 by the mechanism of R2226, it instead became 1 per R2162. - woggle I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment. The judge's logic is flawed - if it were POSSIBLE to give me a judicial rank of 4 or 42, they would have to be possible values of a switch, so my rank would not be reset to default. Were it not POSSIBLE, the flip would simply fail and I would remain at 3. Either way, my rank could not have become 1. I recommend REMAND so that the judge may fix the errors in eir argument. Gratuitous arguments: I note that I deliberately did not rule whether coppro's attempts to switch eir judicial rank did anything. (That is, I did not determine whether eir rank is 1 or 3.) R2153 takes precedence over R2226, so it is plainly able to modify what it means to flip the switch to a value. would otherwise fail to have a possible value, ... can easily and reasonably be read as defining a mandated switch to a non-possible value as a switch to a possible value instead. Indeed, this is presumably the intention of the switch rule when such flipping occurs as part of a more complicated transaction. To determine whether coppro's rank is 1 or 3, we need to know whether R2153's use of a lower-case possible not referring to an action (for which it is not reasonable to apply the MMI definition of POSSIBLE) nevertheless made the flip IMPOSSIBLE. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6395-6402
On 7/6/09 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: [snip] That aside, it's a more general issue. Let's say I have a detailed private contract with all sorts of economic and political manipulations. One small part of that is an act on behalf of. When it happens, all the public needs to know is that the clause exists (and that it's not contested between grantor and grantee, which can be accomplished by a self-ratify period). It's possible to use the manipulations above to make those sorts of sub-contracts, but the Rule should be more flexible and just allow the publication of the clause to be sufficient, as it's a natural function of private contracts. This rule just places a bureaucratic burden on something that remains possible anyway. Since undoubtedly, the various parts of your detailed private contract will interact in all sorts of fun ways, I do not want to have to figure out whether the clause you published is really effective in the context of the contract or not. While we could attempt to define what it means to publish a suitable contract detail and make errors self-ratifying or similar, I really think it's easier to just require it to be a separate contract, so we know its POSSIBILITY is not overridden by unseen clauses. -woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup
On 7/5/09 10:01 AM, C-walker wrote:
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/09 6:54 AM, C-walker wrote:
[snip]
I submit the following proposal:
{{
Contract Cleanup (AI = 2, II = 0)
Terminate each non-pledge Public contract which does not contain the
string inferences.
}}
I intend, without objection, to make this proposal Distributable.
I object.
-woggle
Why?
I would prefer the contracts to be terminated to be explicitly
enumerated in any contract cleanup proposal or action. And, well, the
Notary already CAN do this without objection (which should be done
first, to limit contracts terminated by proposal to ones where there is
a little bit of controversy on deadness).
-woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [LPRS] Null Pointer
On 7/5/09 1:16 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: Charles Reiss wrote: On 7/5/09 12:42 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: Having received the necessary consent, I cause the LPRS to intend with Agoran Consent to register. I support. You CANNOT. Yes I can. The LPRS is the initiator of the intent, not me. Doesn't matter. You are the Executor of the intent. Quoth Rule 2124: A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an announcement of intent to perform the action. [...] The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support it, but CAN generally object to it (withdrawal of intent is equivalent to objection). [...] - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A wisp of vapor escapes the fountain...
On 6/16/09 6:55 PM, Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Sean Huntride...@gmail.com wrote:
Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
I agree to the following:
{
This is a Public Legalistic contract and a pledge, called Three Coins.
Parties to Three Coins are called Marvy. For the purposes of Three
Coins, to Dance means to cast exactly one valid vote on an Agoran
decision, and a Powerful Dance is a vote of PRESENT. Any party to
this contract may leave it by announcement.
}
I CFJ on the statement It is ILLEGAL for me to vote for Quazie in the
ongoing Janitor election.
FALSE, R754 provides that contracts cannot alter the definitions of
words present in rules.
Right, but these aren't defined, nor are they used in mathematical or
legal contexts. 754(4) says that the ordinary-language meanings
should be used (and even here, I'm not sure Marvy has an
ordinary-language meaning other than a slang form of Marvelous), and
contracts or lower-powered rules should be used for guidance. So my
contract is guiding the undefined term. In fact, if I amended it to
include all players in the definition of Marvy, I think they might
be bound by the interpretation it causes rule 2029 to have, even if
they aren't parties to the contract.
I don't think your attempt to define 'Marvy' does anything. (The judge,
after carefully considering the implications of using it as guidance,
will probably decide not to in the best interest of the game.) And,
well, you who are marvellous probably isn't a bad 'ordinary language'
interpretation. (Don't like that it's not a noun? Please direct your
complaint to Ozymandias c/o Mr Shelley.)
But, really, aren't you missing the bigger problem here? Namely, your
much sketchier attempts to redefine (through guidance) the
ordinary-language word Dance to mean something very
unordinary-language-dancing-like and your attempt to redefin the word
'Powerful' to something rather unlike the rule-defined Power or the
ordinary language term 'Power'.
-woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: The Conservative Party
On 6/2/09 3:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 00:12 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
3. Immediately after an Agoran Decision is initiated, the Conservative
Party acts on behalf of each of its parties to cause that party to vote
on that decision with the option selected being party stance on that
decision as defined later in this contract.
If that works, it shouldn't. And act-on-behalf needs an overhaul anyway.
I submit the following proposal (AI 1.7, II 1, Title=Some actual
act-on-behalf legislation), and intend with 3 support to make it
distributable:
Create a new power-1.7 rule with the following text:
{{{
Under certain circumstances (explained in this rule and/or other rules),
it is POSSIBLE for a person (the attornor) to perform an action on
behalf of another person (the attornee); doing so is known as attorning
that person (syn. act on behalf of the attornee, act on the
attornee's behalf). It is IMPOSSIBLE to attorn if:
- The action could be performed by the attornee by announcement, and
- At least one rule of power at least 1.7 explicitly permits the action,
and no rule forbids it, and
- The attornor is first-class.
When an attornor attorns, the effect is the same as if the attornee had
performed that action by announcement.
An attornor CAN attorning to perform a specific action by announcement
if the attornee is party to a contract that specifically allows the
attornor (or any of a set of players that includes the attornor) to
perform that action (or to perform any of a set of actions that includes
that action).
}}}
In rule 2169, replace act on the party's behalf with attorn the
party.
How about?
Proto-proposal:
Create a new power-3 rule with the following text:
{{{
Where permitted by rules of power at least 3, a person (the
attornor) CAN by announcement attorn (syn. act on behalf of, act on
the attornee's behalf) another person (the attornee). The effect of
attorning is equivalent to the attornor publishing a public message with
the specified announcements to the same fora the attornor's message is
sent to. A message's claim to contain a successful announcement of
attorning for another person is self-ratifying.
It is POSSIBLE to attorn if the attornee is party to a Public
contract explicitly permitting acting on behalf of the attornee.
It is POSSIBLE to attorn if the attornee is a partnership (and a
person) and the partnership's text explicit permits it.
When permitted by rules of power at least 1.7, it is possible to
attorn without N objections where N is at most 4.
}}}
[Currently, R2169 permits acting on behalf without 3 objections for
judges in equity cases, which the last paragraph would perserve (and
allow a little lower-power flexibility.]
-woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Insulator] Report
On 5/25/09 5:28 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: woggle wrote: !05/19:001 17:16 comex Wooble 22038forgery CoE: This notice was invalid. The crime it named, Forgery, is not specified by the rules. The NoV named Endorsing Forgery, which is specified by the rules; it's only the report that omitted Endorsing. The second NoV (which wasn't on 19 May) named the crime correctly. The first did not. -woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool Report
On 5/25/09 5:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: [snip] ps. court cases raised about a document should block ratification, not just self-ratificatation; generalization of R2201 in order here? I don't think that's a good idea unless CFJs raised about a document can be more clearly/objectively identified. -woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Fix contract problems
On 5/10/09 2:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Fix contract problems
(AI = 2, please)
Change the power of Rule 2136 (Contests) to 2.
[This fixes two bugs: R2198 allows contestmaster to be flipped, and
secures the flipping of contract switches so that R2136 cannot allow
contestmaster to be flipped.]
Ratify the following document: {
At AI 2?
