Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Awards Month (@Promotor, @Arbitor, @Tailor, @ADoP)
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:57 PM nix via agora-discussion wrote: > - Wooden Gavel, awardable by the Arbitor to the judge of a CFJ > or series of CFJs with a strong and foundational impact on the > judicial precedents of Agora (additional information: ID > Numbers of the judgements). The qualifying CFJ judgements are CFJs 3938-4001 inclusive. Arbiter's Shortlist (I'll narrow it further after leaving time for discussion - please let me know if I've missed some good ones. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3938 Judge Jason gives an important reading on the minimum number of players possible to prevent ossification. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3948 Judge G. lays out the principle that different types of fora may have different definitions for things like addressing other players. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3957 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3958 Dive deep into the forbidden arts with Judge ais523. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3966 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3966 A set of rule-caused rule changes accidentally changes the changes it describes midway through changing. Judge G. tells us what happens. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3971 Judge secretsnail gives a nice walkthrough analysis of the "new" tabled action rule. -G.
DIS: stamps and radiance - discussion
So, by my count there's 3 people who could win via radiance pretty much at any time due to stamps. I sure don't begrudge the wins at all, but it's extremely demotivtating to bother to get radiance, to know it could be reset at any time on a whim. Really gives a "no point in trying" feeling to radiance right now except via stamps. Holding onto a win for later can be fine - e.g. for Ribbons, because one person's ribbon win doesn't reset anybody else's progress. But for radiance it seems that one method (stamps) can be banked indefinitely and reset everyone's progress whenever, while the other radiance methods time out, don't seem like the best game design overall? My own first thoughts on a fix would be to make stamps win on their own track (a separate win type from radiance), but curious what others think. Maybe I'm thinking about the strategy wrong, it could be played "radiance is only about stamps and the other methods are just little get-aheads" but we haven't really made the game read that way? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Fixing CoEs for Radiance
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 6:10 AM juan via agora-business wrote: > Append to Rule 2201 Self-Ratification the following text: > > "4. Retract the document, making it so as if it were never published." I'm pretty sure this leads directly to Paradox (if the document was never published, it couldn't have been subject to a CoE, therefore the alleged CoE wasn't a CoE, therefore it couldn't trigger a retraction, therefore it was published...) -G.
Re: DIS: 2023 Tech Survey
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 9:12 AM nix via agora-discussion wrote: > Basic Access > > > 1. What email client(s) do you use to access Agora? Currently (just recently) forced into gmail web or phone app, by updates to my institution's policy; Tbird for years has been preferred/still preferred - looking to move back. > 2. How often do you check agora emails? Daily or (now) when discord fora-bot shows new emails. > 3. How often do you access the Discord? Daily > 4. How often do you access the irc? Never > 5. How often do you access the matrix? Never > 6. What, if any, assistive technology do you use? None (client search tools for finding stuff if that counts?) > 7. Do you use an email account (non-alias) exclusively for Agora? No > 8. (Open Ended) How do you organize agora emails? Do you use filters, > folders, labels, aliases, or other features of email? Filter all list mails into one time-sequential folder. Sometimes move stuff I'm working on (like several emails of gratuitous arguments on a cfj) to a temp folder. > 9. (Open Ended) How do you access old agora messages/emails? - my tbird archives (2001-present though with some big gaps in the 00s) - The private archives (primary first criteria for me is often "what month and year did that happen" binary search) - grep or other CLI tools on downloaded mboxes (refreshed ~quarterly). > 10. How often do you use the website? 2 or 3 times a week. > 11. What pages on the website do you use most frequently? SLR, FLR, CotC, archive link page (i.e. link to Zefram's and others' archives). > 12. (Open Ended) What is the most difficult part of Agora, from a > tech/accessibility standpoint? - modern gmail and lack of support for things like fixed width, hard line wrapping, and inline conversations/non-top-posting on replies. - for newer users, FAQs about current play are limited/rarely up to date. > 13. (Open Ended) What technology would you like to see Agora adopt or > use more? happy to explore ideas but no stand-out needs - prefer to keep technical necessities very low. > 14. (Open Ended) What other questions should this survey include, and > what would your answer be? none, thanks for doing this!
Re: DIS: Re: [Herald, CFJ] Re: BUS: [??Ritual Master??] Fond Memories of what once was.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 1:54 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion: > > > Secondly, is a repeated action the same as a conditional action? > > They function under roughly the same rules per precedent. Except - now that we've rule-codified conditionals, we have to ask "does this fall under the new rule text (as a conditional) or the previous precedent (as an issue of clarity)?" It may not make an interpretive difference now, but then again it might. For anything written in a pseudocode loop, we know that any computer that would execute the loop does through conditionals (e.g. "does N = the last loop value?") but a meta-look at the full code might see no conditionals. Anyway, slightly new territory to explore. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sacrilege
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:25 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion: > I withdraw this CFJ. > I respond to the CoE instead by accepting the error, > and letting all declared ritual numbers that had this as dependency fail. You may know this, but "accepting the error" does nothing as it is not actually an option under possible CoE responses. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Trade offer ad - Stamps for Stamps
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 5:45 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 3/23/23 00:12, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On another note, I don't find anything in the rules that allows us to add > > > conditions to the performance of actions, unless I'm missing something. Oh, and I missed your direct question here! This is a perfect example, because we just last week decided "our CFJ precedents that allow conditionals aren't in the rules anywhere and that's confusing, let's add them!" So we just (via a proposal) amended Rule 2518 (Determinacy) to add: > A communication purporting to express conditional intent to > perform an action is considered unclear and ambiguous unless, at a > minimum, the conditional is determinate, true, and reasonably > straightforward to evaluate with publicly-available information at > the time of communication. The communicator SHOULD explain > specific reasons for being uncertain of the outcome when e makes > the communication. which was an attempt to transform the past precedents into actual rules text. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Trade offer ad - Stamps for Stamps
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 5:45 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> That's pretty fascinating.
>
> Are there any other notable "unwritten rules"? Precedents or other thing
> that are, in practice, as strong as actual explicit ruletext?
There should be nothing "as strong as actual rules text". If a rules
text directly contradicts a CFJ or our common way of doing things
("game custom"), the rules text wins (see Rule 217).
The issue is with all the places the rules are silent or ambiguous,
which especially happens with qualitative words. What makes something
"clear and unambiguous"? If an officer publishes "a report" but
leaves something out, does it count as a report? For the purposes of
R2221, when is something a "dialect correction" versus an actual
change in the rule? Etc. Many of these things are "hard to define
in words, but we know it when we see it".
Those sorts of interpretations have built up a lot over the years into
a kind of common law and a set of examples (e.g. examples of which
communications were clear and which were not). Importantly, those can
always be changed via changing the rules text, or through a CFJ that
says "those past CFJs were wrong". Since resolving all of these
issues are ultimately consensus (via choosing not to appeal
judgements) or democratically decided (via Moots), their sole "power"
is the power to persuade, and the power to serve as predictions[0] of
what the likely consensus outcomes will be the next time that
controversy comes up. The flip side is those "predictions" can turn
into "self-fulfilling prophesies" if not revisited with fresh eyes
from time to time.
