DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Air Traffic Controller Election
CoE: You are inactive, and therefore not an eligible voter on this decision. On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Arkady English wrote: > On 19 September 2012 14:28, Arkady English > wrote: >> On 19 September 2012 14:03, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I hereby initiate the Agoran Decision to determine the new Air Traffic >>> Controller. For this >>> decision, the eligible voters are the active first-class players, the vote >>> collector is the IADoP, and the valid options are FKA441344 and >>> scshunt (PRESENT is >>> also a valid vote). >> >> PRESENT > > Ttpftt: > > I vote PRESENT.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7302 and 7307
Check Rule 955 again - it says that an Agoran Decision gets its outcome when its voting period ends, not when it's resolved. On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:47 AM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: >> CoE: neither of these proposals failed quorum, as quorum at the end >> of the voting period for each of them was 1. > > Irrelevant. See Rule 955. > > -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7284-7297
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:27 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 16:06 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: > [...] >> 7291 1.0 FKA441344 (none) > AGAINST; btw, which nomic does this come from? 7291 is from Nomic 16.0 of the xkcd forums ( http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=81725&start=880#p3093535 ); 7292 came via Omnibus Nomic ( http://omnom.wikidot.com/start ). >> 7292 1.0 Machiavelli (none) > [...]
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Justiciar Election
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:23 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I hereby initiate the Agoran Decision to determine the new Justiciar. >> For this decision, the eligible voters are the active first-class >> players, the vote collector is the IADoP, and the valid options are G. >> and FKA441344 (PRESENT is also a valid vote). >> > > When did you nominate yourself? > > -scshunt On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:36 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: > To flip an instance of a switch is to make it come to have a given > value, and undefined is not a value, so you can't flip Initial Posture > to undefined, although you could achieve the same effect by using > promises to flip it back and forth infinitely many times. > I nominate myself for Justiciar. > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> I assume the office of Justiciar. >> >> I initiate an election for the office of Justiciar. >> >> I nominate myself for Justiciar. >> >> I note a loop in the rules; Posture has the default value >> that is the "Current Value" of Initial Posture, and Initial >> Posture has "the same default value as posture". Therefore >> Initial Posture's default is whatever it happens to be set >> to at the moment. >> >> I flip Initial Posture to undefined. (implicitly a state >> mentioned in Rule 1871). >> >> Discuss. >> >> Justiciar's Monthly Report >> - >> Initial Posture of Agora Nomic: >>Standing(*) (set by Proposal 7279) >> >> (*) Possibly undefined >> - >> >> -G. >> >> >>
DIS: Re: BUS: notability
oops, yes I meant 3218. On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:10 PM, omd wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:40 AM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:17 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I intend to, without objection, make case 3128 notable and suggest >>> that the annotation for it be added to rule 2365 >> Without Objection I do so. > > Now that I've looked at this, ITYM 3218 - 3128 was about criminal > cases, not pool fees, although there was an intent to make it Notable > when it was called. > > I intend, without objection, to make CFJ 3218 Notable.
DIS: Re: OFF: Short Logical Ruleset
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 8:34 PM, omd wrote:
> [...]
> Rule 2369/0 (Power=1)
> Foreign Relations
>
> Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the
> Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,
> Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned. Players SHOULD not
> violate the rules of Protected or Friendly nomics.
>
> When a non-Unknown foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, it's
> recognition becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to
> be a Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. Any person
> may flip an Unknown Protectorate's Recognition to Protected by
> announcement. A foreign nomic's Recognition CANNOT change to or
> from Protected in any other way.
>
> The Ambassador-At-Large CAN, with Agoran Consent, flip a foreign
> nomic's Recognition to any value (subject to the above
> restriction). E SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon
> as possible.
>
> --
>[...]
CoE: The fourth paragraph of this rule consists of the text
{
Any Ambassador Extraordinary And Plenipotentiary to a foreign nomic
CAN by announcement flip its Recognition to any value (subject to the
above restriction). E SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon
as possible.
}
, which was added by proposal 7258 (Ambassadors Extraordinary And
Plenipotentiary).
