DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Gray Ribbon clarification
On Tue, 2024-10-01 at 22:01 -0500, Kiako via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal (updated a very weirdly phrased part of
> the comment, no actual mechanical change):
>
> //
> Title: Gray Ribbon clarification
> Adoption Index: 3.0
> Author: kiako
> Co-authors: Janet
>
>
> [This is the only rule where "unless e has done so earlier in the month"
> is used instead of "Once per month".
>
> This proposal has two consequences:
> - Pending a CFJ (or precedent), the Herald may be able to award two
> Gray Ribbons in the month this is adopted.
> - In a month where the Herald changes to a new player, e will likely
> be unable to award a Gray Ribbon if the prior Herald had done so that
> month, where the previous version may have allowed it.
> Seeing as Gray ribbons aren't exactly a hot commodity right now, I think
> the simplicity is better than the potential extra award.]
>
> Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons")by replacing
> {
> The Tailor CAN award a Gray Ribbon by announcement, unless e has done
> so earlier in the month.
> }
> with
> {
> Once per month the Tailor CAN award a Gray Ribbon by announcement.
> }
> //
Another proofreading comment, sorry: you refer to the Herald rather than
the Tailor in several places.
~qenya
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Annotation Recommendation (attn. Rulekeepor)
On Sun, 2024-09-29 at 16:35 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 9/29/24 16:34, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-official wrote:
> > I petition the Rulekeepor to include the following annotation in the
> > Full Logical Ruleset:
> >
> > On Rule 2683 ("The Boulder"):
> >
> > CFJ 4095 (called 23 Sep 2024): The Height switch is not associated with
> > any specific dimension or direction; merely pushing the Boulder
> > increases its Height, regardless of how e announces e does so.
> >
> > (I'd normally just do this at the same time as the weekly report, but I
> > got overexcited to do a thing.)
> >
> > ~qenya
>
>
> Response: we'll see.
>
> (Sure, I'll try to remember.)
>
Uhh, I just noticed messed the articles up when drafting ("e" refers to
nothing), sorry, maybe something like this:
CFJ 4095 (called 23 Sep 2024): The Height switch is not associated with
any specific dimension or direction; merely pushing the Boulder
increases its Height, regardless of how a player announces e does
so.
~qenya
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4092 assigned to Gaelan
On Mon, 2024-09-16 at 19:39 +0100, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote: > I find trivially FALSE, per qenya. > > I self-file a motion to reconsider, because that’s a cop-out and we all know > it. > > (Apologies for the extended delay in judgement; I’ll try to deliver a > substantive judgement this week.) Apology accepted, although I'm afraid that despite the lack of a recusal you have nevertheless been removed from the bench as it's been 15 days since the original assignment. Sorry; it had slipped my mind that I included that clause in the Arbitor regulations. You may of course rejoin at will. ~qenya
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 9168-9178
On Sun, 2024-09-15 at 16:10 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > IDTitle Result > > 9168 Erosion in Geological Rhyme ADOPTED > 9169 Not all the way upREJECTED > 9170 Not all the way upREJECTED > 9171 Rationalizing Recordkeepors v1.2 ADOPTED > 9172 Veblen DefenseADOPTED > 9173 Mid-2024 Omnibus Cleanup Act ADOPTED > 9174 Various sortition fixes v2ADOPTED > 9175 Crystal liquidation REJECTED > 9176 Adjusting the Money SupplyADOPTED > 9177 Prevent cheap Stone wins ADOPTED > 9178 Takes Two to Tango in this Town ADOPTED Oh shit. Crystal liquidation didn't pass, but Adjusting the Money Supply did? That's, uh, unfortunate. ~qenya
DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] responding to zen
On Mon, 2024-09-09 at 12:00 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > If snail has won the game and I can do so, I grant them the patent title of > Champion. > (I think this is trivially true, but there is an open CFJ). The CFJ has been judged; snail did win the game and this is EFFECTIVE. ~qenya
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report
On Mon, 2024-09-02 at 20:39 -0300, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > Oliver Nguyen via agora-discussion [2024-09-02 16:47]: > > Tue isn't even used anymore > > Should I remove it? > I think it's worth keeping a reference to it on the basis that it physically still exists and works, and the Agoran community is permitted to use it by the administrators. Theoretically it's usable if we ever find ourselves in need of fora. ~qenya
DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Application of Proposals 9159-9167
On Sun, 2024-09-01 at 03:03 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > On 9/1/24 02:44, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > ID: 9166 > > Title: Untracked hats > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Janet > > Co-authors: > > > This fails. There is no Rule 2594. > > [This one's my fault. Oops.] > Ahhh, karma. ~qenya