[snip]
-woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: Industrial Bank Agora
On 5/2/09 5:23 PM, comex wrote: On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote: Also, I rather dislike the bias here towards currencies denominated in large units. How about a little less such bias, like: I thought about having it depending on zm but this system is already relatively annoying, as you have to remember what you're already deposited this week or risk messing up your transactions. As the main purpose of the diminishing returns is to prevent scams, legitimate uses should rarely go below 0.80; so it makes little difference, and basing it on zm makes deposits even more of a pain to calculate because you have to keep a running total of your deposits so far. If it makes a big difference to you, I might change it. I didn't think my proposal was much more burdensome, since I expected players to be tracking how much zm they think they got from their deposits anyways so as not to use zm they don't have. (Or, if they aren't, to not really care exactly how much they have until they see the President's report.) A perhaps simpler approach might be to count deposits of some cheap assets (say Rate 40, covering the common crops initially) as some fraction (e.g. a quarter) of a deposit. But this probably doesn't remove burden substantially. Also, shouldn't there be a rate for X crops initially? - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Proto-Contract: Industrial Bank Agora
On 5/2/09 3:09 PM, comex wrote: On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: Add auto rates and I'm sold. I'm explicitly not including auto rates in this. I actually think the PBA did pretty well, but my highest priority is preventing scams-- a bank should be a trustworthy place to invest your assets. Most normal transactions are low-volume but scams are very high-volume, and diminishing returns should significantly slow down the latter without much affecting the former. I'm not sure I've set the limit at the right place, but the rate multipliers can be changed once the IBA has some real-world experience. Auto rate systems don't necessarily enable scams, but your assumption with the PBA was wrong: there was too much apathy for your expected periodic mini-scams to stabilize the rates, and I think that applies in general for assumptions about market forces and whatnot. So I'm going to go with a manual system this time, and we'll see what happens! Second draft, with lots of bugfixes, slightly changed multipliers (thanks for the advice, BobTHJ), and initial rates at the bottom: === I. IBA This is the Industrial Bank Agora. The currency of the IBA is zorkmids (zm); the recordkeepor of zorkmids is the President. Any person CAN join this contract by announcement. Any party to this contract CAN leave it by announcement, unless e is involved in a pending Offer. The President of the IBA is comex. II. Summary - You can join the contract by announcement. Please join before attempting to make Offers or vote ISELL-- your only obligations are to uphold the terms of Offers you make. - You can deposit 4 assets per week for the standard rate; further deposits give you diminishing returns to prevent scams, but you can still get a good price for up to 10. - You can always withdraw assets for the standard rate. - You can intend to sell or buy assets, naming a price; this is known as an Offer, and other parties can fill the Offer by announcement. - ISELL works like SELL, but you can vote ISELL on dependent actions as well as decisions. III. Banking Every asset has a Rate in zorkmids, intially zero. The President's report includes a Rate List containing all nonzero Rates. IV. Withdrawal A person CAN withdraw an asset in the IBA's possession if e has at least its Rate in zorkmids; those zorkmids are destroyed in eir possession and the IBA transfers the asset to em. V. Deposits A person CAN deposit an asset by transferring it to the IBA; e then gains the Effective Rate in zorkmids. The Effective Rate for a deposit is its Rate, multiplied by a value depending on the number of previous deposits made in the same week with the same Executor, and rounded to the nearest integer: prevrate 0-3 1.00 4-6 0.90 7-9 0.80 10 0.73 11 0.62 12 0.50 13 0.38 14 0.26 15 0.18 16 0.12 17 0.08 18 0.05 19 0.03 20 0.02 21- 0.01 This needs a ceiling. (If I get infinite currency _X_, I should get a large but bounded amount of zm within a week.) Also, I rather dislike the bias here towards currencies denominated in large units. How about a little less such bias, like: The Effective Rate for a deposit is its Rate, multiplied by a value depending on the value (in zorkmids) gained from previous deposits made in the same week with the same Executor, and rounded to the nearest integer (breaking ties by rounding to even integers): floor(prev/100) rate 0-3 1.00 4-6 0.90 7-9 0.80 10 0.73 11 0.62 12 0.50 13 0.38 14 0.26 15 0.18 16 0.12 17 0.08 18 0.05 19 0.03 20 0.02 21-30 0.01 31-40 0.005 41-50 0.003 51-60 0.001 61- 0 [Revised summary here is You can deposit 400zm of assets in a week for the standard rate; further deposits give you diminishing returns to prevent scams, but you can still get a good rate for up to 1100zm worth.] -woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Decriminalize restricted actions
On 4/28/09 4:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: I retract the previous version of this proposal. Proposal: Decriminalize restricted actions (AI = 3, please) Amend Rule 2125 (Regulation Regulations) by replacing this text: d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action MAY NOT be performed except as allowed by the rules. with this text: d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while certain conditions are satisfied. Except as allowed by the rules, performing such an action is the Class-N Crime of Restricted Behavior, where N is the maximum power of the rules explicitly allowing it (rounded up as needed to become a valid Class of Crime). This should avoid taking precedence over a higher- or lower-class crime defined by the rule that contains the MAY. - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: http://irc.freenode.net:6667/#%23nomic no longer a forum
On 4/10/09 10:08 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: ##nomic doesn't work for me either. Besides, Rule 478 says the publicity of a forum can be changed by the Registrar without objection by announcing intent to change it to that forum. But that forum is inaccessible so this is hardly possible. I assure that the forum actually exists and continues to be functional. As with most technical things, can we be a whole lot more specific than doesn't work, please? You might also consider irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/%23%23nomic if your IRC client actually takes URLs and is not forgiving with their format. - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2443 assigned to Yally
On 4/8/09 10:04 AM, Alex Smith wrote: On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 20:37 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: FALSE; Rule 2110 states that: A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of a rule-defined action. However, CFJ 2423 has determined what has happened, not whether something is legal or whether something is possible to happen. I appeal this judgement (of CFJ 2443). I'd be happy with either TRUE or FALSE with sensible arguments (happier with TRUE, of course), but I strongly disagree with the reasoning here. Paradox claims after the paradox has actually happened are traditionally considered stronger than hypotheticals. It's generally possible to determine whether a hypothetical rules-defined action is possible or legal; but it's also generally possible to determine whether an actual rules-defined action actually happened / was illegal, which is a pretty obvious definition of possible/illegal in that case. In my opinion, the only controversy is about whether the CFJ was specifically about the possibility or legality of an action, not about whether determining what happened is the same as determining what could happen. Gratuitous for any appeal: The judge's arguments are at bit unclear, but I believe the judgment is basically correct in that the statement of CFJ 2423 purported to determine which of several mechanisms were used (in that sense what has happened), not only whether the purported the rule change attempt was POSSIBLE or LEGAL. - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: And even if the above were not the better interpretation, surely the ambiguity on this matter would be sufficient to fail to satisfy R1504's condition (d) the Accused could have reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule. My issue here is that the defendant specifically and directly confessed to it. If e'd provided either a defense like yours or complete silence, that would be fine - or at least enough for (d). I think we need to take such confessions at face value, or do you think it's a judge's burden to decide when a defendant really meant it? (And if so, isn't that a matter for sentencing anyway?) We generally accept, prima facie, that what people say about unconfirmable matters (e.g. what they were thinking at the time) is true. And people should have the right to say what they want, even self-damaging things; it's more harmful to the game to say I know you confessed, but we're going to ignore that. -G. (d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually thinks, only what e could have thought. Therefore, there is no reason to consider the defendent's admission in deciding whether it is acceptable. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: (d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually thinks, only what e could have thought. Therefore, there is no reason to consider the defendent's admission in deciding whether it is acceptable. Um, IIRC I wrote (d), and I beg to differ on it what it deliberately cares about. -G. Looking at the archives, I guess you probably did. But I don't know how else you expected people to interpret a change from the old wording (UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule) to one that uses could have. And, well, I think it's an improvement. - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 16:26, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: (d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually thinks, only what e could have thought. Therefore, there is no reason to consider the defendent's admission in deciding whether it is acceptable. Um, IIRC I wrote (d), and I beg to differ on it what it deliberately cares about. -G. Looking at the archives, I guess you probably did. But I don't know how else you expected people to interpret a change from the old wording (UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule) to one that uses could have. And, well, I think it's an improvement. All I'm saying is that if a defendant admits that e could have known, we should take eir word for it. Here's an example. Let's say there's a really obscure way that everyone in the game is violating a rule, but no one knows it. Then, one person does eir own research and learns about it, and is very sure about it. But e continues to knowingly violate it anyway. And then, later, e confesses. Well... given the research, that particular person could have/should have known. And when e confesses, we take eir word for it that e knew what e was doing. -G. I think plainly this is not what R1504(d) says since it considers whether some hypothetical situation exists where the defendent could have believed it did not violate the rule. This perhaps does not excuse them for violations after research, but ought to excuse them when others who did the same research may have concluded that no, it did not violate the rule. And, anyways, I do not think it is in the best interest of the game to limit the R1504(d) defense like this: doing so encourages people to hide their knowledge: if you ever believe that something you and others do violates a rule, you're better off pretending not to know about it or to have the contrary interpretation, for otherwise such evidence might be used against you in a future criminal case. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 18:08, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: I think plainly this is not what R1504(d) says since it considers whether some hypothetical situation exists where the defendent could have believed it did not violate the rule. This perhaps does not excuse them for violations after research, but ought to excuse them when others who did the same research may have concluded that no, it did not violate the rule. Part of the *whole point* of this is that the defendant had a chance to raise any or all of these defenses! If e doesn't, it's appropriate for the judge to find against em. The judge had a confession that was I disagree. The judge has an affirmative duty to check each possible defense emselves regardless of what the defendant says in order to avoid making an inappropriate judgment on culpability. Ideally, figures related to the case (not necessarily the defendant) will bring forward arguments to make this search easy, and if no one does, the judge can be excused for doing a poor job at finding them. In this respect, criminal ought to be similar to inquiry cases. pretty deliberate-looking. Look: if a defendant specifically says I'm going to withhold evidence or give a false confession just to see what the court does, that's eir own business; allowing em to do so and then penalizing the judge (for it does penalize the judge to overturn a case) is not reasonably just. And, anyways, I do not think it is in the best interest of the game to limit the R1504(d) defense like this: doing so encourages people to hide their knowledge: if you ever believe that something you and others do violates a rule, you're better off pretending not to know about it or to have the contrary interpretation, for otherwise such evidence might be used against you in a future criminal case. No, you're best off saying hey, I just learned that doing this violates a rule. I haven't done it since I learned that, and I'm telling others so they can avoid it too (or change the rule; if it's unavoidable, (e) kicks in). Or, if said rule violation happens to be in your favor, people will probably assume that you're stretching the truth and you knew all along. And again, I'm not even saying that a confession of hey, I think this might violate the rule, but I'm not sure so I'm trying anyway should be considered a confession; I'm talking about confessions like ha ha, I did it anyway. Let's suppose a reasonable argument existed that the action was, in fact, legal. Then, in such a case, we would be punishing the person for telling us the truth rather than lying and giving an argument they considered bogus. I don't think this result is just. And what's wrong with addressing this in a sentencing appeal, anyway (e.g. yes e technically could have known, but it's because e took the advice of others, so DISCHARGE is just fine). I'm leery of setting culpability decisions that allow people to hide behind hey, I kinda knew this was illegal but wasn't sure, so I couldn't have known. The sentencing rules don't force the judge to take this factor into account at all (a sentence of APOLOGY or SILENCE is probably still appropriate), so it's not clear that an appeal could rightly remedy it. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2383a assigned to woggle, comex, Goethe
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 21:01, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: [snip] And what's wrong with addressing this in a sentencing appeal, anyway (e.g. yes e technically could have known, but it's because e took the advice of others, so DISCHARGE is just fine). I'm leery of setting culpability decisions that allow people to hide behind hey, I kinda knew this was illegal but wasn't sure, so I couldn't have known. The sentencing rules don't force the judge to take this factor into account at all (a sentence of APOLOGY or SILENCE is probably still appropriate), so it's not clear that an appeal could rightly remedy it. If you don't thing the result is just, as you say above, then a sentence of DISCHARGE is appropriate because another result would be manifestly unjust. The sentence of DISCHARGE being appropriate doesn't change the appropriateness of the other sentences. This may mean that no judgment other than AFFIRM would be appropriate in the hypothetical appeal. -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Appeals Errors
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:49, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: [snip] Proposal: Patch 2321a (AI = 2, II = 0, please) Ratify the alleged history listed in these documents: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2321a http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2321 Can we copy-and-paste those somewhere less editable-by-you, please? [snip] -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Agriculture Report
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 17:18, Benjamin Schultz ke...@verizon.net wrote: On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:15 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 17:02, Benjamin Schultz ke...@verizon.net wrote: On Feb 4, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: Crop/WRV Holdings Player 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV OscarMeyr 2 7 2 0 26 15 1 6 19 2 9 0 Warrigal 7 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 woggle 5 6 1 19 7 0 11 3 8 9 22 1 Wooble 5 18 0 25 8 6 9 8 0 11 11 0 Warrigal, woggle, and Wooble, are any of you willing to trade some of your 3 crops for some of my 4, 5, or 8 crops? I pledge (any player CAN terminate this pledge in two weeks) that if OscarMeyr gives me X = 12 five crops as soon as possible, I will give OscarMeyr two-thirds X (rounded down) 3 crops as soon as possible. -woggle In plain language: Are you offering six 3s for seven 5s? No, I'm offering two 3s for three 5s, up to 4 times.