[0] see Holmes, "The Path of the Law" (pdf:
http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/LCS/palaw.pdf)
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal) What does this button do?
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 7:48 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> man. 20. mar. 2023 kl. 15:44 skrev ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:
>
> > On Mon, 2023-03-20 at 15:18 -0700, Forest Sweeney via agora-business
> wrote:
> > > Enact the following rule:
> > > {
> > > A device is an asset defined by the rules.
> > > Devices are tracked by the Mad Engineer's assistant.
> > > }
> > >
> > > Grant each player a Reified Device.
> >
> > I suspect the last part of that proposal will fail to do anything
> > unless you switch the Device on first. (While it's off, there are a
> > number of restrictions on how a Device can be created.)
> >
>
> Hmmm... dang, you are probably right about the last part of the proposal,
> I wasn't looking closely. It would need to be power 1.1 to do it, wouldn't
> it?
>
>
> > I'm also somewhat intrigued as to what happens when you make something
> > that isn't an officer responsible for tracking an asset…
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
>
> Also, I didn't notice that bonus!! :D
That’s actually covered by R2603 which kicks in if the switch has neither
an associated officer nor the explicit word “untracked”. I think the only
question is whether it makes the “assistant” synonymous with the “tracker
of” office that R2603 would create.
Rule 2603/0
Switch Responsibility
For each type of switch that would otherwise lack an officer to
track it, and is not defined as untracked, there exists an imposed
office named “Tracker of [switch name]” that is responsible for
tracking that switch.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@ADoP) impeachment!
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 10:33 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > I intend to, with 2 agoran consent, impeach the referee. (I should be > properly elected.) Also, some context from Discord (since context-free support for impeachment may seem unfair): > > 4st — Today at 9:20 AM > Hmm thought it was 2. Time to impeach the referee :) > I'm considering making a joke of webmaster just to get impeached and use the > impeachment rules > > Ğ — Today at 10:26 AM > I mean if you start your own impeachment others will probably say "I guess e > wants to be impeached" and help out even if you're doing a great job... > > 4st — Today at 10:30 AM > Oh that's a good joke
Re: DIS: Proposal Practice - Chicken Dinner
Oh nice! I played with v.1 of the beacon a couple years ago, I like the fact that you can specify a future timestamp and wait for the roll to happen (assuming that’s how the beta version works). On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 8:47 AM juan via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Look, I found a website I'd trust more*. > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/interoperable-randomness-beacons/beacon-20__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!nb8kNJB8nibHFZ11CMxDuM-Via3-pok1ZrMAjOWEDQoJqzXFycmmxL3K63m3B4z43k5eLNGc9HqJAI362odLscH1k04$ > > nix via agora-discussion [2023-03-16 19:26]: > > On 3/16/23 18:54, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > > Don't use a website, just use the standard random choice mechanism. > > > > I think the website is clever here because it gives a daily roll that > each > > person can monitor to determine when it's their turn (or form a contract > > with others to split the stamps for whoever gets it first). Our rolling > > mechanism isn't really suitable for that. > > > > -- > > nix > > Prime Minister, Herald, Collector > > > > * Not because the US government is trustworthy, not that it isn't, > but just that it's less likely to be biased as the consequences would > be graver. I repudiate any attributions of political position to me > based on this message. > > -- > juan >
Re: DIS: (Proposal) Make Blot creation retroactive?
That's definitely an approach worth looking at, I think! Earlier today we started talking on Discord about something that's along those lines, I was going to post a draft sometime later to kick around if nobody beats me to it (not to cut off discussion in the mean time of course :) ). -G. On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 2:53 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > Ah, I see. Just throwing ideas here but, perhaps immediate wins can be > replaced with "victory declarations" which call for a (one week long?) > investigation into the win. > > After the week, that's that and, if the investigation is favorable, you get > the actual win and the rest of things trigger. > > On Thursday, March 16, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 2:10 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > > > Couldn't past wins be outright ruled somehow to not exist anymore if > > > they're found to be in violation of something concerning it? > > > > There's a couple separate issues - one part is just saying "that win > > didn't count as a win" and removing that win from our list of > > champions (on the Herald's monthly scroll). That's easy to do, just > > as you say. But the other part is some of the things that reset > > during a win (the Speaker, and players' radiance, horses, stones, etc. > > depending on type of win), and if you do a reset because someone won, > > "undoing" the reset to put things back where they were - without > > causing a mess with any changes in those quantities that happened in > > the meantime - is harder. > > > > -G. > >
Re: DIS: (Proposal) Make Blot creation retroactive?
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 2:10 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > Couldn't past wins be outright ruled somehow to not exist anymore if > they're found to be in violation of something concerning it? There's a couple separate issues - one part is just saying "that win didn't count as a win" and removing that win from our list of champions (on the Herald's monthly scroll). That's easy to do, just as you say. But the other part is some of the things that reset during a win (the Speaker, and players' radiance, horses, stones, etc. depending on type of win), and if you do a reset because someone won, "undoing" the reset to put things back where they were - without causing a mess with any changes in those quantities that happened in the meantime - is harder. -G.
Re: DIS: Looking for coauthors
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:18 AM Juan F. Meleiro via agora-discussion wrote: > > I see. But in that case, isn't the rule authorizing that effect the > lower-powered one? Because if not, a low-powered rule could define terms used > in higher-powered ones to mean whatever it wants. > > For example, a power 0.1 rule could define “entity” to just mean player, > thereby breaking a lot of things. > Sure - This happened in the past, and so we added this to R217: > Definitions in lower-powered Rules do not overrule > common-sense interpretations or common definitions of terms in > higher-powered rules, but may constructively make reasonable > clarifications to those definitions. For this purpose, a > clarification is reasonable if and only if it adds detail without > changing the underlying general meaning of the term and without > causing the higher powered rule to be read in a way inconsistent > with its text. This means that for common terms like "entity" (that the rules don't explicitly define), a lower-powered rule can't redefine how a higher-powered rule uses that term. However, for definitions that are explicit in the rules and separate from their common definition, R217 says "the text of the rules takes precedence" and a lower-powered rule can define a phrase that a higher-powered rule can use, as long as the use is consistent between them, AND as long as the higher-powered one is the one that provides the final permission to use the ability (and permission need not be explicit with a CAN). But it does introduce a security risk that you mention if the lower-powered definition is changed. This isn't a clean rules interpretation - there's a definite ongoing tension between R217 and R2140's "no entity with power below the power of this rule can [...] set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than its own (that is, one that affects the instrument's operation)" so I'm describing in general how CFJs have interpreted this tension over time - which could be reversed/interpreted differently. -G.
