Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory conditions should sound similary
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Keba wrote: > First, I don‘t assume there are players who think an erg income is more > important than winning. It could be, if a Teams win was getting close and the player with 30 Props could win both ways.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: That guy was fun
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Because they are supposed to be an automatic part of the game. In > particular, the only reason someone would make an II=0 proposal > undistributable is to delay it a week, which violates the idea of a > once-a-week offering of weird rule changes. Proto: Voters MUST vote FOR rules submitted in accordance with this rule. Otherwise, the idea of randomly breaking the game would be violated.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Why is there a full stop?
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:23 AM, ais523 wrote: > I'm also not convinced that just putting "distributable" in as a switch > value counts as flipping the switch to distributable by announcement > (possible for an II-0 proposal), especially when a similar format has > been used to make proposals distributable via rule 2284. I've been treating these as effective. For interested proposals, this wording would fail as it doesn't announce that there is a fee associated with the action.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Why is there a full stop?
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Keba wrote: > Proposal: Why is there a full stop? > (AI = 2, II = 0, distributable) > > Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by replacing this text: > > A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent > before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the. > same type of response. > > with this text: > > A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent > before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the > same type of response. > > [Who put the "." after the "the"?] This sort of thing is usually better achieved by cleaning (R2221) than by proposal. The error was inserted by Proposal 6306 in May of last year, and apparently no one has noticed it since.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6763 - 6765
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Taral wrote: > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> H. Distributor Taral, would you care to open the Submission Period? >> >> According to the subscriber list, e has message delivery disabled. E >> also hasn't been an active player for 51 weeks, which is why I voted >> against this proposal. > > I think you'll find that that's because you're looking at an alternate > address for me. :) That's slightly encouraging, but I still don't care much for putting obligations on inactive players by name, even if they are reading the lists.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6763 - 6765
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > H. Distributor Taral, would you care to open the Submission Period? According to the subscriber list, e has message delivery disabled. E also hasn't been an active player for 51 weeks, which is why I voted against this proposal.
Re: DIS: Trying to put together a SC report
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > Second: the Threat Points are based on the number of active players at > the start of the journey. ehird has been made inactive since that > start, so we now have one less player. When e comes back, I take it > eir new station switch (which only active players have) will default > to Outside, so e'll have missed the journey. ehird already came off hold shortly after e was made inactive.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Asset reports
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> CoE: On or around 23 February, I awarded myself a Violet ribbon. > > Admitted Surely the non-existence of that ribbon has self-ratified by now.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6751 - 6762
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:04 PM, comex wrote: > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: Proposal 6761 (Purple, AI=2.0, Interest=None) by coppro >> Admitted. It's listed correctly at the top, this part was just >> copy+pasted from the Promotor's initiation message. > > I was wondering if Python was used to template it. :) Yes. Yes it is. And the proposal creation form is truly awful and lends itself to this sort of mistake. I really need to get around to making it actually usable...
DIS: Re: BUS: PSM CFJ
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > I CFJ on the following sentence, II = 1. A player awarding emself a > capacitor as defined by Rule 2289, counts as an erg transaction as > defined by Rule 2282. It's kind of irrelevant, since you need to report on capacitor holdings anyway as their recordkeepor.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Inactivity
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > Or, since everyone was under the impression (including Sgeo) that Sgeo > was inactive, you could just leave him off the list of players and let > it self-ratify. Considering it was pointed out to me that he was not, in fact, deregistered, that would be ILLEGAL. If I were asked to judge such a case involving a deregistration I'd give the maximum penalty and propose bringing back EXILE.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6751 - 6762
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Actually, I take this back. What I told everyone was that the proposal > in question is AI-1 and every rule in question was power-2. So the > proposal causes no changes whatsoever to occur, but not for the reason > that Wooble cites. -G. The reason I cited was probably wrong; I missed that it leaves us with ordinary decisions, just rather democratic ones.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6751 - 6762
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > *6759 OP1 1.0 coppro Ill-conceived Rule 1698 may make this change not occur; we now have all decisions Ordinary by default, with no defined voting limits on ordinary decisions and no way to make decisions democratic.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6763-6765
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> In creating my proposal archive, I did notice that Zefram used a "pool >> number", distinct from the distributed proposal ID. I don't know if >> this was just for eir own recordkeeping or if it was rules-defined >> when e was Promotor; I don't remember it being so but I was still a >> newbie when e left. > > That predates Zefram: from the earliest proposal pool in the archives, > by RedKnight (the system predates em as well): > > Proposal Pool > No. | Title | By | AI | Date | Flag > | | | | | > 02-184 | | Murphy | 1 | 28Oct02 | Ds > 02-187 | What Are You Looking At | Steve | 1 | 02Nov02 | Dc > 02-188 | Let's Play Q*Bert (tm) | OscarMeyr | 1 | 03Nov02 | O > [etc] One day I'll dig all of those old proposals out of the archives for my database. Although putting a front end on it first would probably be a good idea.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6763-6765
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I don't think it's common enough to make a significant difference, and >> it's rather unusual IMO that proposals in the Proposal Pool have to be >> referred to by title when just about every other tracked body of text >> has an ID number. > > I'm curious as to the Promotor's opinion here. H. Promotor Wooble, any > thoughts on it? I've been entering withdrawn proposals into the database even if I'm aware of the withdrawn status before I do so; the only effect on my workflow would be to need to adjust the new proposal form at add the ID instead of doing it at distribution time. It might be more annoying to the Assessor to no longer have contiguous IDs in distributions. In creating my proposal archive, I did notice that Zefram used a "pool number", distinct from the distributed proposal ID. I don't know if this was just for eir own recordkeeping or if it was rules-defined when e was Promotor; I don't remember it being so but I was still a newbie when e left. As for the "Distributable" notes in the proposal submissions, I've been treating them as effective. (I've also been treating all of the fees as being payable by the ergs on hand by each player, despite the lack of a recent PSM report.)