Re: DIS: Partnerships + zombies = corporations?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 14:15, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Proto-proto: Zombies Incorporated.
[The following would take enacting several mechanisms; e.g. shares,
auctions, maybe debts. Therefore soliciting expressions of interest
before continuing].
1. Cleanup: All inactive, non-participating, or scammy partnerships
are deregistered. Useful and contributing partnerships (PNP; Bayes
if revived) are unaffected; new useful partnerships can still be
added by consent.
2. Enact the following:
a. Corporations are second-class persons. A contract can become
a corporation provided it has three members who are not members
of any other corporation and have not been members of
corporations created in the last 14 days. A corporation that
does not have three members that are not members of other
corporations CAN and SHOULD be deregistered by announcement.
I assume which contracts are Corporations will be tracked by the Regulator.
I assume you want the becoming-a-corporation process to also involve
registration? If you intend this to replace existing/new partnerships
entirely (which your cleanup procedure suggested otherwise), then, of
course, you should have a transition procedure.
b. Remove several restrictions on 2nd-class players (i.e.
previous list from comex).
c. When a corporation is created, a currency of 100 shares of
corporation {x} is created. These shares are tracked by
the Regulator {new office}. 51 of these are
distributed as evenly among members as specified in the
contract (by default as evenly as possible); remaining
shares are placed with the Bank. Shares may not be created
or destroyed unless the corporation is deregistered. Any
player may hold shares; corporations CANNOT forbid non-
members from transferring shares.
d. Key Power: *Any* shareholder (member or non member) may act
on behalf of the corporation with the support of [shareholders
adding up to a majority] Corporations CANNOT and SHALL NOT
forbid non-members from so acting or supporting said actions.
Shareholders are encouraged to use corps for their own benefit
(i.e. the AFO).
Given this, I'd encourage allowing 0-party contracts and encouraging
corporations to be contracts of this sort.
e. Corporate taxes: in a timely fashion before the beginning of
each month, the Regulator SHALL transfer 10% of each
shareholder's shares (minimum 1; otherwise rounded down) to
the bank.
f. As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the
Regulator shall auction units consisting of blocks of shares
using the dutch auction procedure with Notes as the auction
currency [see below for an old auction procedure]. (various
question: mixed stock auctions? block sizes. etc.)
I think notes might be too coarse grained. Reintroduce marks (as
grace notes?) (or other things worth an 100th/1000th of a note) so
shares can have sane prices when the corporation is worth less than
100 notes?
-woggle
Re: DIS: Partnerships + zombies = corporations?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 17:12, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: d. Key Power: *Any* shareholder (member or non member) may act on behalf of the corporation with the support of [shareholders adding up to a majority] Corporations CANNOT and SHALL NOT forbid non-members from so acting or supporting said actions. Shareholders are encouraged to use corps for their own benefit (i.e. the AFO). Given this, I'd encourage allowing 0-party contracts and encouraging corporations to be contracts of this sort. Well, if they're 0-party contracts, we're basically making them player entities with tradable controls, and there's no reason to make them contracts at all, we could just make a new type of entity. I was thinking myself that requiring members offers a double-dynamic of allowing the members of the corporations somewhat responsible to shareholders; e.g. contracts that are more likely to add value to the game would have a stronger share price (benefiting the members that start with a controlling stake). But maybe this is dreaming and we should just make some straight-out zombies. What do you think? Corporations contracts would be a natural place to put the default (and presumably lower overhead) means of acting on behalf of the corporation. It would also be a natural place to specify dividends (as something any shareholder can act-on-behalf to distribute), if such were desired. It is an interesting question what other knobs about corporations might want to be tweaked. Which reminds me, one needs to consider how to deal with a corporation owning its own shares. -woggle
Re: DIS: Partnerships + zombies = corporations?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 18:00, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: Which reminds me, one needs to consider how to deal with a corporation owning its own shares. Manumission? When real corporations do this, it's to decrease the number of shares in circulation (and thereby increase the value of existing shares/decrease net dividends payout if dividends are constant per share). I suppose the outcome isn't too bad if this is not treated as a special case, a corporation owning a majority stake in itself would effectively lock out action expect by means allowed by the corporation's contract (assuming we allow that mechanism; if we don't then this is obviously a problem), but to maintain this, the corporation would need to pay a (hopefully) non-trivial upkeep cost. -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Rebellion or, Hi Chuck
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:04, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: I move to Beer Hall. I become Rebellious. [snip] I publish the following. Each of BobTHJ, woggle, OscarMeyr violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2027a ASAP [15 days, 2:29:04] Arguments: Admitted. Each of BobTHJ, Murphy, woggle violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2048a ASAP [8 days, 1:42:57] Arguments: I made the first timely intent to judge this. [snip] Each of woggle, comex, Wooble violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2086a ASAP [25 days, 1:02:28] Each of woggle, comex, Wooble violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2087a ASAP [25 days, 1:02:28] Arguments: These cases were linked, I made an intent and Wooble supported it in a timely manner. Each of woggle, root, Taral violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2086b ASAP [11 days, 20:20:35] Each of woggle, root, Taral violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2087b ASAP [11 days, 20:20:35] Arguments: These cases were linked, the panel agreed on a verdict of REMAND in time and failed to resolve it in time. woggle violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2107 ASAP [12 days, 0:12:04] Arguments: Admitted. woggle violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2108 ASAP [7 days, 6:45:01] Arguments: I reasonably believed I wasn't the judge of the case on the basis of being a Vote Market party. Each of woggle, comex, BobTHJ violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2132a ASAP [25 days, 1:01:14] Arguments: I made a timely intent in this case. woggle violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2149 ASAP [24 days, 4:33:22] woggle violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2150 ASAP [24 days, 4:33:22] woggle violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign a judgement to CFJ 2151 ASAP [24 days, 4:33:22] Arguments: Guilty. These cases were linked, so multiple punishments for them would be manifestly unjust. Each of comex, woggle, Wooble violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2172a ASAP [10 days, 5:53:53] Arguments: Guilty. Each of woggle, root, Taral violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2196a ASAP [7 days, 15:40:45] Arguments: I made a (rather deadline-pushing) intent in this case. Each of woggle, Sir Toby, root violated Rule 2157 by failing to act collectively to ensure the panel assigned a judgement to CFJ 2213a ASAP [12 days, 5:43:11] Arguments: I made a timely intent in this case. [snip] -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Committees
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 14:05, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Proposal: Committees (AI = 3, II = 2, please) [snip] first-class players whose judicial rank is Supreme and whose posture is standing or standing) Oops? -woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Committees
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 00:32, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Proto-Proposal: Committees (AI = 3, II = 2, please) Create a rule titled Committees with Power 3 and this text: Each rule is assigned to zero or more committees. Changing whether a rule is assigned to a committee is secured, with a power threshold equal to that rule's power. If a proposal would amend (whether directly or indirectly) a rule assigned to a committee, and at least half the members of that committee (measured at the start of its voting period) who voted on that proposal cast more votes AGAINST it than FOR it, then it is entirely without effect, even if adopted. Create a rule titled Committee Membership with Power 2 and this text: The following committees exist, consisting of at least the following members: a) The Rules Committee, consisting of the Rulekeepor, the Promotor, the Assessor, the Grand Poobah, the Speaker, and the Anarchist. I think the speaker would be a better fit in administration. b) The Administration Committee, consisting of all high-priority officers. c) The Judiciary Committee, consisting of the Clerk of the Courts, the Justiciar, and all standing and sitting players. d) The Finance Committee, consisting of the Accountor and all recordkeepors of rule-backed assets. e) The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, consisting of the Notary and the Liaison of each subsidized contract. and each registered partnership? f) The Indian Affairs Committee, consisting of the Scorekeepor and all contestmasters. g) The Foreign Relations Committee, consisting of the Speaker, the Ambassador, and all Embassies. If a committee would otherwise have less than five members, then a player CAN spend any 5-M of eir Notes (where M is its number of members) to become a member of it. This shouldn't be permanent (at least if the committee comes to naturally have more than 5 members for an extended period of time). Perhaps the above members are chartered members of the committee, and non-chartered members resets if there are 5 chartered members at the beginning of a week. Also (5-M) arbitrary notes isn't very musical... Augmented chord? Pentatonic scale? The IADoP's report includes the membership of each committee. Create a rule titled Subsidized Contracts with Power 2 and this text: Subsidy is a public contract switch with values Unsubsidized (default) and Subsidized. Changes secured at what power? (if not 2, then why a power 2 rule?) Liaison is a subsidized contract switch with values null and all roles defined by that contract. Subsidize the following contracts, with the following Liaisons: * AAA (Secretary of Agriculture) * RBoA (Treasurer) * PBA (Coinkeepor) * Vote Market (Broker) Assign the following rules to the Rules Committee: * 105 (Rule Changes) * 1688 (Power) * 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) * 693 (Agoran Decisions) * 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) * 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) * 208 (Resolving Agoran decisions) * 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) * 106 (Adopting Proposals) * 1607 (The Promotor) * 2137 (The Assessor) * 1450 (Separation of Powers) Administration committee? Also: * 879 (Quorum) * 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) Assign the following rules to the Administration Committee: * 1006 (Offices) * 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) * 2160 (Deputisation) * 2154 (Election Procedure) * 2217 (Periodic Elections) * 2138 (The International Associate Director of Personnel) * 2019 (Prerogatives)? Assign the following rules to the Judiciary Committee: * 991 (Judicial Cases Generally) * 2158 (Judicial Questions) * 1868 (Judge Assignment Generally) * 591 (Inquiry Cases) * 2230 (Notices of Violation) * 1504 (Criminal Cases) * 2228 (Rests) * 2229 (Just Resting) * 2169 (Equity Cases) I think this is better assigned to SBaE, as it greatly affects the character of contracts. * 2157 (Judicial Panels) * 911 (Appeal Cases) Assign the following rules to the Finance Committee: * 2166 (Assets) * 2126 (Notes) * 2199 (Ribbons) * 2181 (The Accountor) Assign the following rules to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee: * 1742 (Contracts) * 2173 (The Notary) * 2197 (Defining Contract Changes) * 2198 (Making Contract Changes) * 2178 (Public Contracts) * 2191 (Pledges) * 2145 (Partnerships) Assign the following rules to the Indian Affairs Committee: * 2179 (Points) * 2136 (Contests) * 2232 (Contest Axes) * 2233 (Awarding and Revoking Points) * 2187 (Win by High Score) Assign the following rules to the Foreign Relations Committee: * 2200 (Nomic Definitions) * 2148 (The Ambassador)
DIS: Re: BUS: Brian's DiploNomic Report
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 19:45, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
The following proposal passed, with Warrigal voting FOR it and nobody
voting AGAINST it:
{Append the following paragraph to Plate 1, Agora:
Any Player can send a public message to Agora with support and without
2 objections in 4 to 14 days.}
With support and without 2 objections in 4 to 14 days, I intend to
send the following public message to Agora on behalf of DiploNomic:
DiploNomic registers.