Re: DIS: Looking for coauthors
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:35 PM juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > So here goes a draft. > > So, I came upon a problem. Suppose I had the following rule (excerpt) > > --- RULE DRAFT --- > The Gamemastor is an Office. > > Cards are assets tracked by the Gamemastor. Cards have the following > attributes > > * Type; a string > * Rarity; a natural number > * Action; text > * Condition; text > > plus other attributes, depending on its Type, as defined by the rules. > > A Player CAN, by announcement, play a card e owns, whereupon e performs > the action specified in the card's Action, and if successful discards > that card. > --- END --- > > How could such a rule allow for cards (rare, one would assume) that > allow actions at greater power levels? > > One way to do it is to defer to rules that create card types to explicitly > say a player can perform the actions, but that is clunky. Another, and > this is the one I don't know if it will work, is to just say something > to the effect that “for a Rule to define a card type means, besides, > to make it so players CAN perform […]”, but I don't think it will > work. What do you think? Pretty sure you need (as we've done before) different powered rules containing card descriptions. I think one way to get around having "CAN" in every description, is to change "action" to "effect" (that is, the only action is "playing the card", and the effect is what happens after that). This sort of text might work: "A player CAN, by announcement, play a card e owns, specifying the necessary information for playing that card type. Unless blocked by other rules, this causes the effects defined for that card to be applied, and if they are applied successfully the card is discarded." Then the power=2 cards can be in a Power=2 rule that says: The following Cards are defined: Type: Vote Card Effect: The voting strength of a specified player is increased by X. (rarity, condition omitted)
Re: DIS: @Herald Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8914-8920
On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 8:18 AM nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 3/11/23 22:28, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > IDTitle Result > > - > > 8914 Can't Trust Em To Do Eir Own Work ADOPTED > > 8915 Reenactment V2 REJECTED > > 8916 Ongoing obligation REJECTED > > 8917 No ADOPTED > > 8918 Ritual Paper Dance V2 ADOPTED > > 8919 Radiance v1.1 ADOPTED > > 8920 Adopted change re-application ADOPTED > > For the adoption of P8914 I gain 5 radiance (author). > > For the adoption of P8918, I gain 1 radiance (co-author). > > For the adoption of 8919, I gain 5 radiance (author). I don't think you can gain radiance for 8914 because that text didn't take effect until after they were adopted. P8918 may be a CFJ, because the text appeared simultaneously with the proposal taking effect? -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 1:06 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > DEADLINES (details below) > --- > 4015 Assigned to Janet Due Fri 10 Mar 2023 22:26:08 I don't think this needs a CoE, but just acknowledging that my report didn't include Janet's motion to extend this due date. -G.
Re: DIS: Looking for coauthors
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 5:05 AM juan via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I'm thinking of proposing a sort of trading cards game. I already have > > some ideas. If anyone is interested in bouncing drafts on that theme, > > please let me know. > > On thing your recent Fingerprints proposal got me wanting to try is > pre-planned moves with cards - that is, you have to commit to "these > are my next three card plays" ahead of time. That would be really > interesting to me (we've done a couple trading card games before, they > can be really fun, but we've never done anything other than "play when > you want" in terms of play mechanics). Here's a real rough draft of > what I was thinking: > > Each player has a Card Queue consisting of fingerprints. If a > player has fewer than 3 fingerprints in eir queue, e CAN add > a specified fingerprint to eir queue by announcement. > > Once per [week?] a player CAN Reveal eir Top Card by > announcement, specifying the plaintext for the oldest fingerprint > in eir queue. Doing so removes the fingerprint from eir queue and, > if the plaintext clearly specifies a card in eir hand that e CAN > otherwise play, plays the card, activating its effects and > transferring the card to the discard pile. If the card is in eir > hand but is otherwise blocked by the rules from being played, it > is discarded without effect. Left out a key clause of the second paragraph, you can only Reveal your top card if you have 3 fingerprints in your queue (no more no less). -G.
Re: DIS: Looking for coauthors
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 5:05 AM juan via agora-discussion wrote: > I'm thinking of proposing a sort of trading cards game. I already have > some ideas. If anyone is interested in bouncing drafts on that theme, > please let me know. On thing your recent Fingerprints proposal got me wanting to try is pre-planned moves with cards - that is, you have to commit to "these are my next three card plays" ahead of time. That would be really interesting to me (we've done a couple trading card games before, they can be really fun, but we've never done anything other than "play when you want" in terms of play mechanics). Here's a real rough draft of what I was thinking: Each player has a Card Queue consisting of fingerprints. If a player has fewer than 3 fingerprints in eir queue, e CAN add a specified fingerprint to eir queue by announcement. Once per [week?] a player CAN Reveal eir Top Card by announcement, specifying the plaintext for the oldest fingerprint in eir queue. Doing so removes the fingerprint from eir queue and, if the plaintext clearly specifies a card in eir hand that e CAN otherwise play, plays the card, activating its effects and transferring the card to the discard pile. If the card is in eir hand but is otherwise blocked by the rules from being played, it is discarded without effect. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@rulekeepor) RtRW submissions
On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 2:49 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > CFJ 831 (called 10 Nov 1995): 'The Date: header of a message is not > > necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.' > > Why is this now inaccurate? We've held that not all Date headers are to > be trusted, right? In retrospect I think you're right - I thought we'd overridden that judgement with the current rules language: > Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time > date-stamped on that message. but looking closer, that judgement still fits our interpretation that other datestamps in the headers other than the "Date:" can be used as the "date-stamp" if there's a discrepancy between them (annotation should be kept). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal) Take 2 - Adding sins to the ruleset
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 10:53 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > AND FOURSTLY, I petition everyone to be polite and not bug anyone about > any petitions in this particular message, as said petitions could be > easily missed. I am purposefully and with full knowledge making no public response to this message. Have at me. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/@Rulekeepor/Proposal) Airplanes don't operate on belief
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 9:38 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > Unless it has another clear and unambiguous meaning, > for each pair in the following list, text like the first item is > another name for the second item. > - Oppose, Object > - Approve, Support I'm very much opposed to this approach for common terms without context. I already have to consciously avoid words like "intend" when I need to be informal (like pledge that I plan to do something). To add things like 'oppose' to the list when it's only a direct action-producing synonym for 'object' in a specific limited context seems extremely limiting to communication. Also, I think we've talked about putting a dictionary in a more flexible system than an encoded rule, like a Regulation that can be adjusted with a tabled action not a full proposal for each adjustment? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Proposal] strength to the people
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:37 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 2/28/23 13:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > [Since we're going through an extra-pedantic period on R105...] > > > > I withdraw my proposal Populist Priming and submit the following proposal: > > -- > > Title: Populist Priming > > AI: 2 > > Author: G. > > > > Amend Rule 2451 (Executive Orders) by appending the following list item: > > - Proxy (Assessor): The Prime Minister specifies another active > > player. That player's voting strength on every ordinary > > referendum in its voting period is increased by 4. > > > > -- > > > This is phrased as an instantaneous gain, which does not work. I modeled it on the Power Stone I can't quite see what's conceptually different between the two? > A player's voting strength on >a referendum on an ordinary proposal is increased by 3 for each >time that e was Power Stoned during the referendum's voting >period.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor/Proposal) Weekly submission
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 7:32 AM juan via agora-discussion
wrote:
> > I also submit the following proposal:
> > {
> > Title: Ongoing obligation
> > Adoption Index: 1.0
> > Author: 4st
> > Coauthor: Janet
> >
> > The player 4st MUST submit a copy of this proposal.
> > }
> > --
> > 4st
>
> I hope this doesn't work, or we'll have untrackable and ethereal
> ontology-destabilizing floating obligations.