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Administrative Regulations
On Sun, 2024-08-25 at 13:23 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > Kate wrote: > > >When a judgement is issued that has major implications for the > >interpretation of a rule, and it is highly unlikely that the rule > >will be changed to alter the interpretation or the case reopened > >in the near future, the Arbitor SHALL in an officially timely > >fashion write a brief description of the implication and > >communicate it to the Rulekeepor with a recommendation for > >inclusion in the Full Logical Ruleset. (This duty is immediately > >discharged if the office of Rulekeepor is vacant.) > > How about "(or, if Rulekeepor is vacant, publish it)"? That will likely > suffice to communicate it to whomever ends up being the next Rulekeepor. > Mm, fair. I might change it if I remember after the first intent passes; it seems an unlikely enough scenario (nearly five years' service!) that I'm not terribly worried about it. Mostly, I was just trying to make sure there's no way for me to end up in situation where it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to fulfil a SHALL. I don't think 2531/18(3) will save me since I'm putting the obligation on myself. ~qenya
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Administrative Regulations
On Sun, 2024-08-25 at 16:41 -0400, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote: > On 8/24/24 10:06 AM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-official wrote: > > > > > > > ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS > > This, plus the titles and dividing lines suggests to me there are > three > regulations here... > > > > > > > Public exercise of judiciary powers > > > > This regulation currently does not provide for players to act > > on > > behalf of the Arbitor to exercise eir official powers. > > ...so to have the intended effect, this should be "These > regulations... > do..." > I mean, the "intended effect" is just nothing at all. I divided it this way to match the three domains of control of Administrative Regulations. In theory I like the idea of granting players some measure of control over official powers in case of, for example, an absent officer, but CFJs already have everything I could think of baked into the rules. For example, it's already possible to self-assign cases without 3 objections. I guess I could allow people to initiate Moot decisions on my behalf, but it feels a bit superfluous; there have been, like, two or something since I've been playing. ~qenya
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Erosion in Geological Rhyme
On Sat, 2024-08-24 at 15:04 +0100, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > I petition the Arbitor to republish this proposal with intent to > qualify for a Baccalaureate of Nomic Art. NttPF. However, if you had actually petitioned as intended, I would respond as follows: I'm flattered you think that highly of it! I think it would be inappropriate if the proposal doesn't actually pass, but if it does I'll certainly consider it. Thank you. ~qenya
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report
On Wed, 2024-08-14 at 19:35 +0100, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora- discussion wrote: > On Wed, 2024-08-14 at 10:13 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Do we technically need to state "All unlisted persons are > > Unregistered", > > since they are tracked also? > > See Rule 2162. The officer who tracks a switch is only required to > report on instances of the switch that are not set to their default > value, and by omitting them, e implies that they are set to their > default value. Incidentally, this has reminded me that officers, specifically, are the only entities who can be the trackers of switches. Assets can be tracked by any entity, but switches only by officers. And "recordkeepor" only has meaning when applied to assets; there's no such thing as the recordkeepor of a switch. This means Murphy's Tracker of Hats fix proposal is sadly hopelessly broken (the "recordkeepor" of any switch is undefined, so it would have created individual Tracker offices for each and every switch and installed Murphy in all of them), but snail missed it two Promotor reports ago and self-ratified it out of existence, which is probably for the best. ~qenya
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report
On Wed, 2024-08-14 at 10:13 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: > Do we technically need to state "All unlisted persons are > Unregistered", > since they are tracked also? See Rule 2162. The officer who tracks a switch is only required to report on instances of the switch that are not set to their default value, and by omitting them, e implies that they are set to their default value. ~qenya
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor, @snail) CFJ 4080 and 4081 remain unjudged