That would require Agoran consent unless DiploNomic is more biological
than I have been lead to believe.
-woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Increase privatization
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 20:44, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Proto-Proposal: Increase privatization (AI = 2, II = 3, please) [snip] Create a rule titled Laundromats with Power 2 and this text: Cleanliness is a public contract switch with values Unclean (default) and Clean. Changes to Cleanliness are secured. tracked by whom? [snip] * Murphy and the AFO agree to the following public contract, and Murphy consents to be its contestmaster. I don't like doing such consent by proposal. Can you create a bootstrapping rule for the contestmaster flipping and the like?
Re: DIS: Proto: Increase privatization
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 23:25, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: woggle wrote: Cleanliness is a public contract switch with values Unclean (default) and Clean. Changes to Cleanliness are secured. tracked by whom? The Janitor. * Murphy and the AFO agree to the following public contract, and Murphy consents to be its contestmaster. I don't like doing such consent by proposal. Can you create a bootstrapping rule for the contestmaster flipping and the like? What's wrong with it? The proposal is itself an instrument with Power=2, so it can perform the various secured changes directly. Doing it in the form suggests that the proposal is forcing R101(iv)-consent on Murphy and the AFO. This is, of course, not true since Murphy would be submitting the proposal causing such agreement... -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Contract precedence
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 13:40, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I withdraw the previous version of this proposal titled Fix asset redefinition, and submit the following revised version. Proposal: Contract precedence (AI = 2, please) woggle is a co-author of this proposal. Create a new rule titled Precedence of Contracts with Power 2 and this text: In a conflict between a rule and a contract, or between two contracts: a) If the conflict pertains to obligation or prohibition, then neither entity takes precedence; it is up to the party to avoid such conflicts. If the conflict pertains to existence or possibility, then the following clauses apply. b) In a conflict between a rule and a contract, the rule takes precedence. c) In a conflict between a public contract and a private contract, the public contract takes precedence. d) In a conflict between two public contracts, or between two private contracts, the older contract takes precedence. You want to tie break public contracts on how long they have been public, probably (otherwise you can surprise people who've proto'd their public contract with an appropriate private one). There's also the slight issue of people who control old public contracts amending their contracts to define things they didn't before. (Probably really need to tiebreak on how long (while public) it defined that thing or whatever.) -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Fix asset redefinition
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:57, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proposal: Fix asset redefinition (AI = 2, please) Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by replacing this text: An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence. with this text: An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence. If multiple rules and/or contracts attempt to define the same asset, then its backing document is the one that was created first. Can we try 'public contract' somewhere so people can't subvert proto'd public contracts by creating an appropriate private contract faster? - woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Fix asset redefinition
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:08, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:57, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proposal: Fix asset redefinition (AI = 2, please) Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by replacing this text: An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence. with this text: An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence. If multiple rules and/or contracts attempt to define the same asset, then its backing document is the one that was created first. Can we try 'public contract' somewhere so people can't subvert proto'd public contracts by creating an appropriate private contract faster? Also, for a similar issue, rules need to take precedence, so people can't create an appropriate contract between when a proposal creating an asset is voted on and when it takes effect. - woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 09:15, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 Nov 2008, at 17:05, Roger Hicks wrote: I believe that Mono is the .NET library ported to unix based systems. I could be wrong however. Yes, but you can't use a Windows binary. And revealing source would damage the contest, if I understand it. I would prefer the source be available for a post-mortem. For source submissions, probably the best scheme would be for people to send the source to a discreet contestmaster. (One could avoid that, of course, by posting something like a hash of one's source in round 1, then posting the source in round 2, but it would probably be good to allow people to bug-fix their source, etc. if problems arise without it being suspicious.) And, well, revealing binaries in advance might damage the contest about as much if poeple decide to use them. -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Philosophy
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:52, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I CFJ on the statement The Ambassador CAN flip Wooble's Recognition to
Friendly without objection..
Arguments: This is really about whether Wooble is a nomic or not,
phrased such that I have a miniscule chance of a random Win by Paradox.
A nomic ruleset is defined as follows:
{{{
A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means
for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those
rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be
possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of
actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be
required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable
in finite time.
}}}
and nomics are defined by nomic rulesets.
[snip]
Gratituous:
CFJ 1860 is the pre-that-defintion precedent on this matter and may be
informative.
Gratituous:
Uncertainty concerning scientific matters related to this question
makes UNDETERMINED an appropriate judgment.
-woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 22:19, Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 23:53, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would have more interest if it was in a toy language like Befunge. I don't think that would help that much. The interesting part of the problem is not in the programming itself, it is the strategy. Axelrod's work on prisoner's dilemma was essentially 'programmed' by specifying the table moves to choose given the last three moves. - woggle Would it be realistic/practical to allow players to submit programs written (then compiled...) in any language they want, while one referee program written in some appropriate language acts as the host that sets up the match, calls up 2 competing programs to be executed, and feeds these programs the necessary inputs (e.g. the other program's offer)? That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to know how to program usually isn't considered unreasonable. But, of course, there are practical problems with doing any-language-you-want (do you have a Hypertalk interpreter? Z80 assembly? VisualWorks?), so things probably need to be more restricted in practice. Probably the closest canonical example of a contest is the (much less theoretically interesting) http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html . -woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 22:44, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 23:32, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what I'd expect in this form given that expecting people to know how to program usually isn't considered unreasonable. But, of course, there are practical problems with doing any-language-you-want (do you have a Hypertalk interpreter? Z80 assembly? VisualWorks?), so things probably need to be more restricted in practice. Probably the closest canonical example of a contest is the (much less theoretically interesting) http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsbpc.html . Why not have the competing programs communicate via an HTTP post? That's a viable solution of course. Pros: Less contestmaster work. More programming environment choice. Cons: Making sure all programs are available at the same time. People going against the spirit of the game could use manual intervention to change strategy (timeouts can disincentivize this). Harder to run a whole lot of rounds (which would give a clearer idea of winner). Neutral: Likely encourages more complex solutions (using large external libraries, large datastores, etc.) -woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 23:53, Pavitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 22 November 2008 08:58:16 am Joshua Boehme wrote: On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:24:52 -0500 Jamie Dallaire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cross posting because I figure there could be interest on both sides. If need be this can be a Werewolves-like endeavour. Would anyone be interested in playing the following, based on Robert Axelrod's and WD Hamilton's The Evolution of Cooperation? (see links below) I would have moderate interest in this, provided it is in a programming language I am either familiar with or could learn quickly (i.e., languages such as PHP, C, and the like). I would have more interest if it was in a toy language like Befunge. I don't think that would help that much. The interesting part of the problem is not in the programming itself, it is the strategy. Axelrod's work on prisoner's dilemma was essentially 'programmed' by specifying the table moves to choose given the last three moves. - woggle
Re: DIS: I was bored, so I wrote this
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 17:32, Warrigal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rule 101 (power 1): [snip] Every actor has the right to not be considered bound by an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review. Maybe you want to legisilate whether the rules consistute an agreement for the purposes of this right? Every agent has the right of participation in the fora. Every actor has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction. Rule 102 (power 1): These rules and the things they define constitute a nomic known as the Lantern of Athens. Rule 103 (power 1): The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number no greater than the power of this rule. No entity with power below the power of this rule can cause an entity to have power greater than its own, adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than its own, or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than its own, including by taking precedence over such an instrument. If the power of an entity would be set to a rational Before the power of another entity is set to a number higher (another entity is probably needed, and, well, you don't want to have this accidentally be interpreted as making otherwise ineffective power changes happen.) number higher than the power of this rule, this rule instead promotes itself to that power, then the power change described takes place. To self-promote means to promote oneself to the power of Rule 103 whenever the power of Rule 103 changes. The set of self-promoting' It needs to be clear that other rules' self-promotion occurs simultaneously with R103, and does not create some sort of loop with R103's replacement /trigger effect for power adjustments. rules SHOULD be as restricted and simple as possible while still remaining sufficient to make arbitrary changes to the Lantern. Rule 104 (power 1): The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish. Cruft. [snip] Rule 108 (power 1): A person is any biological entity generally capable of sending email in English. An actor is a person or partnership. Any actor can become or cease to be an agent by announcement. All person agents are players. Defining something to be a player is secured. The weight of a person is 1. The weight of a partnership is the number of person members it has. You appear to not be preventing any partnership scams. [snip] -woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora Smock Exchange
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 18:31, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sgeo wrote: Wouldn't it be best then to always buy Linen Smocks and Cotton Smocks, and sell them at the end of the month, and repeat? Blah, you're right. Maybe smock - shekel conversion should only be allowed during the first week of each month? Charge an approx. (day of month)/(days in month)*50 shekel exchange fee? - woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora Smock Exchange
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 20:35, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: woggle wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 18:31, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sgeo wrote: Wouldn't it be best then to always buy Linen Smocks and Cotton Smocks, and sell them at the end of the month, and repeat? Blah, you're right. Maybe smock - shekel conversion should only be allowed during the first week of each month? Charge an approx. (day of month)/(days in month)*50 shekel exchange fee? In addition to the -50 per month, or instead of? Might want to make that -50 floating as well, too, in case things slow down again (ha!). That would be in addition to -- the assumption is, basically, that you'd be getting about fair money at the time you sold if the net gain/month was 0. Alternately, you could adjust have the -50/month be assessed daily or on some other sufficiently small time period. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] This week's moderately difficult puzzles