>
> R106 states:
>
> > proposal can neither delay nor extend its own effect
>
> and
>
> > a proposal's effect is instantaneous
>
> This raised the question: is the effect of 4st's proposal indefinetly
> extended? If so, does R106 preclude it from happening, or simply cuts it
> short? Or even: its effect is instant; viz., the creation of the
> obligation. I don't see anything in the rules to decide these two
> dichotomies.
Two separate things wrong with this proposal:
- Punishment (blots) is only defined for people who violate "a rule".
For example, we make Contract violations punishable by saying in R1742
"Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in accordance
with that contract" so a violation of a contract is a violation of
R1742. There's nothing to map "violation of proposals" to an actual
punishment. So a CFJ might find "yes, 4st violated this proposal, but
so what? there's no consequences and there's nothing in the rules
that says proposals have to be obeyed."
- Even if there was punishment for violating a proposal, this
particular MUST has no time limit, and I think there are judgements
that say a rules requirement that someone "SHALL do something" without
a time limit can't be punished, because the person can always say they
still have time to do it.
-G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Registrar) Petition on emails in monthly report
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 1:31 PM juan via agora-business wrote: > > My petition is to please put the historical email addresses back in > > the monthly report. > > ACCEPTED. Next report will include them. Also note that suggestions on > formatting are appreciated as well (keeping lines short is hard while > also having a simple table) Thanks so much! One thought is whether our old tradition of using " at " (4 characters) instead of "@" is as protective of email addresses as it once was? It goes back at least before 2001 to when the primary defense against spam was having an email that was 'unlisted' and not discoverable by simple bots - is that even true anymore? A middle ground might be an alternative single-character symbol like %. I defer to those far more knowledgeable about email than I am on whether that protection is still useful... -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Note on Application of Proposals 8891-8899
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 9:58 AM secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 9:16 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Gratuitous: > > CFJ 3778 found that list items could have whole line breaks inserted > > between them and removed because they were not significant. This is > > not true with paragraphs. If the section of text with ' - Gardens" is > > taken to begin a paragraph, and is followed by additional list items > > where the whitespace could be removed, the replaced paragraph would > > include all of those line items. Or at least it is unclear where the > > paragraph ends. > > > > Looking at this CFJ (3778), it seems to say the opposite about line breaks > within a paragraph: > > CFJ 3452 ruled that paragraph boundaries should be determined based mainly > on grammatical structure rather than layout. Following its reasoning, "A" > above would all be considered a single paragraph, since it's a single > grammatical sentence; therefore, there are no "paragraph breaks" to > contend with and the changes *[inserting whole line breaks within a > paragraph]* are definitely insignificant. > > > Grammatically, each list item looks to be its own paragraph. The list > items following the "- Gardens" list item are not able to have all of > their whitespace removed, as this would contradict CFJ 3778: "[there > is] a prohibition on > merging or splitting paragraphs". > > If there was any ambiguity of whether the list items are all part of > one paragraph, or each their own paragraph, the proposal resolves that > ambiguity by referring to one of the list items as a paragraph. Interestingly, this argument had the opposite effect on me. Before you said it, I thought "we've all agreed these are list items not paragraphs, the question is whether a proposal mistakenly referring to an otherwise clearly-specified unit as a "paragraph" breaks things. Now I'm thinking it's ambiguous whether they are paragraphs or list items to begin with (that is, more ambiguity not less) and I don't think a proposal has the ability to clarify that just by assertion. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 4005, CFJ 4006 [attn. Arbitor]
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:25 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > The only potentially relevant precedent that I was able to find was CFJ > 3551, on whether a revision could be a duty-fulfilling report. In eir > arguments, the caller states in eir arguments that "[a] revision is also > a report", and H. Judge o held the same. Although the document in > question was hypothetical and the issue focused on in the judgement was > whether there was a duty, rather than whether the document was a report, > this does at least weakly suggest an understanding that a revision was a > whole report. Maybe a bit of a refinement from precedent: CFJ 3658[0] found that it's (in many cases) IMPOSSIBLE to CoE a "whole report", rather the scope of the CoE is generally the "whole section" where the error is contained (e.g. the whole section of the report purporting to be a list of switches, etc.). I don't think this changes your main point (that a partial section with a diff doesn't work) but it may be worth some wording adjustment that the minimal revision is "whole revised section of report". Though culturally, we tend to prefer "whole reports" for revisions (easier to look up game status), this difference comes into play when (for example) the Herald has both Karma and Score as separate formatted messages, but both are part of eir weekly report - I don't think anyone CoEing the "karma report" expected the Herald to republish the "score report" as well. [0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3658 -G.
Re: DIS: Proto: Schrodinger's Dice
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 9:47 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > > Proto-Proposal: Schrodinger's Dice > (co-author = ais523) > > Amend Rule 2505 (Random Choices) by replacing this text: > >The selecting person SHOULD make the selection method >public, and SHOULD use a method for which the final probability >distribution can be readily confirmed. > > with this text: > >The selecting person SHOULD announce the selection > method ahead of time, SHOULD use a method for which the final > probability distribution can be readily confirmed, and SHALL NOT > perform any other regulated actions between performing the selection > method and announcing its result. As per the CFJ 3007 judgement (as it stands now), "between performing the selection method and announcing its result" should be replaced with something like "during the selection method", because announcing the result is part of the selection method, not something done after. Not sure if the judgement suggests any other tweaks to make in this rule. -G.
DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: BUS: Intent to declare apathy
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:39 AM ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-02-15 at 07:28 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 9:02 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business > > wrote: > > > I CFJ: "In this message, Apathy was declared." > > > > Gratuitous: > > > > In addition to Judge Gaelan's arguments in CFJ 3901, CFJ 2077, CFJ > > 2292, and 2633 all found that, based on common English usage (not > > specific rules text) that "acting on behalf of oneself" is the same > > as merely "acting". Which would mean it's not as protective as we > > think (i.e. it wouldn't block Y from "acting on X's behalf to perform > > something on behalf of emself" if there was a suitable contract to > > that effect) but it's basically the same as "a player CAN act to do > > X". > > Gratuitous: I (perhaps naively) thought that the only sensible > interpretation of "acting on eir own behalf" was as a synonym for > "acting as emself" (used five times in the rules at present), which in > turn was a synonym for "in a message e sent, not in a message for which > someone else was acting on eir behalf". As such, I'm a little surprised > that CFJs have found differently. (That said, neither of these > correspondences seems to be explicitly defined in the rules at the > moment.) There's some history here - at the time of those earlier CFJs, I don't think "acting on eir own behalf" was actually in the rules anywhere. Rather, those CFJs were based on rules text that said "Player X CAN act on behalf of Player Y" and asked whether that text worked if circumstances led to X=Y. In the current ruleset, the more explicit appearance of "acting on eir own behalf" is clearly *intended* to be a synonym for/interchangeable with "acts as emself", so it's partially a question of whether that context shift changes the CFJ readings that were opined before that explicit rules text was enacted? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Player-Defined Nonsense
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:48 AM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-02-13 at 10:37 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:53 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business > > wrote: > > > Do you want to be able to just send "ANGER" to a-b, and for it to mean "I > > > object to every intent to declare apathy."? > > > Or "I floop" to motivate the horses, or "Ohgodnotanother" to mean "I > > > submit > > > the following proposal:"? > > > > I think it would be useful to have a fairly flexible Agoran lexicon > > that changes rapidly-enough to be easy to add for current gameplay, > > but is stable enough to have reference value for everyone. It would > > be great to say "I QWANG these items" to mean "I take these 5 steps > > with them" at times when those 5 steps are a common sequence that > > people use regularly (QWANG is a reference to when we talked about > > doing this a few years ago). But I think this version of making it > > personal like this is too obfuscatory for me, as an officer, it seems > > a better approach would be - sure not so colorful, but more useful - > > "The Definitional Regulations are tracked by (Notary?) and can be > > added/amended/removed with some level of Consent". > > At one point, we had "zoop" which (due to the way a contract was set > up) would automatically take actions on behalf of a number of different > players in order to achieve a given result, and I *think* it worked > without explicitly needing to say whay would happen as a consequence? > (I can't remember for certain at this point, it was a while ago.) > > On another note, it's also worth considering adding things like ISIDTID > to a lexicon like that, even though they aren't actions and thus having > the meaning rules-defined isn't required to be able to interpret game > actions. It'd be helpful for new players in interpreting things like > CFJ arguments. (IIRC there's a list like this already somewhere, not > sure whether new players find it easily or not.) > > (Also, nkep feels like it fits into this sort of framework somehow, but > I'm not sure how.) In judging CFJ 3663 (where someone tried to consciously introduce a new idiom) I tried to come up with some tests on "when has something taken on enough familiarity that it can be used as shorthand?" It's not a case that's particularly referred to these days, but maybe it has some good points: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3663 -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Player-Defined Nonsense
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:53 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > Do you want to be able to just send "ANGER" to a-b, and for it to mean "I > object to every intent to declare apathy."? > Or "I floop" to motivate the horses, or "Ohgodnotanother" to mean "I submit > the following proposal:"? I think it would be useful to have a fairly flexible Agoran lexicon that changes rapidly-enough to be easy to add for current gameplay, but is stable enough to have reference value for everyone. It would be great to say "I QWANG these items" to mean "I take these 5 steps with them" at times when those 5 steps are a common sequence that people use regularly (QWANG is a reference to when we talked about doing this a few years ago). But I think this version of making it personal like this is too obfuscatory for me, as an officer, it seems a better approach would be - sure not so colorful, but more useful - "The Definitional Regulations are tracked by (Notary?) and can be added/amended/removed with some level of Consent". -G.
Re: DIS: Proto: Schrodinger's Dice
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 4:07 AM juan via agora-discussion wrote: > Edward Murphy via agora-discussion [2023-02-12 21:47]: > > Proto-Proposal: Schrodinger's Dice > > (co-author = ais523) > > Not to dismiss this, but I have long wondered about the applicability of > verifiable random numbers in Agora. What do you all think about this? > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3797__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!gLYnFipmMZ4zIHmSPTdnBzt9voUo5Yjb9A5fVhSCzqSW8G2iTQ7jAg3OfqGZSPjKdnYesajWKJvBaJlVT4-_ro1KyNY$ This is a debate that has come up from time to time in Agora. When it comes up, there's been a split between "we should use a service that allows full public verification" and "if we're not playing a game where we can trust enough to roll a physical die and report the result, I don't want to play" (I'm mostly in the latter camp personally). The current compromise rule is the current SHOULD - prior to several Officers using Discord rolling as a habit[*], we often rolled with a verifiable email dice service to satisfy that SHOULD. We've also done some more creative things (examples: for 0-99, announce ahead that one will use the last 2 digits of tomorrow's closing Dow Jones average, which looking at years of data passes various tests of randomness[**] and the method is actually suggested in the RFC you linked. Another creative way was explicitly directly using a radioactive source so the randomness was random in a full quantum sense). That creativity is kind of cool when it comes up IMO, which is another reason not to formalize on a particular service. [*] not truly verifiable, though some of us have been treating it that way, and it's usable by anyone fast enough to email between observing the the selection on discord and the follow-up email though I don't think anyone has "cheated" that way. [**] this method highlights ais523's point - in that case, the random number could be known by everyone, be fully confirmable and sufficiently random, and still be responded to by everyone before the "roller" takes the action that depends on the number. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Limited tracking
Sorry I accidentally deleted a sentence at the beginning of my reply that said this concern was in spite of the first proposal sentence - just not really seeing the benefit of the partial tracking like that for cfjs On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 1:18 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > I would not like to be considered a coauthor on this one, as IIRC my only > contribution was to speak against the cfj changes which you kept, so I > don’t endorse that. I think having switches that turn on and off on > tracking like that have the potential to create some significant level of > confusion with self-ratification eg if a switch is left off the list, then > ceases to be tracked invisibly, does it self ratify as an open case and > kick off the judge? Or since it’s a single switch type, it’s also not clear > to me that a “allegedly complete list” of the tracked ones wouldn’t ratify > the untracked ones to the default state. Just raises a whole can of worms > that could affect the status of ancient cases in a way we really might not > want. > > -G. > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 1:04 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> Proposal: Limited tracking >> (AI = 3, co-authors = Janet, G.) >> >> Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by adding this paragraph to the list item >> regarding tracking: >> >> Alternatively, if the rules assign an office to track only some >> instances of a switch, then the report includes the value of >> those instances, but a document purporting to be such a list is >> not self-ratifying. >> >> Amend Rule 2606 (Proposal Classes) by replacing this text: >> >>Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured >>untracked Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default) >>and democratic. >> >> with this text: >> >>Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured >>Class switch, tracked by the Promotor for proposals in the >>Proposal Pool, with possible values ordinary (the default) and >>democratic. >> >> Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing this >> text: >> >>Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran >>decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. >> >> with this text: >> >>Adoption index (AI) is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions and >>proposals, secured at power 2, tracked by the Assessor for Agoran >>decisions not yet resolved, and by the Promotor for proposals in >>the Proposal Pool. >> >> Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing this text: >> >>Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any >>person or former person, or "unassigned" (default). >> >> with this text: >> >>Judge is a CFJ switch, tracked by the Arbitor for CFJs that have >>been unassigned at any point during the past week, with possible >>values of any person or former person, or "unassigned" (default). >> >