DIS: Re: BUS: The Job Isn't Getting Done
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > I intend, with 4 supporters, to initiate an election to decide the > holder of the PSM office. comex's last weekly report as PSM was in > May. Considering we just had a PSM election that everyone ignored, this seems fairly unlikely to help.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Organization Chart
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 16:39 -0400, Wooble wrote: >> From: System Administrator >> Subject: OFF: [IADoP] Organization Chart > > Err, what? That's what happens when you leave a shell logged in as root for wiztesting in nethack.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6740-6747
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:53 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > I vote FOR on all decisions currently in their voting period (where it > is a valid option). however, I don't think Space Alert was made > distributable? I submitted one, paid for it, retracted, submitted a > new one, but didn't pay iirc. Did someone else? As far as I can tell, no, it wasn't made distributable a second time. The distribution was probably successful but illegal.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:09 AM, comex wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> Note: There are no Proposals to distribute this week. > > I pay a fee to make each Undistributable proposal Distributable. Note: this affected, as far as I can tell, 2 proposals: "No duty means no duty" by Murphy (which was missing from the pool report to which the above-quoted message was a reply) and "The first rule of this proposal is..." by ais523. Whether comex specified that this proposal becomes Distributable without acknowledging its existence is left as an exercise for the reader, or whomever needs to award the wins.
DIS: Re: OFF: [ATC] Flight Schedule
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Sun 6 Jun 21:17:55 coppro : ais523 > coppro (stupidity) I believe the effect of this has self-ratified, but isn't it impossible to transfer a prop to yourself?
DIS: Re: BUS: Inactivations
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Sam Benner wrote: > I object to my own inactivation. Too late; the dependent action was already resolved.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > On 29 May 2010 14:34, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn >> wrote: >>> Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer. >> >> You weren't on hold. If you had been, you wouldn't have been eligible >> to be Speaker at all. >> >> However, it's fairly unlikely you're actually Speaker despite being active. >> > I think I was. > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2010-May/025540.html Ok, that got missed in my trying to catch up on 3 weeks of stuff since the previous Registrar's report. If I read R2139 correctly, the Activity reporting on the report is not self-ratifying, so you were inactive and you're neither the Speaker nor on the Succession List. I'm increasingly less certain of who the actual Speaker is, although I believe it's still fairly likely to be allispaul, until the pending intent to make em inactive is resolved. Would anyone at this point vote against making the tiebreaker for choosing the Speaker favor people who have been registered longer? Not that wins by people who aren't paying attention at all should be the norm.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > Okay, I come off hold. Maybe just until I'm out of office, but maybe longer. You weren't on hold. If you had been, you wouldn't have been eligible to be Speaker at all. However, it's fairly unlikely you're actually Speaker despite being active.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] A series of unfortunately-formatted reports.