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 07:36, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 06:56 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote: Contestmaster ais523, what is the current membership of Enigma? the Left Hand, Murphy, root, Iammars, Wooble, Goethe, avpx, Zefram, Pavitra, ais523, comex, Elysion, ehird, Sgeo, Billy Pilgrim CoE: and me (I recently joined) -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: A modest contract
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 16:25, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, comex wrote: I cease to agree with this. How? It was never a contract (would need two parties), so e can as an unregulated action. -woggle
Re: DIS: Partnership models
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 22:00, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Revisiting my B.N. thesis (11/29/07) on partnerships, I've identified the following general models of partnership control. Can anyone think of any others? * Consentual (e.g. Pineapple, Human Point Two) * Capitalist (e.g. Primo, Reformed Bank) * Unilateral (e.g. AFO) * Democratic (e.g. PerlNomic, Normish) Where do you class pre-incorporation RBoA which was without 3 objections, but you had to be a Banker? -woggle
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2216-17 assigned to woggle
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 22:44, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I change all sitting players to standing. Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2216 == CFJ 2216 == If only Murphy had been given the password referenced in the Russian Roulette contract and a reasonable amount of time to review the section of the contract encrypted using that password, then the AFO would be bound by that contract. == CFJ 2217 == If only comex had been given the password referenced in the Russian Roulette contract and a reasonable amount of time to review the section of the contract encrypted using that password, then the AFO would be bound by that contract. I judge both of these FALSE. It is difficult to determine who the mind of a partnership is for the purposes of R101 review rights. But, in effect, agreements of the partnerships are extensions of the partnership contract for those onto whom the partnership devolves (that is, requires to cause the partnership to act to fulfill) the obligations of such agreements. The AFO contract devolves all obligations of any agreement to which it is bound onto all of its parties; and theoretically any of them could be found GUILTY for failing to cause the AFO to fulfill these obligations. Thus, given a partnership structured as the AFO is, any agreement cannot successfully impose obligations on the AFO until all partners have had a reasonable opportunity to review that agreement. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's reasonable, I think. (PBA)
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 13:21, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17 Oct 2008, at 21:18, Charles Reiss wrote: I object. -woggle Why? I don't believe the proposed scheme would make exchange rates more closely reflect real values. (Though there is some relationship between the values of assets and number of people, I think it's likely that additional participants balance out to little overall effect.) And, I think it would encourage people to frequently join and leave the PBA (possibly using a holding/dummy person/partnership) for a slight rate advantage. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A case of problematic precedence
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:08, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I join Nomic Wars I.
I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
{
Sections with lower Ratings take precedence over sections with higher
Ratings; Sections of this contract whose Rating is a positive integer
are void and do not apply.
}
Hmmcouldn't the same thing be done in Agora?
No. This, presumably, is the reason for R1482's second paragraph.
-woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: banking
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:49, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:28, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I object. I suggest Pavitra try the uncontroversial part of this change alone if you won't. Just curious: Why the objections? As RBOA chit holders wouldn't this change be to your benefit? I also have an interest in seeing the PBA's exchange rates make sense. Also, it's not clear the proposed change will really benefit the chit economy, as it would probably end up trading away WRV and 7 crops, for example, at a similar price. (The big issue being that the proposed scheme does not take into account the RBoA's rates.) -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking the rules
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 20:41, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I submit the following proposal, Partner Responsibility, AI-2: -- Amend Rule 2145 by appending the following text: If a judge finds a partnership guilty in a criminal proceedings, e may sentence one or more members of the partnership for the crime rather than the partnership itself. To be an appropriate sentence in this case, the judge SHOULD use the text of the partnership as a guide to the devolution of sentencing but is not bound to follow the text if it is unclear on the subject or would not adequately apply responsibility. -- You probably should specify a mechanism and require the CotC to track this attribute of the sentences... -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:17, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 15:45, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well... flaming bobba smurf. All right. Let's see what I've got here. FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV Pavitra 8 5 612 7 11 2 (transactions) +7 -7-4 +1 -5 -7-11 7 1 1 5 6 72 I harvest the numbers of proposals 5710 and 5730. Pavitra Fails. You have no 0 crops (unless I'm missing something?) I think the message was supposed to indicate that Pavitra deposits 7 1 crops, 4 3 crops, 5 7 crops, 7 8 crops, and 11 9 crops, then withdraws 7 0 crops, and 1 4 crop. -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: A Great Relief
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 14:53, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:45 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I submit the following proposal, titled A Great Relief, with adoption index 3: Repeal all rules except Rules 101, 104, 217, and 2029. I retract that proposal. I submit the following proposal, titled A Great Relief, with adoption index 3: Repeal all rules except Rule 101, 104, 217, 1698, and 2029. I don't see how either proposal would be effective under R1698 (especially if the recently proposed amendment to R101 passes). Even if it is, I am strongly opposed to attempting to read into game custom entire mechanisms for changing the rules. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: Proto-contract: The Llama Party
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 16:31, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{The name of this contract is The Llama Party. This is a public
contract. Parties to this contract are known as Llamas. Any person CAN
join this contract with the consent of a majority of Llamas. Any Llama
CAN leave this contract by announcement.
Hmm. Let's replace Any person CAN join this contract with the consent
of a majority of Llamas. with Contract Changes can be performed with
the consent of a majority of Llamas; this is the only way a person can
join this contract.
You probably want a means to shed inactive Llamas (Any Llama CAN cause
a Llama to cease to be a party to this contract without Objection of
any other Llama).
-woggle
Re: DIS: Re: Proto-contract: The Llama Party
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 16:54, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 16:31, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:30 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{The name of this contract is The Llama Party. This is a public
contract. Parties to this contract are known as Llamas. Any person CAN
join this contract with the consent of a majority of Llamas. Any Llama
CAN leave this contract by announcement.
Hmm. Let's replace Any person CAN join this contract with the consent
of a majority of Llamas. with Contract Changes can be performed with
the consent of a majority of Llamas; this is the only way a person can
join this contract.
You probably want a means to shed inactive Llamas (Any Llama CAN cause
a Llama to cease to be a party to this contract without Objection of
any other Llama).
That's a Contract Change, so it can be performed with the consent of a
majority of Llamas.
It's difficult to get that consent if a majority of Llamas have become inactive.
-woggle
DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5708-5726
I vote as follows: On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:23, The PerlNomic Partnership [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 5708 O 1 1.0 comex none AGAINST x 2 5709 D 1 2.0 Murphy Form 2126-EZ AGAINST 5710 D 3 3.0 Murphy Pragmatic rights and privileges endorse Murphy 5711 O 1 1.7 Murphy Community service (endorse Murphy) x 2 5712 D 1 3.0 Murphy Relaxed security PRESENT 5713 O 1 1.0 comex You want C Nomic!?!?!?!? AGAINST x 2 5714 D 0 3.0 ais523 No Monsters for You AGAINST 5715 O 1 1.7 Murphy Judicial Declarations FOR x 2 (Reluctantly: I'd prefer to not have a mechanism that is based on self-ratifying things that a majority of the players believed false at the time they were published, as it somewhat overloads self-ratification...) 5716 D 1 3.0 Murphy Standard sock puppet policy FOR (but I'd prefer we spell out that the claim of identity does not include personhood and other similar attributes, and that selecting a separate name without attempting to announce it as a nickname in any fashion amounts to a claim of identity to be a different name, as is apparently intended) 5717 D 1 3.0 Murphy Resolve ambiguous executors AGAINST 5718 O 1 1.0 ais523 The IADoP is always right FOR 5719 O 1 1.0 comex Raargh! AGAINST x 2 5720 D 1 3.0 woggle Secured self-ratification FOR 5721 D 1 3.0 comex Secured self-ratification AGAINST 5722 D 1 3.0 Murphy No, Mr. Garrison, we cannot get rid of all the Mexicans AGAINST 5723 D 1 2.0 Murphy Namespace conflicts (rule-defined entities) FOR 5724 D 1 3.0 ais523 Combining the Gamestates AGAINST 5725 D 1 2.0 Murphy Namespace conflicts (players) FOR 5726 O 1 1.7 Murphy Opinion in both directions FOR x 2 - woggle
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 09:26, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wooble wrote: How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of the proposal it intended to democritize? The intent is to democratise a decision, not a proposal. The decision in question didn't exist, so there is no way woggle can have referred to it. Since proposal numbers are unique and AFAIK it is only possible to initiate a decision on whether to adopt a particular proposal once, I think my intent was unambiguous, the impossibility of it being resolved at the time it was made notwithstanding. -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: RE: another CFJ on the vote market
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:19, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wooble wrote: I CFJ on the following statements, barring ais523: I CFJ on the following statement, barring root: A vote that relies on terminology defined in a public contract satisfies R683(c)'s requirement to clearly identify the option selected by the voter, even if the voter misunderstood the meaning of the terminology in question, or it is ambiguous, unclear, or disputed what the terminology in question means in a particular context. UNDETERMINED (we can probably construct a terminology that is clear in some context in which it could be used but not in some other context and a misunderstanding that is sufficiently bizarre as to not be a problem). Can we please try for more specific CFJs that might actually resolve the dispute at hand? -woggle
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:41, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CoE: The publisher of the above CoE is not the Assessor. (The assessor didn't publish the original document, so e can't usefully deny CoEs on it anyways.) I don't think that's a genuine CoE (it's not obvious what it's referring to), but the document was published by the Monster deputising for the Assessor. The Assessor SHALL deny or admit CoEs against eir reports, so the Monster can deputise to deny or admit a CoE. It's a CoE against the statement's self-ratifying claim as to who published it. Anyways, you can't deputise for that because the Assessor did not publish the original document, so e is not obliged to respond to CoEs against it. The assessor's deputy, the Monster, probably is, however. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:47, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the following series of actions would otherwise fail as a whole, then I take none of them. I dunno. Verification of these by the recordkeepors would require an unusual effort. What's the rule on conditionals like this? Ignoring the issue of checking that the proposals existing and determining their democraticness, there's only one recordkeepor (since BobTHJ recordkeeps for both the AAA and the RBoA), so it'd be somewhat less special effort. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA: Subsidy
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 16:17, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 24, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: I think I have this right: Almost. PF. I mill 8 * 5 = 7. I mill 8 - 8 = 0. The RBoA would've happily exchanged an 8 crop for a 0 crop and some chits... -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: why wait?