On Tue, 2024-08-13 at 03:19 +0100, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora- business wrote: > On Sat, 2024-08-03 at 20:16 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-business > wrote: > > I petition the Arbitor to reassign these cases away from snail. It > > affects > > my report on whether these items are IRRELEVANT or not. The > > deadline > > to > > assign blots for such a transgression has passed, unfortunately, > > otherwise > > I'd note the infraction. > > > > I respond to this petition as follows: Yes, I plan to shortly. > > ~qenya Oops, update: snail already snuck under the line, submitting a judgement. ~qenya
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9153-9155
On Mon, 2024-08-05 at 02:24 +0200, Immae via agora-discussion wrote: > I would like to inform that the above form formulas that count the > ballots seem to ignore ballots past line 24, and that some previous > votes form July 28th ignored lare920 due to that. Not sure if the > assessor based its computation on this last line or not. AIUI, Janet (Assessor for the last five years) has never used the spreadsheet. I've never understood why it's still being circulated. ~qenya
Re: DIS: Matrix woes
On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 11:43 +0200, Immae via agora-discussion wrote: > (Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 07:30:44PM GMT) Matt Smyth via agora-discussion > : > > Is the bridge between discord and matrix out? I'm relatively new > > and I > > don't know what to expect in terms of messaging density, but I > > don't think > > I, on Matrix, have seen any messages for a couple of months now > > [barring, > > of course, Kiako, who messaged on Matrix asking this same > > question]. Or > > should I just go onto discord directly? > > > > I think this is the right forum. > > I confirm that the bridge seems broken: I’m registered both on matrix > and IRC (where I receive message from somewhere else via the > AgoraBot, > presumably from discord) and the discussions are not shared. > I think that libera.chat has a bridge, so you may be able to join the > IRC channel ##nomic from your matrix? Yes, there are IRC-Discord and Discord-Matrix bridges that are collectively supposed to connect the most important channels on all three, but it seems like the latter is not working at the moment. It (and the Matrix space in general) have historically been maintained by nix, but e's been busy with work recently... maybe it's worth thinking about merging the Matrix bridge functionality into AgoraBot? ~qenya
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Birthday Tourney stats / Reminder
On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 17:11 +1000, Matt Smyth via agora-discussion wrote: > All right then. Count me in (after I hurriedly complete the > Stonemason's... > Sorry!). NttPF ~qenya
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@ADoP, @Tailor) Bad Prime Minister! BAD!
On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 21:36 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: > So, "an action ordinarily reserved for an office-holder as if e held > the > office" > is duty. > > Items 1,2,3,5, by saying "the action", are actually referring to the > duty, > not to the action the deputy is taking? Because it says "the action" > which > I was interpreting to mean "the action that the deputy is hereby > authorized > to do". > > Like... to me, the "the" implies that there's only one action, and > because > the word "action" is shared between the starting paragraph and the > conditions, it made me think it was standalone... > > In the whole context of deputisation, this makes more sense, as in, > if any > duty is missed, then someone can deputise, but the way it is > currently > worded feels like... it doesn't actually work? AIUI, there is only one action, you're not wrong there. Janet's position is that the action is "appointing a Laureled player to Speaker" and the requirement to do so isn't affected by the set of Laureled players changing before the requirement is fulfilled. My feeling is that that is the correct reading - Rule 103 says "Whenever the Prime Minister CAN appoint a Laureled player to the office of Speaker, e SHALL do so in a timely fashion", not "Whenever a player becomes Laureled, the Prime Minister SHALL appoint em to the office of Speaker in a timely fashion". And it definitely matches how we've always done it: if two people win in quick succession, the Speakership doesn't go to one first and then the other, it just goes to the most recent winner, and that discharges the Prime Minister's obligation. ~qenya
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) A dangerous game.
On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 19:39 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> Title: Corpse Looting
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Coauthors:
>
> Append the following to Rule 2695 ("The Veblen"):
> {
> When a shooter fires a round that eliminates a player who owns the
> Veblen,
> the shooter CAN, by announcement, loot the corpse. The Veblen is
> thereby
> transferred to the shooter.