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 05/28/2010 01:42 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> >> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> >>> LIST OF SUCCESSION >>> >>> 1. Andon (since 05 Apr 2010) (Speaker) >>> 2. coppro (since 03 Feb 2010) >>> 3. Tiger (since 02 Aug 2009) >>> 4. Murphy (since 05 Apr 2010) >>> 5. BobTHJ (since 03 Mar 2010) >> >> CoE: BobTHJ is not an active player. > > Admitted. I'm not certain I understand how the ordering issues were worked out, but I think this means allispaul is our Speaker.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Effect cleanup
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:46 AM, ais523 wrote: > So proposals can take effect before people start voting on them, if a > low-power rule says they can? You should require the presence of an > ADOPTED decision, not just veto the presence of a non-ADOPTED decision. But how would e scam that?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2796-98 assigned to coppro
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > You can stand up if you judge a disinterested case in the same message. Which means that the CotC can pretty much judge every case.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: nothing to see here
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Since I started a coup last week. Care to provide a message-ID?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > This NoV is invalid; by rule 2230(c) an NoV must specify one action or > inaction which is illegal, and that was not clearly present in this NoV > (there were two alleged actions). The action was the publication of the report.
DIS: Re: BUS: Deactivations and Deregistrations
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> For each of the below statements, I perform the indicated action if >> and only if I am a player. >> I intend, without objection, to make Yally inactive. >> >> --Annabel. > > I object. And why? At the very least, Andon has been registered for > two months and has yet to take a single game action. So the Registrar agrees that I'm a player; if I'm not, there was no action to object to.
Re: DIS: Proto-proto: Scam Day
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:49 PM, ais523 wrote: >> However, scams SHOULD NOT >> be carried out which are detrimental to the game as a whole. > > This last sentence is broken, because it applies even on days other than > April 1. (A similar scam was used to win BlogNomic recently.) You're uncomfortable with the rules suggesting that you not destroy the game even if it's not April 1?
DIS: Re: BUS: ugh
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I really have no clue what this means; odds are good that I'd just (as vote > collector) decide that if there was any complexity at all, I'd just resolve > the darn thing as PRESENT due to ambiguity. Wouldn't replacing the vote collector make more sense than replacing the much more fair voting system? Who wants American-style "plurality rules"?
DIS: Re: BUS: Anticipating the Final Dictatorship
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Cute, but I publish a Claim of Error: The immediately above correction is > incorrect. (Your turn) This is true, but since it was a claim about the identity of the publisher of a different message, it's not self-ratifying and a CoE is out of order.
Re: DIS: Re: [Agora] Public Headaches
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Pavitra wrote: > Conversely, a precedent that sending requires the sender to relinquish all > control would suggest that the Distributor cannot send any messages at all > via the fora. Once the Distributor's messages are sent out to the subscribers' mail servers, e loses control (although obviously e could alter the archived copies, but the archive isn't itself part of the forum. IMO). Eir messages quite possibly become public at a later time than those of others sent at the same time, but this difference is most likely in the millisecond range for most messages.
Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Mail warning
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I'd say they were violated, but then reinstated in a reasonable time. > However, since the rights were not violated by anything R101 claims > jurisdiction over, you would be out of luck. Of course, you would be excused > of not knowing what went on in the official fora in the meantime. No interpretation of Agoran law may limit the right of participation in the fora; therefore any interpretation of the law claiming that a forum G. could not reasonably access is a public forum is INVALID.
Re: DIS: Scams that never were, Part 1
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Sgeo wrote:
> None of the rest of this email should be construed as agreeing to any
> agreements, the rest of this email notwithstanding.
>
> I agree to the following contract:
> {
> This is a public pledge. Only Sgeo and $VICTIM, hereafter referred to
> as Victim, can agree to this pledge. Sgeo CAN and MAY, by
> announcement, change the text of this contract. Victim CANNOT and
> SHALL NOT leave this contract without Sgeo's consent. This contract is
> the backing document of a currency called "Scones", and Sgeo is the
> recordkeeper of Scones. Scones can only be transferred or destroyed as
> specified by this contract. The Maximum FINE amount of Scones is 1.
> Scones CAN be destroyed by any party to this contract, by
> announcement. Sgeo CAN and MAY, by announcement, create Scones in any
> player's possession.
> }
>
> I create one Scone in possession of $VICTIM.
>
> On CFJ 2XXX [which has $VICTIM as the defendent], I find the defendent
> GUILTY, with a sentence of FINE: 1 Scone.