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 22:37, Ben Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 24 September 2008 08:20:35 am Geoffrey Spear wrote: I recommend a sentence of EXILE with a tariff of 180 days. R1504 prescribes the middle of the tariff range... for severe rule breaches amounting to a breach of trust. The middle of the tariff range in this case is 90 days. Is what e did really *significantly more* severe than a severe rule breach[] amounting to a breach of trust? Well, from the rest of Wooble's words: [...] Since he first came across Agora, e's constantly shown a blatant disregard for the rules, and unlike many other scamsters has taken on little responsibility as a mitigating factor. I take it that e alleges that tusho's history makes a longer tariff warranted compared to some isolated violation that nevertheless amounted to a severe breach of trust. Whether this is a good argument, any judge assigning a sentence will need to determine. -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:17, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I CFJ on the following statement: The message sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:16:23 + (see evidence 1) was successful in initiating a CFJ. I argue for a FALSE judgement in this case. The statement in the message is clearly an inquiry case. Rule 591 (see evidence 2) governs inquiry cases. In Rule 591, we see that, the initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. The message in question clearly does not indicate who sent the message. Without knowing who sent the message, there is no way to ensure that the initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. For all we know, Sir Toby was the sender of the message. Since he was assigned as judge of the resulting CFJ, it is possible that he was illegally assigned as judge to that CFJ. While I agree that it may have been IMPOSSIBLE to assign Sir Toby as the judge of that case (not ILLEGAL, I suggest CoE'ing on the relevant docket and such), I don't think it has much relevance in the success of the initiation... -woggle
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2164 assigned to Sir Toby
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 01:27, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again, I'm using HRC as a database placeholder. If the initiator remains anonymous, I will eventually create a separate entry labeled '(anonymous person)' and update the DB to use it for this case. Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2164 == CFJ 2164 == I submitted a proposal in my recent post Caller: Hillary Rodham Clinton Judge: Sir Toby Judgement: History: Called by Hillary Rodham Clinton: 16 Sep 2008 20:16:23 GMT Assigned to Sir Toby: (as of this message) Claim of Error: Sir Toby may be the initiator of this CFJ and so this assignment of Sir Toby as judge may have been INEFFECTIVE. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2164 assigned to Sir Toby
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:55, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Claim of Error: Sir Toby may be the initiator of this CFJ and so this assignment of Sir Toby as judge may have been INEFFECTIVE. Would Sir Toby deputising for the CotC to deny the claim of error fix things? I think the Right solution is for the CotC to assign Sir Toby's recent CFJ in a linked fashion with this one. (That will be ineffective if the prior assignment was valid and won't mess up the rotation.) -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 2086 and 2087
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:04, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 12:01 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote: I also support the appeal of CFJ 2086-7. As root has stated, long-standing game custom allows the actions of a message to have some ordering in legal time even though they take effect at the same instant of physical time. (I do not believe that tusho's arguments have merit: although a light that is turning on may be neither off or on, it is one of on or not on.) Rule 478 is very clear that multiple actions by announcement in the same message happen simultaneously. They say that they happen at the time date-stamped on the message. This is not the same thing as simultaneously, since in the magical universe of the rules we can order actions that occur at the same instant. -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: New Cards v0.2
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:12, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proto-Proposal: a Card Party (new cards v0.2), AI-2: (root would you accept coauthorship?) - Create the following Rule, Cards, power 2: Cards are any class of assets defined by the Rules to be cards. For the rules to define a class of assets to be a card, the Rules must define its Title, its Party, and either its Exploit or its Position, but not both. Card instances Nitpick: Are these properties of the _class_ or of all such cards in the class or both? It looks like you mean both, which would be nice to clarify... of the same class are fungible. No two classes of card may have the same title. Ownership of cards is restricted to players, contests, and the Deck. The Dealor is a high-priority office and the recordkeepor for cards. The Dealor CAN, by announcement: * create cards in the possession of the deck; * destroy cards; * perform actions on behalf of the Deck; * transfer cards between any two entities; however the dealor SHALL only perform these actions as explicitly permitted by the Rules. If a card class is defined as Unique, there is always exactly one such instance of the class in existence, and it can be neither created or destroyed. If, despite this rule, the instance does not exist, or a CFJ determines that its possession or existence cannot be determined by reasonable effort, it is instantly created in the Deck with any other copy being destroyed. If a card class is not unique, then any time there are fewer or more instances of that class in existence than a quorum on democratic proposals, the Dealor SHALL create or destroy cards in the Deck to bring the number of SHALL as soon as possible? instances to that quorum. However, if the rules define more non-unique cards than there are active players in the game, the Dealor SHALL chose a number of card classes in excess of the number of active players and destroy all instances of those cards. Once per quarter, e CAN change this choice with 2 Support. Should we secure some changes to card holdings? Create the following Rule, Card Positions: If a card has a Position, and the holder of the card is a Player, the holder of that card is considered to be the holder of that position, and have the powers and duties described by the Rules for that position. The powers and duties of such a position may not be delegated or deputized and are only performable/required of the holder of the card, rules to the contrary nonwithstanding. All card classes with a position are Unique. Create the following Rule, Playing Cards, power 2: A player CAN play a card in eir possesion with an Exploit, by announcing that e plays the card, while also announcing any further information required by the exploit. The card is transferred to the deck, and if possible, the effects of the exploit take place. If the information is incorrect, or the exploit is ILLEGAL, IMPOSSIBLE, or otherwise fails, or the card has no exploit, an attempt made by the player to play a card in eir possession still transfers the card to the deck. Create the following Rule, Parties, power 2: The Party of a card class may be one of Government, Opposition, or Backbencher. Any player holding a Government card is a member of Government (in the Governmnent party). Any player Government party. holding an Opposition card is a member of the Opposition (in the opposition party). These are not mutually exclusive. A (capital O?) play of a backbencher card with a target player in the same party as emself, unless the exploit on the card explicitly allows this. Sentence fragment. (The exploit of a backbencher card is INEFFECTIVE if its target player is in the same party as the card's player (ed: put some defn in Playing Cards for this?)?) Create the following Rule, Dealing Cards, power 2: Whenever the rules indicate that the Dealor SHALL deal a card to an entity, the Dealor CAN and SHALL, as soon as possible, transfer a card in the Deck to the entity. The Dealor SHALL chose the card to be dealt randomly from among the cards in the deck that are indicated to by the authorizing Rule be part of or included in the particular deal. As soon as possible after the rules state that a player Gains a Draw, the Dealor SHALL deal one backbencher card to each active player. At the beginning of each month, each active player gains a draw. A player CAN spend any two notes of different pitches to Gain a Draw. How about any tritone?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2107 judged GUILTY (no sentence yet) by woggle
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 03:43, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2107 = Criminal Case 2107 = Ivan Hope violated R2149 by making the untruthful statement UNDECIDABLE is never appropriate. Caller: Goethe Barred: Ivan Hope Judge: Wooble Judgement: GUILTY Appeal: 2107a Decision: REMAND Judge: woggle Judgement: GUILTY I initiate a criminal case against woggle for violating rule 2158 by judging GUILTY on CFJ 2107. If the previous action fails, then I intend to do so with two support. Arguments: Apparently, woggle completely ignored my reason for believing that UNDECIDABLE is never appropriate, and furthermore, e gave no arguments, suggesting that he barely even thought about this case before assigning his judgement. You need 2 support, and I don't think you have much chance (at a GUILTY verdict on me) as I was working under the reasonable assumption that the prior appeals panel had reviewed and rejected those arguments (so at least UNAWARE or EXCUSED should be appropriate). -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: corporate motions
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:00, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I post the following Motions for each of the Brown, Burnt Sienna,
Beige, and Burgundy Corporations:
{{
Authorize the CEO to cause the corporation to become a party to the
Internomic Investment Bank.
}}
{{
Amend the Articles of Incorporation to replace part 3 with:
3. Any Voting Sockholder may attempt to amend this contract by posting
a Motion by announcement. The Motion is a Game Document and should
specify a list of Contract Actions. Each Voting Sockholder may vote
FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN on this contract's Motions. The number of
votes cast by a Voting Sockholder who votes is equal to the number of
XXX socks they hold when the Motion is resolved. After two full rdays,
or if at any time a number of votes greater than one half the total
number of existing XXX socks has been cast, the Voting Sockholder who
initiated the Motion or the CEO may resolve that Motion. When a
Motion is resolved if the total number of FOR votes is greater than
the number of AGAINST votes the changes described in the Motion are
enacted.