> }
May I suggest "CAN, by announcement and in the same message,"
~qenya
DIS: Re: BUS: (@ADoP) Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Expediting sortition procedure
On 01/07/2024 04:40, Matt Smyth via agora-business wrote: I become an option for the office of Webmastor. I become an option for the office of Tailor. I become an option for the office of Collector. I become an option for the office of Stonemason. Tailor is not being sortitioned - calling attention in case you typoed for something else. ~qenya
DIS: Re: BUS: Verbal Cake (@Tailor)
On 29/06/2024 19:55, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: Oh, this is amazing. Kudos to you. (Tempted to petition for a Bard award, would anyone else support were an intent to be made?) And thank you for the reminder. I, too, award myself a Magenta Ribbon. Ugh, and Thunderbird has lost my settings for line wrapping... mgrgr... I am very much in the market for a better email client if anyone has recommendations ~qenya
Re: DIS: Question regarding 'a welcome package'
On 22/04/2024 06:41, mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion wrote: > Hello, > > We received the following response to Our Registration[1]: >> Hello! I cause the above-registering person to receive a welcome package. > We would like to ask what a 'welcome package' is. > > Thank you. A welcome package is a starting set of assets that is (supposed to be) given to new players so you can start engaging with the economy straight away without waiting for weekly or monthly timers. It's defined in Rule 2499. Currently, a welcome package just consists of one stamp of your own type. In the past at various points it's been a much larger selection of assets, or sometimes nothing. I'm not sure why it doesn't currently include any spendies. Maybe an oversight? I haven't been following the drafting of that subsystem. -Kate
Re: DIS: Question regarding posted objection
On 22/04/2024 06:49, mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion wrote: > Hello, > > We would like to ask about the posted objection[2] to our test e-mail[1]. > Specifically, we would like to ask upon what grounds the test was objected to, > and whether we have performed some misdeed which must be rectified. > > Thank you. This is just an inside joke - Janet has a habit of posting "I object" in response to test messages, I think because there was once a case where someone hid an intent to declare apathy in a test message. -Kate
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
On 25/03/2024 19:13, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> it has one).
> } with {
> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
> already been investigated.
> }
Could this not more succinctly just be "...an unforgiven, uninvestigated
infraction"? The rule is already quite long and hard to parse.
-Kate
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: one from the archives
On 24/03/2024 12:44, Gaealn Steele via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Mar 24, 2024, at 12:21 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> hmm... the "Optionally" removes any obligation, but does mean that if >> there are any documents the Archivist deems worthy of archival (even >> non-Agoran documents!) but doesn't include, the option has not been >> taken and any documents the Archivist does include are not part of the >> report even if they may happen to be part of the same message >> >> which I don't think affects anything because the report doesn't >> self-ratify but feels untidy > > Ah, yeah, good catch - starting to see the appeal of your suggested > wording (“chooses and deems…”)! > > Probably worth patching afterwards, but not worth withdrawing the > proposal over? Agree - could even be part of the same distribution conditional on the rule existing -Kate
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: one from the archives
On 24/03/2024 09:16, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:> * Optionally, any other documents the Archivist deems worthy > of archival. hmm... the "Optionally" removes any obligation, but does mean that if there are any documents the Archivist deems worthy of archival (even non-Agoran documents!) but doesn't include, the option has not been taken and any documents the Archivist does include are not part of the report even if they may happen to be part of the same message which I don't think affects anything because the report doesn't self-ratify but feels untidy -Kate
Re: DIS: Proto: One from the archives
On 22/03/2024 00:01, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> I proto-create the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: One from the archives
> Author: Gaelan
> AI: 1
>
> Re-enact rule 417, with the following text: {
> The Archivist is an office; its holder is responsible for ensuring
> the continued availability of documents of historical interest.
>
> The archivist’s monthly report contains:
> * instructions for accessing the most complete available
> collections of:
I would make this "...accessing reasonably complete available
collections..." to remove culpability if there are archives the
Archivist is unaware of or chooses not to recognise as official for some
other reason.
I would also capitalise this bullet point to match the others (or remove
the capitals from all the others, as you prefer).
> * Texts of each historic rule revision.
> * Texts of each proposal.
> * Judicial cases.
> * Public messages.
> * Messages to discussion fora.
> * Theses for which a player was awarded a degree.
I would make this "person" rather than "player" for robustness.
I would also add an extra catch-all point, something like "Any other
Agoran documents e chooses and deems it important to archive."
> * A description of the completeness of each of the above
> collections.>
> The Archivist SHOULD also include in eir monthly report
> instructions for accessing any other collections of historical
> interest.
>
> [I’d like to have some way for the Archivist to reward players
> for filling in missing records, but I’m not sure about the best
> way to do that in the current economy.]