>
I don't see how this victimizes anyone; it just seems like a fancy way
to sentence someone to DISCHARGE.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-Proposal: Easier ratification of assets
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Proto-Proposal: Easier ratification of assets > (AI = 3, II = 1, please) > > Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) by appending this text to the > last paragraph: > > If the document is limited to stating asset holdings, then the > power threshold is the maximum Power of the backing documents > of all assets whose holdings are stated. > > [An instrument meeting this threshold could effectively do this anyway, > by appending an explicit statement of legal fiction to each such rule; > this allows it to be done more elegantly.] If the document states asset holdings, it's already self-ratifying.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2732 assigned to c.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:20 PM, comex wrote: > Question for anyone who knows: did BobTHJ violate any obligation while > doing this? e was required to award points as soon as possible after the events triggering the awards; whether e is relieved of this obligation by leaving the contract after incurring it is unclear.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: No cards, fees proto
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Self-ratification goes back at least as far as Rule 352: > > http://agora.qoid.us/rule/352 > > Not less than once a week, the Speaker shall post the current > scores of all Players to the mailing lists, making his best > efforts to determine the correct scores. If a Player feels the > posted scores are incorrect, he may make a Call for Judgement, > stating what he believes to be the correct scores. If the > resulting Judgement is TRUE, the scores stated in the Call for > Judgement become the official scores of all Players. Otherwise, > the scores posted by the Speaker become the official scores of > all Players. If no Call for Judgement is made during the week > following a posting of scores by the Speaker, the posted scores > become official, that is, each Player's score is changed, if > necessary, to the amount posted by the Speaker. Wouldn't that revert everyone's scores to the value they had a week ago?
DIS: Re: BUS: No cards, fees proto
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Title: Minister without Portfolio. > Position: The Minister without Portfolio CAN become holder of a > specified vacant elected office by announcement, unless e is > prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis. With Assumption, this prerogative seems kind of pointless to keep around.
Re: DIS: Threat of invasion during the lull
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > Do you realise that Agora had never been invaded? False. I invaded from B years ago. Unfortunately, the rest of B's players didn't join in the planned invasion.
Re: DIS: Threat of invasion during the lull
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Sgeo wrote: > How possibly would it be for even a smallish invasion force to invade? > Are most players still at least reading the emails, despite not > contributing? If not, then a much smaller invasion force is a much > greater threat than usual. Very easy. We must install draconian and fascist protections, because so many people care about invading Agora.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool Report
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:08 PM, comex wrote: > For each proposal listed as being in the Pool, if it was removed from > the Pool, I submit a new proposal with its listed text, AI, II, and > title. Wouldn't bothering to have voted on the proposal that allowed this have been easier? Of course, if I hadn't voted AGAINST it would have failed quorum so I guess you and ais523 had the right idea.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Like I Said
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Charles Walker wrote: > How is this any different to you getting your ribbons back when you > re-registered? I didn't. I objected to that, too.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fast track
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, comex wrote: >> The 6 days saved (21 - 15) aren't enough to make a difference imo. I also >> don't think fast tracked proposals should require cards if they're going to >> be >> an emergency thing-- there might be a problem with the card rules or we might >> not have enough distrib-u-matics (e.g. hostile Dealor destroys all cards). >> How >> about you CAN distribute a proposal with 4 support; the usual information >> requirements (essential parameters etc) are relaxed to SHALLS to avoid >> problems, and instead of a number you use a GUID. > > I'm not doing any with Support distributions in the modern zooping age. > From recent votes there's at least 4 people who don't like distribution > costs at all, and that's that. > > And it's up to 28 days depending on when it's submitted in relation > to the beginning of the week, so time is cutting between 1/3 and 1/2. > It serves two purposes: it's still a long time between bugs turning > up and us waiting for them to be fixed, even a 1/3 benefit helps. > And if it's racing against a bad proposal, even an edge of a day > helps. How about a super-fast-track where you can make an Urgent proposal take effect with AI*2 Agoran Consent without distributing it at all?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not All Bad
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >>> >>> Ultimately, what we're dealing with is, if a person does take an >>> absolute dictatorship, and e makes too many changes, then players who >>> are strongly pro-democratic may leave, and having a dictatorship >>> with no players is rather hollow. >> >> The whole dictatorship relies specifically on having no other players; >> it works by deregistering everyone. I suspect there are enough players >> who'd be angry about losing their long continuous registrations that >> e'd be exiled for a long time by bill of attainder once e gave up the >> dictatorship, and no one would play with em if e didn't. > > I'd modify the game state so that continuous registrations, officeholding, > etc. wouldn't be interrupted, but that feels rather hacky and is part of why > I'm loath to pull this directly. Creating a legal fiction of continuous registration for people who were deregistered would be even dumber than demanding a win because you could get one by doing something blatantly illegal.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not All Bad
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Ultimately, what we're dealing with is, if a person does take an > absolute dictatorship, and e makes too many changes, then players who > are strongly pro-democratic may leave, and having a dictatorship > with no players is rather hollow. The whole dictatorship relies specifically on having no other players; it works by deregistering everyone. I suspect there are enough players who'd be angry about losing their long continuous registrations that e'd be exiled for a long time by bill of attainder once e gave up the dictatorship, and no one would play with em if e didn't.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6583-6589
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > The Registrar's report doesn't show Taral having deregistered > (though I thought e had at some point). I deregistered to test > non-player participation via the AFO, but if you're eligible via > your recent CFJ (I doubt it, the intended reading is reasonably > obvious) then so am I. v Goddess Eris ta...@taral.net 3 Apr 00 13 Dec 06
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: UNDETERMINED
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>> I CFJ on: {{It is POSSIBLE to assign a judgment of UNDETERMINED to this
>> CFJ.}}
>
> Trivially TRUE. It may or may not be an *appropriate* judgment.