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 9:50 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 8:34 PM, omd wrote:
>> [...]
>> Rule 2369/0 (Power=1)
>> Foreign Relations
>>
>> Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the
>> Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,
>> Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned. Players SHOULD not
>> violate the rules of Protected or Friendly nomics.
>>
>> When a non-Unknown foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, it's
>> recognition becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to
>> be a Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. Any person
>> may flip an Unknown Protectorate's Recognition to Protected by
>> announcement. A foreign nomic's Recognition CANNOT change to or
>> from Protected in any other way.
>>
>> The Ambassador-At-Large CAN, with Agoran Consent, flip a foreign
>> nomic's Recognition to any value (subject to the above
>> restriction). E SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon
>> as possible.
>>
>> --
>>
>> [...]
> CoE: The fourth paragraph of this rule consists of the text
> {
> Any Ambassador Extraordinary And Plenipotentiary to a foreign nomic
> CAN by announcement flip its Recognition to any value (subject to the
> above restriction). E SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon
> as possible.
> }
> , which was added by proposal 7258 (Ambassadors Extraordinary And
> Plenipotentiary).
DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador] Foreign Relations
There are several active nomics in the forum games section of the xkcd forums ( http://forums.xkcd.com/viewforum.php?f=14 ) , I am a player of two nomics at http://omnom.wikidot.com/ and http://nomic.sourceforge.net/nomic13en/, neither particularly active right now, and some searching turns up active nomics at http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=21533&sid=89461ef31a6a047341cc47ddc9971b6f&start=650 , http://www.kongregate.com/forums/36-forum-games/topics/276368-amazing-nomic-game , http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=344895¤tpage=9 , and http://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=431&sid=938fc9dca8d3ae5d3cbbea94c8766999 . On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > First, the bit the rules require me to publish: all Recognition switches > have their default values. > > Next, a bit of discussion. I've been trying to get in contact with > various nomics, but there don't seem to be many. BlogNomic still exists > and is still chugging along (although with not many players), but is > famously reluctant to engage in relations with other nomics. Aeonomic > also exists, according to discussions with two of its players, but is > currently on a several-month hiatus; it seems interested in relations > with Agora when it starts up again. > > If anyone knows of other active game-like nomics, let me know and I'll > go round and say hi. > > -- > ais523 >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [General Secretary] Ruble Report
No; e had only 1 ruble as of the report before this and lost it in the weekly Ruble destruction. On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Pavitra wrote: >> ehird 4 >> FKA441344 14 > > Shouldn't Eileen have some rubles?
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3233 assigned to FKA441344
Registration requires sending a public message, and Henri Bouchard has not yet sent any public messages; the message quoted in evidence was sent to agora-discussion, which is not a public forum. I judge this case FALSE. On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > I change all sitting players to standing. > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3233 > > == CFJ 3233 == > > Henri Bouchard is a player. > > > > Caller: Roujo > > Judge: FKA441344 > Judgement: > > > > History: > > Called by Roujo: 21 Jun 2012 16:55:19 GMT > Assigned to FKA441344: (as of this message) > > > > Caller's Evidence: > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Henri Bouchard > wrote: >> Hi, I'm a newbie at Agora and I'll be confused for a while, but I'll >> understand it at some time in the future, hopefully. > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements, CFJs 3217/3218
3218 is an inquiry case; NOT GUILTY is not a valid judgement for it. On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > I judge CFJs 3217 and 3218 NOT GUILTY. I can't find anything in rule > 2365, nor in rule 2362, nor in rule 2354 (which uses "condition"), that > would imply that there's anything illegal involved in not paying a > proposal promotion cost. The only sensible reading of rule 2365 is that > attempts to add excess proposals to the Pool without paying the cost > (explicitly paying the cost, per rule 2354) simply fail. If another rule > contradicts this, then it doesn't cause rule 2365 to suddenly start > imposing criminal obligations; it just causes its attempt to impose > platonic requirements to fail. > > -- > ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's get things moving