}}
I resolve these motions. They all passed.
As CEO of the Brown, Burnt Sienna, Beige, and Burgundy Corporations, I
cause each of them to join the Internomic Investment Bank. This
message serves to announce the change in membership.
Are these B Nomic corporations also Agoran persons?
- woggle
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2107b assigned to OscarMeyr, Murphy, root
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 16:09, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see any commentary from H. Trial Judge woggle in the reevaluation of CFJ 2107. Is the COTC database lagging me out again? I don't think I made any commentary to agora-business (check agora-discussion archives for my brief old considerings). But basically, the record in 2107a suggested to me that the GUILTY judgment was believed correct by the appeals panel (and it seems the appeals panel certainly had access to ihope's arguments that relating to eir alleged belief that UNDECIDABLE was never a valid judgment), and so I did not believe it would've been appropriate to overturn it. - woggle
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2082a assigned to root, woggle, Wooble
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 19:41, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2082a
Appeal 2082a
Panelist: root
Decision:
Panelist: woggle
Decision:
Panelist: Wooble
Decision:
History:
Appeal initiated: 27 Jul 2008 16:17:40 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ (panelist): 27 Jul 2008 22:45:12 GMT
Assigned to Sgeo (panelist):27 Jul 2008 22:45:12 GMT
Assigned to Quazie (panelist): 27 Jul 2008 22:45:12 GMT
BobTHJ recused (panelist): 13 Aug 2008 23:27:26 GMT
Sgeo recused (panelist):13 Aug 2008 23:27:26 GMT
Quazie recused (panelist): 13 Aug 2008 23:27:26 GMT
Assigned to pikhq (panelist): 13 Aug 2008 23:35:55 GMT
Assigned to Goethe (panelist): 13 Aug 2008 23:35:55 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist): 13 Aug 2008 23:35:55 GMT
pikhq recused (panelist): 08 Sep 2008 00:38:55 GMT
Goethe recused (panelist): 08 Sep 2008 00:38:55 GMT
Murphy recused (panelist): 08 Sep 2008 00:38:55 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist):(as of this message)
Assigned to woggle (panelist): (as of this message)
Assigned to Wooble (panelist): (as of this message)
Appellant tusho's Arguments:
I appeal the question of my culpability on the judgement of CFJ 2082.
This is an utterly preposterous judgement, as I was assisting in Goethe's
demonstration that failing speech acts were not illegal. It was not a threat
in any shape or form.
I intend to send the following message on behalf of the panel in CFJ
2082a (with the support of my fellow panelists or a fellow panelist
and the CotC):
{{
Whether the statement in question was a threat is irrelevant to the
issue of culpability. (It is relevant to the sentence, but that is not
under appeal here.) As no arguments have been presented for why (in
spite of the judge's determination) tusho might have believed that
'[tusho] kills Goethe' was a true statement when e made it, there's no
serious reason to question the verdict on culpability.
Therefore, this panel judges CFJ 2082a AFFIRM.
}}
-woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Does SHALL imply CAN?
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:47, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I call for judgement on the following statement: This CFJ has ID number 2146. I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that CFJ an ID number of 2146. I call for judgement on the following statement: This CFH has ID number 1. I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that CFJ an ID number of 1. INVALID because 1 is not greater than any orderly CFJ ID number. -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Does SHALL imply CAN?
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:47, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I call for judgement on the following statement: This CFJ has ID number
2146.
I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that
CFJ an ID number of 2146.
I call for judgement on the following statement: This CFH has ID number
1.
I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the CotC to assign that
CFJ an ID number of 1.
These are linked assignments; I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise
for the CotC to assign them both to comex. (This should suit eir general
playing style, after all.)
Arguments:
See rule 2193, which reads in part:
{{{
Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
particular office (deputise for that office) if:
(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the
office is vacant, would so require if the office were
filled
}}}
I think Murphy was the only person who voted against the recent proposal
to add that to the rule. As a rather obvious scam, I added it without
the restrictions that would require the action to be one that the CotC
CAN do, and also removed the time limit; therefore, the deputisation
works even though I'm not the CotC and even though an ID number of 1
would be INVALID if actually assigned by the person forced to assign an
ID number to it. (I can act on behalf of the Monster due to rule 2192;
possibly this is the first time anyone has done so.) In other words,
nowadays SHALL implies CAN; if anyone SHALL do something, then I CAN do
that thing. (I don't quite think this leads to a dictatorship, but I can
certainly cause healthy amounts of chaos if needed; if this scam works,
and I don't see why it wouldn't, I suggest that the rest of Agora bribe
me with something nice and permanent to persuade me to give the power
up.)
Oh, I see you address the INVALID bit here. So easy counterargument:
it is plainly NOT required for the CotC to assign the ID number 1 or
any other invalid assignment. In fact, the CotC CANNOT do that and
SHALL NOT do that (by virtue of being obliged to assign the smallest
ID number possible, which cannot be done simulatenously with assigning
an INVALID number).
-woggle
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2107 assigned to woggle
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 16:26, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I change all sitting players to standing. Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2107 = Criminal Case 2107 = Ivan Hope violated R2149 by making the untruthful statement UNDECIDABLE is never appropriate. Based on the result of the appeal, I don't think there's any good reason to assign a judgment other than GUILTY on culpability. Now, as for sentencing, the appeals result suggested that FINE was not harsh enough. A sentence of APOLOGY seems a little silly this far from the event. A sentence like EXILE - 1 second wouldn't be helpful because ihope already took the asset-loss penalties. And Ivan Hope's voting limit is currently 1 and likely to remain so for a while, making CHOKEY not very interesting. And I'm not convinced that the rule breach is harsh enough to mandate EXILE with a substantial tariff. Comments? - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5673-5673
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 15:10, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 14:07 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: ais523 wrote: On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 15:38 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE I vote as follows 5673 D 2 3.1 fds test FORx1 (it's Democratic). Since the PNP is not Promotor, the alleged distribution did not distribute that proposal, and may or may not have submitted it. Yes, I was just wondering what would happen. Another case for the courts, I expect, just not sure how to word it. The PNP should conditionally retract the proposal, which will work well enough. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Banking, Farming, and RBoA amendment
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 07:17, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: X crops - 135 chits (no previous rate) This should probably be higher What would you suggest? - woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 13:25, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 14:26, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT Time of last report: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:50 Time of this report: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:31 Maximum Points Awardable: 60 Federal Subsidy: 8 I request subsidy. I create a Digit Ranch (land #122) with a Seed of 4 and a WRV in the possesion of woggle. Is your RNG stuck on 4 or something? 4 4 ranches really aren't that useful these days. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2132a assigned to woggle, comex, BobTHJ
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 19:12, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with the consent of the rest of the panel, to REMAND this case to Sgeo, so that e might judge the case again while thinking more clearly, and also consider the precedent of CFJ 1771. Appeals are support (not consent) now, so you probably need to do that to a public forum. Nevertheless, I support that intent. The quoted intent was sent to a public forum. Hm. Indeed it was. Apparently, I'm bad a reading...
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 04:39, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101! Adoption index: 3. Interest index: 1. [Before we start, let me please justify this. Rule 101 is broken. Firstly, we are on a game played via computers. Really, we have no inherent rights at all. (I'm aware of the society view. I personally think it's silly, but I can understand it. Even so, let's continue.) Additionally, there isn't really that much reason to stop some of the rights there being abridged - e.g. (iii), (vii). ALREADY TRIED is already in the CFJ system, so it's kind of duplication (and any non-ALREADY TRIED judgement for something already tried will probably be appealed anyway.) ALREADY TRIED and CFJs themselves are in a Power 1.7 rule, which is deliberately much easier to scam. R101(iii) combined with R1698 is a kind-of weak version of B Nomic's emergency: using a Power higher than is likely to be touched by any ordinary scam to guarantee some essential elements of the game. Finally, (vi). The distributor can ban someone from the lists. Yet, precedent has it that when an action would violate Rule 101 it just doesn't happen. I think that such precedent only exists for actions which are legal fictions of the game. For actions the rules can inherently not regulate, a great argument can be made in a criminal case. And, well, the big problem with the right to participate in the forum is that no one really knows what it means. But banning someone from the forum is probably more clearly a violation of the Power 3 R478, regardless. Therefore, the person would be banned and unable to participate in the fora, and yet (vi) says that no, that's impossible, they CAN participate in them. It makes no sense.] So, more importantly, you are ignoring one of the most important R101 rights, the right not to be considered bound by an agreement or amendment to an agreement one has not had an adequate opportunity to review -- a right which my understanding was enacted in response to one of the most divisive scams in Agoran history. And if you want to reflect that it is just a game in the rules, then you should preserve some form of R101(viii) as that right says it's really a game: one can stop playing without other penalty. I don't think that right comes from the society interpretation -- it's more of a relax everyone; it's not that important!. Anyways, the real broken things about R101 are: (a) that it was devised under the idea that the rules would be adjudicated as an agreement (making the R101 right regarding amendments to agreements apply to proposals), but for a long while, the rules have lacked essential features that would make that possible. The rules do not call themselves an agreement. The rules purport that agreements only bind their parties but themselves purport to bind people who have not necessarily followed an R101-adequate procedure for binding themselves to the rules. The rules adjudicate their own disputes using the criminal courts rather than the mechanism they reserve for agreements. Now, the response to proposals that would formally make the rules an agreement has not been great, though the proposals have, to me, seemed flawed in how they deal with reconcile the R101 explicit consent right with allowing influence over the game state -- a tricky problem indeed. (We should make it so non-parties to the rules can't influence the game state except in special circumstances. And, if we want to maintain the status quo, we should make it so either clear (in R101) that intent to influence the game or clear intent to register constitute R101-consent to become party to the rules.) and (b) that the equity case rule purports the make new agreements which is problematic under R101 explicit-consent rules. The real problem here, I think, is that we have trouble distinguishing what constitutes part of an R101 agreement (which we should consider possibly different from what an agreement might be in lower-power rules[*]). If we consider it characterized primarily by the set of obligations carried, then a good equity judgment is easily considered a minor amendment of the original agreement. If it's primarily characterized by severability, then most equity judgments would be separate agreements (since their sets of parties would be independently managed). If it's primarily characterized by the purported act of agreement which caused it to become binding, then equity judgments are the same agreement because they are necessarily agreed to be agreeing to a contract governed by the rules. [This latter interpretation has serious issues with explicitness, though.] The fix for this? I liked the amendment form of equity, but that proposal seemed unpopular for bookkeeping purposes. An explicit-consent exception for agreements reasonably anticipated from prior agreements or similar might make sense. Maybe? [*] Lower-power rules notion of agreement is largely influenced by the properties they