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Limited tracking
I would not like to be considered a coauthor on this one, as IIRC my only contribution was to speak against the cfj changes which you kept, so I don’t endorse that. I think having switches that turn on and off on tracking like that have the potential to create some significant level of confusion with self-ratification eg if a switch is left off the list, then ceases to be tracked invisibly, does it self ratify as an open case and kick off the judge? Or since it’s a single switch type, it’s also not clear to me that a “allegedly complete list” of the tracked ones wouldn’t ratify the untracked ones to the default state. Just raises a whole can of worms that could affect the status of ancient cases in a way we really might not want. -G. On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 1:04 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Proposal: Limited tracking > (AI = 3, co-authors = Janet, G.) > > Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by adding this paragraph to the list item > regarding tracking: > > Alternatively, if the rules assign an office to track only some > instances of a switch, then the report includes the value of > those instances, but a document purporting to be such a list is > not self-ratifying. > > Amend Rule 2606 (Proposal Classes) by replacing this text: > >Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured >untracked Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default) >and democratic. > > with this text: > >Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured >Class switch, tracked by the Promotor for proposals in the >Proposal Pool, with possible values ordinary (the default) and >democratic. > > Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing this > text: > >Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran >decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. > > with this text: > >Adoption index (AI) is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions and >proposals, secured at power 2, tracked by the Assessor for Agoran >decisions not yet resolved, and by the Promotor for proposals in >the Proposal Pool. > > Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing this text: > >Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any >person or former person, or "unassigned" (default). > > with this text: > >Judge is a CFJ switch, tracked by the Arbitor for CFJs that have >been unassigned at any point during the past week, with possible >values of any person or former person, or "unassigned" (default). >
Re: DIS: Thesis Question for 4st
On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 5:23 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2023, 3:27 PM nix via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 2/11/23 15:06, nix via agora-business wrote: > > > Below is the thesis. 4st has submitted it in the hopes of receiving a > > ANA. > > > > Before giving a verdict, I want some context for the submission. In > > Discord 4st argued anything can be art. I agree largely. But I think it > > needs context. This isn't R. Mutt and the Independents, that's already > > been played out. Anything CAN be art, but tell me why *this* is art > > worthy of a degree, in a way that doesn't make every single proposal > > worthy of a degree. > > > > -- > > nix > > This proposal is worthy of a degree for a few reasons: > [snip] Your list reads, to me, like reasons that your text is worthy of being considered as a good, fun, and creative proposal, and possibly worth voting for. It does not give me reason to think of it as a thesis. There's been many many proposals that have been longer, taken more effort, had more made-up words etc. (stones, birds, horses, and similar in the past were all imitative works of art following a metaphor). Without denigrating yours at all, why wouldn't we award all of those theses as well if we awarded it to you, just because you asked for it? (In other words, I'm not wholly sure you spoke to artistic merit?) > (I have only seen one other thesis worthy of a degree, and one thesis that > doesn't, so far. and the thesis that was worthy was a Doctorate.) Arts degrees are relatively new, and rather different in structure than all others, so there's not many in the past for comparison. I can't remember any ANA failures (could be wrong? didn't see any on a quick search). There were two successful ANAs: Cuddlebeam's is available here: https://imgur.com/a/VDAQaae And Aspen's is available below. https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-July/043923.html Insomuch as "length" is any indicator of artistic effort, I will wholly agree that yours and Aspen's are in the same ballpark for an ANA. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Celebrations
On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 8:52 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > I intend, with 4 support from other players who would be Festive if the > Festivity was 1, to start a rank 1 festival. I support this intent. -G.
Re: DIS: Proto: Limited tracking
On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 4:18 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Proto-Proposal: Limited tracking > (AI = 3) > > Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by replacing "other instances are at their > default value" with "other tracked instances are at their default > value". > > Amend Rule 2606 (Proposal Classes) by replacing this text: > >Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured >untracked Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default) >and democratic. > > with this text: > >Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured >Class switch, tracked only for proposals in the Proposal Pool, >with possible values ordinary (the default) and democratic. > > Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing this > text: > >Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran >decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. > > with this text: > >Adoption index (AI) is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions and >proposals, secured at power 2, tracked only for Agoran decisions >not yet resolved and proposals in the Proposal Pool. > > Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing this text: > >Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any >person or former person, or "unassigned" (default). > > with this text: > >Judge is a CFJ switch, tracked for all CFJs except those which >have been assigned a judgement for at least the past week, with >possible values of any person or former person, or "unassigned" >(default). > Turning it into a required report increases the risk of self-ratifying a judge off a case - is there really a need for requiring a self-ratifying report?
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] I Don't Want to Figure This Out
This will break horses which is literally the only gameplay right now. Pls
don’t do that without fixing horses in same proposal.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 9:39 AM nix via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
>
> Title: I Don't Want to Figure This Out
> AI: 2
> Author: nix
> Co-Authors:
>
> Repeal R2656 "Points" and R2657 "Scoring".
>
> }
> --
> nix
> Herald
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor)
On 9/1/2022 7:47 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > I think the principle that all players should have the right of > participation in the fora (rule 478) is important. As such, if someone > is abusing the fora to the extent that it warrants a ban, e also has to > be banned from being a player. I agree it's very important! But let's say a player sets up a spam bot and bombards a forum with spam from eir email address (in the past we've judged that bots set up by a player count as being sent by that player). Their spam is crafted to avoid typical spam filters, thus preventing other players from exercising their right to participate as it makes it hard/impossible (i.e. makes it "prohibitive" for most players to do so in the language of R478). With that as a starting point, I think it's quite possible that *if* a forum establishes a code of conduct, such that violations of that code of conduct are detrimental to other players' right of participation, and the code is reasonably decided upon, communicated, and fairly applied, then remedies such as temporarily banning a player for violations would be protective of overall participation rights and not violate R478. We don't have such a code established for our email forums - it would need to be in a Rule IMO and really high-powered and clear, so as to be minimally intrusive of rights and not abusable. But it's worth noting in principle that "participation rights" are not necessarily interpreted as "send all the email you want with whatever content you want" rights. -G.
Re: DIS: A proto
On 8/30/2022 9:25 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 18:14 +0200, Madrid via agora-discussion wrote: >> Its true that I don't care much about upholding ancient tradition. >> >> It's nomic, a game of change, and I'm very willing to see Spivak >> removed. [snip] > I probably wouldn't object to a widespread change to singular-they if > the general view of the playerlist is that that would be preferable, > but it would be likely to add a little extra confusion for no real > benefit (the distinction between singular "e" and plural "they" makes > it easier to parse what a rule is saying). > Just as a minor clarification, I'm not arguing for Spivak per se based on "ancient tradition" but more along the lines you suggest here, of evaluating our community standards continuously but generally respectfully. The important point for me is that this is not just an isolated quibble over a single instance of language use (and a single unfortunate comparison), but rather an inability to reach a reasonable accommodation with the current community's longstanding/currently-standing practices. That stuff is just exhausting and not fun in any gaming group, beyond any historical points or future changes. -G.