No interpretation of Agoran Law may allow a judge to assign a
judgement that removes my right to have my CFJ resolved. Or
something. The arguments would have been better if I'd written them
while thinking about this instead of deciding it would be appropriate
to have it judged UNDETERMINED due to lack of arguments.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Thesis] The Propositional Nomic
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > The one thing, however, that is truly common to every nomic, and that is > pedanticism. Clearly you haven't played Blognomic, where they'll gladly handwave away any obvious bugs.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6583-6589
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > ? If Taral's eligible, wouldn't you and I be too Murphy ? -G. Taral's not eligible (was previously a player from 3 Apr 00 to 13 Dec 06). Not that I'm likely to have a No Confidence card fast enough to fulfill my pledge to try to become Registrar again, but consider this a campaign speech anyway. Anyway, previous mentors: pikhq named WALRUS, 20 Dec 2007 ais523 named Wooble, 15 Aug 2008 coppro named ais523, 21 Aug 2009 comex named Murphy, 24 Nov 2009
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:29 PM, James Beirne >> wrote: >>> Aaron Goldfein wrote: >>>> >>>> Sat 14 Nov 20:38 yuri_dragon_17 changes eir nickname to lenpw III >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Note that this is an I, not an L. >> >> I publish an NoV alleging that lenpw III violated the Power-3 Rule >> 2170 by choosing eir confusing nickname. > > I must be missing something or be a moron or something... what's so > confusing about it? -G. If e needs to reply to the Registrar's report to make sure everyone's aware of how it was spelled, it's prima facie confusing.
DIS: Re: BUS: Deactivation
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:37 AM, ais523 wrote: > (White ribbons appear to be intended as a reward for > continuous registration...) Mine was a reward for bribing you, but I'm happy to bribe someone else. I'm not sure why Murphy hasn't yet.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deprioritize History
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > Again, the proposal doesn't eliminate the history, it only moves it > from monthly to weekly. It's not pertinent and it really isn't > changing that much. Personally I'd rather not see offices have both a weekly and monthly report for not good reason. The only ones I see needing such a structure are Notary and Rulekeepor.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Insulator] Unofficial outdated report
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: > Wooble 13 Fugitive Can't Register I believe these were all destroyed by proposal.
Re: DIS: cutting edge
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > It's good to know that Agora is on the cutting-edge of IP jurisprudence: > (today from > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/glenn-beck-loses-domain-dispute-still-ends-up-with-domain.ars): > > While agreeing that the site included Beck's trademark, the arbiter > noted that "even a 'moron in a hurry' would not likely conclude that > Complainant sponsored, endorsed, or was affiliated with the website > addressed by the disputed domain name. > > (any discussions of the merits of the people involved with this case directed > to /dev/null). This is a higher standard than that used in Agora; our "only a moron in a hurry would believe X" is distinct from their "even a moron in a hurry would not believe X."
DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistrations
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > I intend, without objection, to deregister Taral. please to not deregister the distributor, lest the mailing list unexpectedly go poof.
Re: DIS: let's shrink the ruleset...
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > If you don't propose and distribute those citrine repeals, I'll do it... let's > get this ruleset shrunk (or at least propose it)! proto: adopt B's ruleset, then re-agorify it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6549-6564
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > (If this > happened a lot, then things would eventually tilt toward "by now you > should be automating or paying more attention".) Considering how often it happened the last time we had a non-automated promotor, I'd expect that tilt to happen fairly soon.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6549-6564
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> 6569 1 1.0 coppro Green Quorum Busted >> 6560 1 1.0 coppro Green Anjusty >> 6561 1 1.0 coppro Green Contests Should Reward Themselves >> 6562 1 1.0 coppro Green Cruel and Unusual Punishment >> 6563 1 2.0 Wooble Green No Rest Multiplication >> 6564 1 1.0 Murphy Green Protect intent > > Warning, 6569 is out of sequence, do not reuse. > Does this make the assignments of 6560-6564 ILLEGAL, since these numbers were not larger than any ID previously used?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6549-6564
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The other option is not to bump anywhere, but create a new and very
> specific 3.9 rule for proposals: "while some other instruments of
> power 3 (ratification etc.) can set power>rule, proposals cannot."