IMO the current records are complete enough that significant
contributions are likely to be few and far between, and justify a
higher-level reward than purely economic - patent title or maybe even a
new ribbon (pink? silver? teal? periwinkle?)
> }
>
> Re-title rule 417 to “The Archivist”.
>
> Make Gaelan the Archivist.
Overall, big fan of the idea, let's have more easily-accessible
historical archives. I've picked up a lot of them from having them
linked on occasion in the Discord but it would be nice to have them all
listed in one place, on-list.
-Kate
DIS: Re: (@Assessor, Stonemason) Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] State-sanctioned celebrations (for real)
On 17/11/2023 11:38, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > (If Janet has a way to force this through, I'd like to see it: > sometimes a forcethrough attempt ends up passing just on natural votes, > which is really boring compared to seeing a scam in action, and thus > it's a lot more interesting to vote AGAINST rather than FOR when this > sort of thing happens.) (To be clear, I agree with you; it's just that I'm in on this one! I have no idea why 4st is voting FOR, though.) -Kate
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Forum restoration
On 16/10/2023 17:37, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:> Adoption index:
>
> {
>
> The instance of the publicity switch possessed by the forum that can be
> sent to at "agoranomic at groups.io" is hereby flipped to Public.
>
> }
That's not a valid adoption index, and also you didn't give the proposal
any text
-Kate
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4053 Assigned to 4ˢᵗ
On 13/10/2023 17:05, 4st nomic via agora-official wrote: > I temporarily deputize as Arbitor to assign the following case. > > The below is CFJ 4053. I assign it to 4ˢᵗ. (chosen randomly from ais523, > kiako, and 4ˢᵗ) > History: > > Called by Kate: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 08:41:41 > -0700 > Assigned to snail:[now] unofficial "CoE" (this is not self-ratifying but would be good if it was correct in the historical record) (1) wrong assignee (2) date is wrapped weirdly and in an arbitrary timezone (neither the caller's timezone nor Agoran time) -Kate
DIS: Re: BUS: Stone Actions - 27 Aug 2023 [attn. Stonemason, Collector]
On 27/08/2023 19:59, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > On 27/08/2023 19:57, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> Oops. This reach fails, I already got the Hot Potato Stone last week. >> >> I wield the Hot Potato Stone, specifying Kate. >> >> I reach for the Anti-Equatorial Stone. > > Aww. Thank you! > > In that case, I reach for the Hot Potato stone myself. Wait no I just looked at the rule and the Hot Potato stone doesn't do what I thought it does ...oh well. I don't really understand this subgame yet anyway, will just wait for a Stonemason report and see what ended up happening -Kate
DIS: Re: BUS: [Agoran't] [Promotorn't] Lets get things moving!
On 25/08/2023 19:32, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > I take the following actions only in Agoran't: Wrong list :) The Agoran't public forum is agor...@agoranomic.groups.io (And Janet has submitted another couple of proposals already, so the Proposal Pool is not empty.) -Kate
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration, and soliloquy
On 23/08/2023 03:22, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > >> No bother :) Even if this isn't one of them, I'm sure culture has >> changed in some ways since I was last here - I fully expect there to be >> a bit of adjustment needed from me. > > Spivak is still very much the default. I (speaking for myself) am happy to > use other pronouns if you (or anyone) would prefer that, though. Oh, to be clear - my pronoun remark was just because I got they/themmed in the first response I got from anyone, which surprised me. I'm still perfectly happy with Spivak :) -Kate
DIS: Re: OFF: [HERALD] THE ALARM IS SOUNDED
On 22/08/2023 22:15, 4st nomic via agora-official wrote: > I sound the alarm!! WEEOOWEEOO! You should be *setting* the alarm, right? And then it sounds at the start of the next day but one. I imagine that was to put everyone on an even footing as regards timing. -Kate
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration, and soliloquy
On 21/08/2023 17:47, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 7:31 AM Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> (Also: Is the convention here not still to use Spivak e/em/eir pronouns >> for everyone? If not, mine are she/her. Thanks.) > > That's just me being me, I think. I forgot Agora prefers e/em instead of > they/them. No bother :) Even if this isn't one of them, I'm sure culture has changed in some ways since I was last here - I fully expect there to be a bit of adjustment needed from me. -Kate