Re: DIS: A proto
[I apologize in advance to others - I don't want to prolong this further/at all, but I think the specific Agoran context is important to lay out.] Madrid wrote: > - To further illustrate how the current push for neopronouns/neolanguage > isn't natively Spanish but (mostly) orginated in the US as a movement, This is an Agoran thing, not a broader language question. Back in 1993, well before it was a big "U.S." thing, Agorans collectively decided to use e and eir, for specific and conscious reasons. It is part of the *Agoran* culture (if it matters, the game at the time was dominated by Aus/NZ players, not the US). It was also out of specific respect to Grand Hero of Agora Douglas Hofstadter, who, back in the 1980s, dedicated Scientific American columns (the same column in which e popularized Nomic) to the pernicious effects of inherent linguistic sexism. It was a subject e was passionate about, and one that we found important back in the 1990s when almost nobody else did. In 2017, when we had several new players, we gently corrected those who joined, when they didn't use the lingo. Just as others have been, including myself, for the whole history of the game. Yours is the only response I remember that was basically "I'm going to keep using it because my convenience as a new player is more important that your long-running culture": https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-June/035225.html And nix called you out then, too: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-June/035228.html After 5 years of this not getting any better. Literally no one else since I joined again in 2001, in my memory, has had any issues once it was explained. I'm really really tired of arguing the point, it's not why I come here to play this game. Madrid wrote: > To someone who isn't in the neopronouns/neolanguage camp, it feels like > some external ideology (be it Sharia Law or neopronouns) barging in to > claim that they're correct to some degree and that certain things need > to change to a certain amount to accommodate them. You're partially correct, except for the key point that this is *internal* not *external*. A voluntary group that has been running for over 27 years is asking a single relative newcomer to respect its traditions, traditions that were carefully thought out and defended for years when it was a weird oddity and harder to explain. I'm glad the cultural zeitgeist has caught up in some places. And no other newcomer has had issues, or if they have they've quietly ducked out. If you want to compare that to a oppressive regime - well the difference (and what makes it an insulting comparison) is that unlike many under Sharia Law, you are 100% free and privileged to leave with no consequences. This is just a simple matter: THIS IS HOW THIS PARTICULAR GAME IS PLAYED. If you don't like it, there's plenty of other games to enjoy. This one probably just isn't a good fit. -G.
Re: DIS: A proto
On 8/30/2022 6:33 AM, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 8/29/22 16:28, juan via agora-discussion wrote: >> Concretely, I believe a self-moderated community should implement a form >> of restorative justice. I am not well-versed in this area, but I see an >> opportunity for us to create something new and valuable. I posit we >> should invest in the idea of a just Agora. We should take this >> seriously. > > Restorative justice is a great idea. I wrote a few protos on it in the > discord a while back, I'm sure someone can dig them up. > >> Even more concretely, I point the following, just out of the top of my >> head: >> >> * Bans should not be permanent. There should be a way to appeal them, >>and they should have time limits (though those can be unspecified and >>unlimited). Times change, and so should we. >> >> * We should have formal processes that implement some form of >>restorative justice, upon whose failure, and only then, extreme >>measures such as ostracism should prevail. >> >> I don't believe in punishment, fiction notwithstanding, and so I don't >> believe ostracism to be a punishment. It is – it must be – only the >> final, most bitter remedy for an injustice so grievous, and so >> collective, that there is no possible restoration. It is grave. I'd even >> come to the point of saying it needs to be a unanimous decision. > > I admire your idealism, but I just think you're wrong about how grievous > it has to be. Sometimes restoration isn't possible because someone > involved refuses to engage in a restorative process. Madrid responded > with "you shouldn't even be allowed to be mad at that, it's just who I > am." So e's clearly not interested at this time in understanding how eir > actions might have impacts. > > If your idealism aligns with protecting the person that makes other > people so uncomfortable that they quit, because they haven't done > anything **too serious**, then congrats because that's what you > currently have. I would also like to note for newer players that this is a long-running pattern going back to 2017, not a single incident. The issue we have is a parade of single incidents, never quite "bad enough" for action but also never really backed off from - to the point that others (including me) also just avoid/leave discord on a regular basis to avoid. It is specific incidents with Madrid that led to making formal forum rules in the first place, and at some point "repeat repeat warnings" get very tiring, and make it no longer a comfortable place to be. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Voter Protection
On 8/29/2022 12:11 PM, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022, 9:19 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, 2022-08-28 at 22:16 -0700, Forest Sweeney via agora-business >> wrote: >>> As I'm kinda bullying everyone, I thought it would be appropriate if >>> anything passes that I have some sort of penalty also. This sorta >>> thing really shouldn't be allowed, though. >> >> I think the easiest way to prevent this sort of thing would be to ban >> people who try from submitting proposals. (In fact, given that your >> stated intention is to bully us into passing your rule, I am going to >> attempt to bully you into retracting it: if you don't retract it within >> the next few days, I will submit a proposal to ban you from submitting >> proposals.) >> >> A rules-based solution is not going to work. It is far too easy to work >> around. > > I don't understand how one would work around it, but mainly, I think it > codifies the intent that we shouldn't be bullying voters. However, the only > reasons I had heard against it thus far was that it promotes interesting > gameplay, which I disagree with, but I thank you for a different angle on > this, as it isn't one I saw yet. So, we once had this rule (this was before conditional votes existed): Rule 1561/1 (Power=2) Illegality of Bonus Clauses Any Proposal which offers a bribe to a Player or Players to vote either FOR or AGAINST a Proposal (either itself or another Proposal) shall be completely without effect, even if it is adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. It *did* lead to some interesting CFJs on what constituted a bribe (like, if you adjust game balance without resetting everything, there will be inevitably some people who come out ahead) but my memory is that it mostly did the job (albeit with a vastly different overall ruleset, and now we'd want to include "threats" as well as "bribes"). I'm on the fence on the need for this overall - I got a dictatorship last year by bribing people in a proposal, and I think the players at the time generally found that to be fun. On the other hand, when we choose a set of rules for coins, stones or whatever it's less fun if these sorts of proposals disrupt things too much. But I *do* agree with ais523, that I would have been far more likely to vote for this sort of thing if it wasn't accompanied with the bullying proof of concept... :P -G.
Re: DIS: A proto
On 8/29/2022 2:28 PM, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > I'll argue the following in principle. My only assumption is that there > has been an injustice commited by some member of our community against > another one. To keep this a brief and neutral explanation, this happened in the Discord forum. The moderators there have (following Discord rules generally) a set of forum rules[0] by consensus with those who use the Discord server. One player has had to be warned repeatedly and more than most, and posted something yesterday that led to nix (a moderator) deregistering from Agora in a writ of FAGE, earlier today. The player in question was temporarily kicked (not banned). Identities and all the interactions are visible on discord; I'm personally not posting details (there are several others who can) because I don't want to drag people in who don't want to be involved without some warning through this email - fair warning after this email, I suppose. > Above all, if people are getting hurt, we must take this seriously. 100% agree. Anytime there's a writ of FAGE, I think Agora needs to take a bit of time, care, effort, and introspection into making the game welcoming for all. [0] For reference, here are the Discord forum rules: Welcome to the Agora Nomic Discord server! This server was created as a place to discuss Agora, but anyone is welcome here. RULES 1. Violations of rules may receive a warning from a moderator. Multiple warnings may result in a ban. If you see a violation @Moderator. If you disagree with a warning, take it up with the moderators in DMs. 2. Take all potentially sensitive conversations to threads. When in doubt, make a thread. A moderator may make a thread for you. All rules must still be followed in threads. 3. No discrimination, derogatory comments, or objectification of any person or group based on identity. This includes devil's advocacy, or other insincere or bad faith arguments. 4. If someone expresses discomfort with a conversation, immediately stop engaging them in it.