Third option proto:
Historical Preservation, AI-3:
{{
Create a new Power 3.1 rule entitled "Historical Preservation" with
the following text:
{{{
Any proposal that would cause the amendment or repeal of Rules 104,
2105, or 2029 does not take effect, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding.
}}}
}}
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6549-6564
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Pavitra wrote: >> 6551 1 2.0 coppro Red Dead Contracts > PRESENT, ambiguous. "with no party such that the party's basis contains > a player" or "with no parties, and whose basis contains a player"? Didn't you say you were in favor of Agora's equity courts being able to adjudicate contracts completely unrelated to Agora for other nomics? With the intended reading, this would make such a system impossible; no other nomics would create Agoran contracts that could just be terminated because the parties to them happened to not play Agora too.
DIS: Re: BUS: FRC Amendment
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 3:37 PM, ais523 wrote: > I object. The FRC is still in a phase of having several bad > overcomplicated rounds in a row; I'd like it to go back to saner things > before making it worth a win in Agora as opposed to just points. You need to win 3 times, and this should give an incentive for saner people to participate.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Free Parking
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:35 PM, ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 09:43 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Alex Smith >> wrote: >> > Strongly disagree with this one, it makes Wins by Renaissance much >> much easier. (Potentially Championship too, if a Medal somehow ends up >> in the L&FD, say if a Champion's Contest terminates while it still has >> one.) >> >> How many Indigo ribbons are likely to make it to the L&FD, really? > All the ribbons /but/ the Indigo one are in the L&FD. Therefore, it > could cover for any other missing ribbon. (I note that Murphy has an > Indigo ribbon, but is missing at least one other ribbon.) Murphy could get that white ribbon a lot more easily than by getting Free Parking, though. Most of the players who joined after ribbons were introduced can still name a mentor, and e could afford the necessary bribe I'm sure.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Free Parking
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > Strongly disagree with this one, it makes Wins by Renaissance much much > easier. (Potentially Championship too, if a Medal somehow ends up in the > L&FD, say if a Champion's Contest terminates while it still has one.) How many Indigo ribbons are likely to make it to the L&FD, really?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > This is botching again when saved as an external file. This is > presumably a Thunderbird bug, but in any case, can you switch to > text-only for reports? Don't even get me started about the quoted-printable abomination of a proposal distribution this week. I've given up on my proposal archive, which had covered proposals spanning the Promotorships of Zefram, PNP, coppro, and myself.
Re: DIS: Proto-contest: Nomixx
Trying to contract-define "Rules" is probably going to fail rather spectacularly.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool report
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > Yes, barring the removal of proposals already made distributable. > Sorry for bothering you, but is there a way to access this database > that would count as reasonable effort? Well, probably not without effort on my part that would be unreasonable as I no longer have to prepare the report, so yeah, NOT GUILTY.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool report
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > Barring anyone removing a proposal already made distributable, this > should make a complete list, right? No, it doesn't include Distributable proposals that were removed from the pool.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool report
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > That was your call. To be guilty, "the Accused could have reasonably avoided > committing the breach without committing a different breach of equal or > greater severity". It would be unreasonable for the Promotor to have to find > every proposal made Distributable, in my mind. Except of course that I have a database containing that information.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Pool report
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > == Promotor's Proposal Pool Report == > > Date of this report: Tue 27 Oct 2009 > Date of last report: Sun 27 Sep 2009 > Pool last ratified: 21 Oct, ratified on 26 Oct > > Number of Proposals: 45 > > Distributable proposals: > More Voting Fun > > All others are undistributable. You're missing about a hundred distributable proposals that I got deregistered over.