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:51 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: >> *scshunt violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign judgement to case 3218 >> ASAP after it was assigned to em. > > Evidence: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3218 > Arguments: It wasn't me, boss! > > -scshunt Oops. If possible I retract this case. I initiate a criminal case: ais523 violated Rule 2158 by failing to assign judgement to case 3218 ASAP after it was assigned to em.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 3215-16 assigned to omd
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:24 PM, omd wrote: > I belatedly judge CFJs 3215-16 TRUE, because as I mentioned shortly > after they were called, there are more unusual ways to introduce > proposal or cause rule changes that would prevent Agora from being > ossified in any case. Did you mean to judge 3215 FALSE? If removing "which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool" wouldn't make Agora ossified, and the Ruleset doesn't self-ratify, I don't see why it would still be there when I called 3215.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:53 AM, omd wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:12 AM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: >> RUBLES >> PERSONRUBLES OWNED >> ## > > CoE: Does not list BobTHJ. On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:54 AM, omd wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:12 AM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: >> FIRST-CLASS PLAYERS (19) > > CoE: This does not list BobTHJ. > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:33 PM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: >> FIRST-CLASS PLAYERS (21) > > CoE: Neither does this. For each of the above reports, I CoE: Mister Snuggles was a player, and had 2 rubles on Mar 19. I accept each of the CoEs I just made. In response to omd's CoEs, I CFJ: BobTHJ was a player on or about Mar 15 2012 and on or about Mar 19 2012 Arguments: I am initiating this CFJ because I have to either accept, deny, or CFJ on omd's CoEs and I do not know whether they are correct. I believe that this CFJ should be judged IRRELEVANT.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
Huh? They seem perfectly sensical to me (in English, yes). On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > I judge CFJs 3180 and 3181 technically MALFORMED, as the sequence of > characters given as the CFJ "statement" can't be parsed as a statement, > being nonsensical when interpreted as English and not meaningful in > other natural languages I know. > > In spirit, they're FALSE; the lexing of the ambiguous statement where > Mr. Incredible was doing that doesn't make sense. In general, if there's > two different reasonable ways to tokenise a statement, the presumption > is that it's intended to tokenise via the method that parses correctly. > > -- > ais523 >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of 3173, intent to appeal 3172, support for intent to appeal 3151, and support for intents to make cases notable
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Sun, 11 Mar 2012, FKA441344 wrote: >> If I have not yet judged case 3173, I judge it as follows: >> Per cases 3170 and 3154, I judge this case FALSE. >> >> If I judged case 3172 FALSE, I intend to appeal it with two support, >> on the grounds that the judgement I assigned to it was intended for >> case 3173. > > You probably want to request reconsideration, not appeal? -G. If possible, I file a motion to reconsider case 3172. Hasn't the time limit for that expired though?
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Interstellar Administration Report
Some of the entries in the "Next deadline" column were incorrect, specifically: *The next deadline for the Assessor's report is Sun 04 Mar, not Sun 26 Feb. *The next deadline for the Registrar's reports is Sun 04 Mar, not Sun 19 Feb. On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:18 AM, FKA441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote: >[...] > Office Duty Most recent Next deadline* Rule > ### > Assessor Speed Mon 20 Feb** Sun 26 Feb 2347 > CotC Posture Wed 15 Feb Sun 26 Feb 1871 > CotC Status of open cases Wed 15 Feb Sun 26 Feb 991 > Golemkeepor Golem records Sat 18 Feb Sun 26 Feb 2360 > IADoP Offices Sun 04 Mar 2138 > Assumption 2276 > Horton Promises Mon 20 Feb Sun 26 Feb 2337 > Promotor Proposal pool Sat 18 Feb Sun 26 Feb 1607 > Promotor Proposal distribution Sat 18 Feb Sun 26 Feb 1607 > Registrar Players Mon 20 Feb** Sun 19 Feb 2139 > Citizenship 869 > Writs of FAGE 1789 > Activity 2130 > Stasis 1504 > Registrar Fora Mon 20 Feb** Sun 19 Feb 478 > Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset Thu 16 Feb Sun 26 Feb 1051 > > * - Deadline expires at end of listed day > ** - Deputised > ~ - Overdue >[...]