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:07, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [*] Lower-power rules notion of agreement is largely influenced by the properties they ascribe to contracts, but if we let these characterize agreements entirely from R101 purposes, this suggests an obvious end-run around the R101 agreement rights. Hmm... never thought of that. On the other hand, in the case of equations, R101 using the definition from the lower-power rules would enhance, not limit, the R101 agreement rights: in fact, using a more vague definition of agreement would, IMO, limit them. And no interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or remove a person's defined rights... I think you're probably right about R101 and equity, though the ease with which the effect of such an agreement could be simulated by a rule of that power (see that recent proposal) allows a reasonable different interpretation. Or, alternately, the real problem is that R101 is protecting the wrong rights: the issue isn't agreements one doesn't consent to, but duties for which you are unfairly singled out (not on the basis of some reasonable property, like having violated a promise/rule/etc., or having genuinely agreed to do something for someone). - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:08, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In tusho's proposal, the power 3.1 Rule doesn't actually repeal 101 when the rule is created. It enables the Repealing, but it doesn't do it. So that step doesn't remove, abridge, etc. a right. Once it's in place, it supersedes Rule 101, so it can repeal R101 and remove rights even though R101 claims it can't. Let's call the new rule Rule X. Rule 1482 says Rule X beats Rule 101. Rule 1482 claims to take precedence over (and prevent the creation of!) any rule that would stipulate any other means of determining precedence. But Rule 101 claims to take precedence over Rule 1482, if you agree that Rule 1482 would allow restrictions of a person's rights or privileges (by having Rule X take precedence over Rule 101). This is a conflict between Rule 1482 and Rule 101, which have the same power. Rule 1030 says Rule 101 wins... Just thinking out loud. A modest proposal: Just abandon the game, and create a new one (Agora Second Era!) copying the game state (lots of simulation of retroactive things) from before we dissolved the game, except with R101 missing. But, seriously, it would really be against the oldest of all game custom if we couldn't make arbitrary changes to the ruleset somehow. -woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: partnership enforcement
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe the best way to ensure partnerships live up to obligations may be to allow equity to work on claims: Proto: Partnership equity, power-2 Amend Rule 2145 (Partnerships) by appending the following paragraph: An Equity Case claiming that a specified partnership has failed to devolve a specific legal obligation onto a subset of its parties CAN be initiated by any Player by announcement. The case shall be considered to be an Equity Case governing the partnership. -- If the original contract envisioned not devolving the obligation well onto the parties (quite likely, in fact), then I don't see what resolution the equity case could reasonably provide beyond finding that it's not a partnership, in which case the case couldn't have been initiated in the first place. A better approach might be to have rule-imposed devolution on contracts which have officially declared themselves to be partnerships (rather than defining partnerships based on their devolution) and provide a means to resolve failed devolution through equity with: (a) standing -- it needs to be something weaker than is a party for the purposes of the case, because the initiator should not be subject to random obligations the contract imposes on its members or random rewards in the equity judgment. It, however, needs to be strong enough that the initiator's actual interest in equity is represented; and (b) definition of equity -- equity for partnerships needs to be defined to explicitly include this rule-imposed requirement on the contract. One approach might be to imagine that such equity cases really concern an imaginary pledge of the like Members of the partnership SHALL ensure that the partnership devolves its obligations onto its parties. [Except we really need a better definition of devolve here and there is a huge issue of party-changing scams.] Doing this really needs a fix for R101 issues with equity cases -- especially since such a pseudo-contract may not reasonably be considered an amendment of the original partnership contract. -woggle
Re: DIS: Proto: partnership enforcement
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:43, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the original contract envisioned not devolving the obligation well onto the parties (quite likely, in fact), then I don't see what resolution the equity case could reasonably provide beyond finding that it's not a partnership, in which case the case couldn't have been initiated in the first place. That sort of finding seems, to me, to be beyond the scope of an equity case. The judgment in an equity case is limited to creating new agreements between the members of a contract, not finding of fact. That said, if a partnership doesn't devolve its obligations, then yes, it is by definition not a partnership, although this determination should, it seems to me, be made by an Inquiry case. This in itself is a bit of a problem, since such a finding means that the contract in question was never a person (assuming the text of the contract didn't change at some point causing the partnership to cease to devolve its obligations), and thus never registered, and could require a bunch of really obnoxious gamestate recalculation. R2145 should probably be rewritten to be a bit more pragmatic, but I'm not sure that redefining equity to include partnerships properly devolving obligations is the best way to do that. I'm not sure if it is either, but if you go the pragmatic route (which is a good idea given the extreme annoyance of finding something was never a person, which likely distorts the jurisprudence on devolving obligations in the first place), you'll either have an equity requirement or a criminal requirement or something else. The latter is tricky to find culpability for individually (especially given the typical structure of partnership contracts), which likely won't help dissolve abusive shell-company situations at all. The equity requirement seems to give a lot of power to the equity judges, but at least is reasonably likely to find an actual resolution if the right people are parties to the equation. In both cases, we need to ensure that the obligations survive any purported party-changes or termination to the partnership appropriately. (This at least needs to be powerful enough to stop trivial partnership scams like filling a Buy Ticket with your partnership, transferring the VP, and dissolving the partnership.) -woggle
DIS: Re: BUS: Evil foodstuffs, minus foods
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 21:43, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to the following:
{This is a public contract known as The Normish Partnership. Any
entity CAN cause TNP to act by causing Normish (a.k.a. rootnomic,
which, as of August 9, 2008, was a server located at 209.20.80.194 and
will, prima facie, continue to be that server) to send an email
message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to an Agoran public forum after
September 9, 2008.
The parties to this contract SHALL ensure that TNP obeys the rules of
Agora completely. The parties to this contract CAN act on its behalf
to fulfill one of its obligations. This contract can be amended with
the consent of all parties.}
I pledge to transfer 30 VP to The Normish Partnership by September 9,
2008, assuming it exists at that time.
By the way, I believe the PerlNomic Partnership allows its parties to
act on its behalf to take advantage of its rights. It has the right to
deregister. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
It uses this old boilerplate:
3. The PerlNomic Partnership may incur obligations, rights, and
privileges under the Rules of Agora. The Partners may act on
behalf of the PerlNomic Partnership to satisfy such obligations
and to exercise such rights and privileges, as permitted by
this agreement.
I suspect the as permitted by this agreement and the use of may
rather than can mean that clause 3 does not actually provide a means
to perform an action. And clause 4 purports the restrict the means by
which the PNP can act and is probably effective in doing so:
4. The PerlNomic Partnership shall act by using the mechanisms of the
PerlNomic game to send messages to the appropriate Agoran fora. This
is the only mechanism by which the PerlNomic Partnership may act.
[Now, it's kind-of sloppy that this doesn't use can, but I think
it's clear enough...]
- woggle
Re: DIS: Way to get back some VP?
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 22:10, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is NOT a pledge, an agreement, a promise, or anything else. I'm thinking maybe SELL ticket 10VP, with which, for 1 week, the filler can act on my behalf except for the actions of transfering VP or judging a certain way on CFJs or deregistration You're probably better off specifying the interesting actions you'd actually want to auction off explicitly. Because I think you do not, for example, want me acting on your behalf to bind you to transfer N VP to me. (I can be clever here, too.. For example, submitting buy tickets or AUCTION-sell ticket bids on your behalf. No actual transfer of VP within the week.) If you do want to go open-ended, however, you probably should have some clause about the effects of the actions taken on your behalf (rather than about what they actually are) to avoid these sorts of scams - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 08:09, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the number of the proposal the decision is about. The above boilerplate should be updated, though EVLOD is probably an effective R754(1) synonym for caste. Seems it ought to just say voting limit, in case the system changes again. The problem with that is, under the old system, there were definitely multiple things called voting limits. Effective voting limit on that decision and replacing ordinary decision with decision is probably good enough... -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nethack.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:30, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In an equity case, this sort of word-twisting is not appropriate, if the Nethack sense of ascend was understood to be the relevant term in the spirit of the contract and the eyes of the parties. -Goethe On the other hand, I find it hard to imagine how the plaintiff was harmed with respect to equity by the respondent's failure to abide by eir pledge. I think it would be reasonable to assign the null judgment unless the plantiff explains this. I'm also not sure if we should even let the equity court handle disputes over private pledges that have absolutely nothing to do with Agora just because they claim to be intended to be bound by the rules of Agora. A type of equity judgment similar to IRRELEVANT for inquiries should be provided. In the spirit of internomic scamming^Wcooperation, I think we should avoid going too far in limiting the potential scope of private contracts/pledges. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA emergency!
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:16, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's been over a week since all the other CFJs were created. s/created/assigned ID numbers/ The CotC is behind; calling more CFJs may or may not be likely to get em to start assigning numbers. Either way, it should be motivation to get next month's WRVs earlier. In this case, I would suggest that the CotC politely take (nearly) the maximum allowed time to assign ID numbers to those CFJs (or, if e considers that not entertaining enough, take bribes to do it in time.) -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements on CFJs 2094 and 2095
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 09:27, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:43 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote: I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2094 with 2 support. I intend to appeal the judgment of CFJ 2095 with 2 support. I recommend REASSIGN due to the corruptive self-interest shown in ais523's arguments regarding respect to the regulation of objection. I submit the above excerpt from eir arguments as evidence for the appeal. -woggle 2095? The scam argument was only given in the judgement of 2094 (read what I wrote carefully). The scam argument is not in the judgment of anything, as arguments are not a part of the judgment, bizarre and contrary to the way CFJ precedents tend to be used as that is. It's not clear to me that the arguments for the two cases are seperated by your in the judgment of ..., therefore. -woggle