Re: DIS: Proto: The Citrine Repeals
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Pavitra wrote: > Speaking of the stare decisis, we really should either get rid of that > or appoint a recordkeepor to track it. Make the SHOULD into a SHALL in the Rulekeepor rule, since we have a Rulekeepor who obviously hasn't considered the implications of ignoring the SHOULD. Or, you know, elect someone who's not a douche.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Probably Inaccurate Contracts Report
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:36 PM, comex wrote: > LATIN SMALL LETTER SCHWA > > + Parties > * Warrigal > * coppro > * teucer > * allispaul > * comex > * Wooble I left schwa. > The Agoran Agricultural Association > > + Parties > > * Bayes > * Murphy > * Wooble (contestmaster) BobTHJ is the contestmaster.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > 2247 is The Janitor. Did you mean 1750 (Read the Ruleset Week)? Don't you think it's cruel to punish someone for winning the Janitor election by making them read the ruleset to find things to clean?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Decruft Speed
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > I can understand some of these objections, but why are you against > repealing a Rule which has only an unused definition in it? Objecting serves to protect my right to call myself an Agoran resident alien. Also to avoid devaluing Distrib-u-matics.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [PBA] unofficial report
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> >> A Credit 573 0 >> A# Credit 575 0 >> B Credit 544 0 >> C Credit 575 0 >> C# Credit 555 0 >> D Credit 553 0 >> D# Credit 553 0 >> E Credit 554 0 >> F Credit 553 0 >> F# Credit 568 0 >> G Credit 554 0 >> G# Credit 550 0 > > No such things. They still have exchange rates, I think. And good luck getting the Support of the People to do anything at all...
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador] Foreign Relations
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I completely agree that you did not attempt to declare war. > > However, the citizenry (or one of them, anyways) decided otherwise, > and would have judged a state a war to have existed if e could have. > As a result, I ask that B Nomic be put under Sanctions for failing to > control its populace. There's a proposal in B's pool that would create a rule explicitly stating that B is not at war with Agora. This whole incident should be forgotten, the sooner the better.
Re: DIS: [Fwd: Re: [s-d] [s-b] No.]
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > FYI: B's war judgement declared ineffective on a technicality. (I was > trying to appeal it on the grounds that the persons behind it didn't > discuss it in Agora first, nor use their Agoran roles in executing it.) I'd argue that if the Admiral of one entity's navy attacks another entity, that's an act of war even if it was wholly unauthorized. Of course, it also turns out that the AotN card was probably destroyed before the whole incident, and that Walker's part was IMPOSSIBLE due to another technicality.
Re: DIS: a depressing thought
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM, comex wrote: > It is, in fact, POSSIBLE to transfer Rests to the Lost and Found > Department, by ceasing to be a person. (The question is, does such an > unreasonable method of action satisfy a CAN-sans-mechanism clause?) One second after sending this message, I will render myself incapable of communicating by email in English.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: blah, part 2
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I believe this works; Wooble still cannot register for 3 months after comex > deregistered em. If I have no Rests, it should be 30 days, no? Is there a rule other than 869 that applies here?
DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to amend FRContest
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> 7) If this contract is a Champion's Contest, the contestmaster CAN and >> SHALL transfer a medal from the contract to any contestant who has >> won 3 rounds of the Committee since the contract came to possess that >> medal, as soon as possible after the contestant has won the 3rd such >> round. > > Having received no objections (AFAIR), I do so. Was there ever an intent to actually create a Medal?
DIS: Re: BUS: Voting
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Arguments: Purported resolutions of Agoran decisions are self-ratifying? > What if they are via an act-on-behalf that is platonically uncertain? Do > they still self-ratify, even if the purported resolution could never be > performed? They're always self-ratifying, specifically to prevent such platonic ambiguities from having annoying knock-on effects. In this case, of course, there was a claim of error which will prevent ratification. Ignore the act-on-behalf aspect. What if we discovered a year from now that Murphy was platonically not the Assessor after all? If purported resolutions weren't self-ratifying, we'd have to recalculate everything based on the idea that none of the proposals e claimed to resolve took effect.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Audit Card Destruction Cleanup
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:17 PM, comex wrote: > When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case > has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid > judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as > possible, unless e is recused from the case before the time > limit for doing so has expired. > > comes to mind; this is of a similar form just without the time limit. > On the other hand, the phrase "same message" occurs many times in the > rules when that is actually required, but is absent here. The > original intent may be to require the same message, but I think BobTHJ > may be right about the most reasonable interpretation. In this example the "when" applies to an ongoing status, that of being applicable and open, rather than an instantaneous action like auditing. If the above rule said "When a judicial question becomes applicable and open" instead of "is applicable and open", the 2 rules might be analogous.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Audit Card Destruction Cleanup
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: > Irrelevant. The audit rule specifically attempts to address what would > occur if there is no auditing entity (and by this we can only infer > that the author's intent was non-person entity). Since it would be > impossible for the Accountor to perform destruction at the same > instant a non-person entity or non-entity initiates an audit, the rule > text suggests that the audit creates an obligation for future card > destruction (one without a time limit). The fact that the Accountor will necessarily violate the rule just means e's NOT GUILTY under the old EXCUSED criteria, not that the rule doesn't mean what it says.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Audit Card Destruction Cleanup
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: > Address: what if the auditing entity is a non-person? A non-person shouldn't be able to hold one of the Dealor offices or take an action such as playing a Penalty Box card. If it can, that's a bug.
DIS: Re: BUS: Audit Card Destruction Cleanup
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Roger Hicks wrote: > When any other entity is audited the auditing entity (or the Accountor > if the auditing entity is a non-person) CAN and SHALL as soon as > possible (by announcement) I don't think the current rule is ambiguous at all. And making it so you can wait a week before destroying the cards is ridiculous; you already got to wait a week before auditing at all.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: audits
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM, comex wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> It matters when the person we elect as recordkeepor uses someone >> else's broken program and an annoying act-on-behalf system to avoid >> doing the job at all. > > then surely we can elect someone else as recordkeepor? Umm, I did play a No Confidence in the message you were replying to, so...
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: audits
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 11:50 PM, comex wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: >> Perhapsmy program can be easily changed, though this really has >> nothing to do with automation, it has to do with how I (a human >> person) interpreted the rule. > > Suber's point was that the game judge should have the right to choose > an interpretation, not the programmer. But in Agora we usually assign > that prerogative to the recordkeepor anyway, so what does it matter if > he uses a program?... It matters when the person we elect as recordkeepor uses someone else's broken program and an annoying act-on-behalf system to avoid doing the job at all.
Re: DIS: audits
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: > Read the audit rule again. Each audit of the L&FD started a new ASAP > time limit for me to destroy cards (I have it in my queue for the next > automated batch I send). You read it again: When any other entity is audited, the auditing entity (or, if there is none, the Accountor) CAN and SHALL by announcement destroy X of eir cards, selected at random, where X is one-half rounded up of the number of cards e owns in excess of eir Hand Limit. "when" =! "as soon as possible after". NoVs coming Monday morning when I need less support.
Re: DIS: audits
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 23:18, Sean Hunt wrote: >> Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> >>> Were any entities actually audited in the first 7 days of this month? >>> If not, why not? >> >> I don't believe so. BobTHJ attempted and failed to audit ais523 for the >> Government deck; e never attempted Change or Justice. >> >> -coppro >> > Yes, the L&FD was audited thrice (once manually by me after realizing > ais523's audit may have failed, and twice through an automated > message. The L&FD did not have more cards of either of the 2 types you didn't audit first after it was audited once; so this was illegal if it happened (I can't find a message where it did.)
DIS: audits
Were any entities actually audited in the first 7 days of this month? If not, why not?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: another partnership intend
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Becuase Wooble amended it to a contract imposing no obligations. No I didn't; I amended it by adding on a mousetrap and an escape clause.
DIS: Re: BUS: another partnership intend
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM, comex wrote: > I hereby invoke my R101 (iv) right to leave this contract, as it was > amended without my first having the reasonable opportunity to review > the amendment. Does the right not to be bound by the amendment grant a right not to be bound by the rest of the contract?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cards
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:49 PM, comex wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: >> I intend, with notice, to audit the Lost & Found. > > Cute. The L&FD is supposed to be audited before the end of tomorrow, sparing an actual card hoarding player from being audited.
DIS: Re: BUS: Possibilities...
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I CFJ (II=1) { A Government was Formed on September 1.}
>
> On September 1, Wooble assigned the Major Arcana cards to various
> players. It was not at the time defined as Forming a Government,
> however, the action was effectively renamed to Forming a Government by
> the proposal allowing for a coup. Does such an assignment count as
> Forming a Government for the purposes of the rules, specifically the
> rules regarding the initiation of a coup?
Gratuitous arguments: it was defined as Forming a Government at the
time; the definition was simply moved from Rule 402 to Rule 2275 when
the coup rules were passed.
DIS: Re: BUS: Status
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > No it did not. You gave notice August 9 (hence my intended amendment). Neat, I forgot both that I needed to give notice and that I already had. This should probably worry me.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Champions
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > Perhaps a winning condition should be having won the game in each currently > recognized way. Paradox, you can't satisfy that winning condition without satisfying it first.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Caste report
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > Now is an all-time low on stable voting limits (well, I haven't been > here for very long, so I'm not sure)! There is currently a total of 9 > votes around! I'm intentionally holding off on this week's distribution until after the monthly caste reshuffling.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: High-rank appeals prefer high-rank panels
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Proposal: High-rank appeals prefer high-rank panels > > Amend Rule 911 Insufficient AI...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Darth Cliche reregisters
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I CFJ (II=0) "I is a player." TRUE; you is. Even if your variations in grammar are truly awful.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Insulator Election
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > What happens when you play a NC on an office for which there's an > ongoing election? The election in canceled and a new one starts.