Re: DIS: I can't take it anymore
On 8/22/2022 5:30 PM, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > And having said that, I just found this [1] old message explaining it. > > [1]: > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg04798.html > > I'm beggining to feel Agora needs a glossary. > https://agoranomic.org/Help/Glossary (it's in there)
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3989 assigned to 4st
On 8/21/2022 12:47 AM, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: >> 8829 Look upon our worksADOPTED >>> For each of 4st, CreateSource, cuddlybanana, duck, G., Jason, juan, >> Murphy, R. Lee, secretsnail, Trigon, and Vitor Gonçalves, I note that e is >> not dancing a powerful dance, in violation of rule 2029. >>> >>> For each infraction noted above, I intend, with consent, to forgive it. >> (Note for supporters: you can’t support an intent to forgive yourself.) >>> >>> I CFJ: the incidents noted above are infractions. >>> >>> Arguments: see CFJ 1881. >>> >>> Gaelan >> >> >> The above is CFJ 3989. >> >> I assign CFJ 3989 to 4st. >> > > Contrary to prior CFJ's 2585 and 1534, I disagree that Marvies and Dancing > a Powerful Dance retain their meaning that historically meant something in > the previous rulesets, and I agree with CFJ 1881. However, the action of > dancing, the noun of dance, and the adjective of powerful are all undefined > within the ruleset, and therefore, could be anything. > > Therefore, keeping in line with CFJ 1881, I judge CFJ 3989 to be DISMISS, > as there isn't, and could never be at this time, sufficient evidence to > determine whether there were incidents, and whether they were infractions. > Hm. You dismiss this under "standards of evidence", but just noticed that the new Justice rule puts the preponderance of evidence standard on the *forgiveness*, not the finding of fact (The old blot rule had a weird way of reading backwards from levying a fine that meant a result of SHENANIGANS either way - that's different in this implementation because the infraction and forgiveness are separate stages). > An infraction is automatically forgiven if: > > (1) the alleged infracter can't be established by a > preponderance of the evidence to have committed the > infraction Does this mean that infractions happen even if there's no or little evidence for them and then they're forgiven? I think DISMISS is still probably appropriate because as per R591 "insufficient information exists to make a judgement with reasonable effort", but this is kind of weird that the standards of evidence have been shifted to the sentencing/ forgiveness phase? An additional aspect to this case is that the Rules violation could be read as collective punishment - that the marvies collectively need to dance - and collective punishment has been found to fail in the past: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3730 -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8829-8836
On 8/20/2022 3:02 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote: >> On Aug 20, 2022, at 10:36 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official >> wrote: >> >> IDTitle Result >> - >> 8829 Look upon our worksADOPTED > > For each of 4st, CreateSource, cuddlybanana, duck, G., Jason, juan, Murphy, > R. Lee, secretsnail, Trigon, and Vitor Gonçalves, I note that e is not > dancing a powerful dance, in violation of rule 2029. > > For each infraction noted above, I intend, with consent, to forgive it. (Note > for supporters: you can’t support an intent to forgive yourself.) Nice one! Note that the new justice system added this: > An infraction is automatically forgiven if: [...] > (3) the infraction was for failure to take an action that the > infracter, through no fault of eir own, COULD NOT have > performed; [...] > (5) the infracter could not have avoided the infraction when > exercising the highest reasonably possible standard of care; The requirement in the rule in question is "always Dance a Powerful Dance". The "always" is important to include (since without that, there's no deadline for dancing so no rules breach). Since it not really possible to *always* dance, I'm guessing that most judges would find that this falls in one of the above "automatically forgiven" categories? Rule 2029/1 (Power=4) Town Fountain /\ /\ / \ / \ T his Power-04 Rule (the first ever) was placed to honor The Agoran Spirit Of The Game by G., Steve, Murphy, root and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look on our works, ye Marvy, but do always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris! -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] let's B safe out there
On 8/18/2022 9:07 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > Kerim Aydin via agora-business [2022-08-18 07:51]: >> I submit the following Proposal: >> Title: "Time B Safe" >> AI: 4 >> co-authors: Jason, Murphy. >> - >> >> Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing: >> adopted within a four-week period. >> with: >> adopted within a real-world (UTC) four-week period. >> >> [ >> In discord, a Power-5 Rule was suggested: "Rules to the contrary >> notwithstanding, this rule CANNOT be changed in January or February of >> 2023". >> >> Up until the time a proposal to change this rule could take effect before >> January 2023, Agora would not be ossified. But then you cross a time >> boundary and Agora would become ossified. One *possible* interpretation of >> >>> If any other single change or inseparable group of changes to the >>> gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause >>> Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules >>> to the contrary notwithstanding. >> >> is that the "cancelled change" would be time passing! With the conclusion >> that time had (as a legal fiction) stopped, with no way of getting it >> started again. So this proposal puts an extra protection on time by making >> it clear that only "real world" time is relevant. The title a reference B >> nomic, an established nomic some years back that was killed when they >> accidentally stopped time or at least couldn't get it started again. >> ] > > I'm not sure this couldn't be circumvented. First of all, because the > rules don't define the notion of time in any way. The only reasonable > interpretation is that it refers to time-the-physical-concept, whatever > that is. So several issues come about. So just to be clear, this isn't intended to be a block against a malicious attack. If someone got the ability to pass an AI=3 rule change they could always purposefully get around this. The purpose here to make it painfully clear in the definition that "for these purposes, we're defining real-world time, we can't use R1698 to accidentally infer a kind of "game time" that stops. The *possibility* of accidentally stopping time (that is, for "real time" deviating from "game time" due to a logical argument and rules text) was suggested as a potential unexpected outcome in CFJ 3580, although it was all very hypothetical: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3580 Overall, there may be other interpretations of an ossification situation that get us out of any such mess; this proposal is meant to make it just a wee bit harder/less plausible for a judge to make a convincing "time has stopped" argument. > * I can't think of something that could be reasonably called an *action* > that causes the event of “being in january”. In any case, that > transition only happens at a single point in time. It's not "actions" that are blocked by R1698 but "changes": > If any other single change [would ossify the game] > it is cancelled and does not occur And "time changing" is arguably a change. However, it's quite possible that "time ticking forward" is not a change per se but what happens in the absence of change (i.e. in common language we speak of "changing clocks" when we make them deviate from ticking forward, not when they tick forward normally). So maybe I'm worrying about nothing here. > * Time keeps ticking forward. When March would come, all would be > resolved anyway. I don't think that matters for R1698 on January 1 when you're entering the ossification state. If we create the legal fiction that time can't progress into Jan 1 without temporary ossification, we'd never get to March. > * Can one perform actions without time? We don't know, because the rules > don't define it. So we should use our common-sense, which says that > no, you can't. So *that* would ossify Agora and thus not be allowed. > The minimal set of changes would have to be that the rule was never > created in the first place. > > * It is in the best interest of the game to interpret all of this in a > way that makes gameplay still possible. Yes it's quite likely that this is protecting against something that's common sense anyway - but again we've got enough history of legal fictions (like the abovementioned CFJ) that it might be a good precaution anyway? > In the end, my particular arguments don't matter too much. I'm just > saying I think there are enough of them for us to deal with such a rule. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer has had visions of a dark future
On 8/18/2022 7:50 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 8/18/2022 7:33 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >>>> On 8/18/2022 3:18 AM, Madrid via agora-business wrote: >>>>> I intend to ratify without objection the following: "Agora is not >>>>> ossified." >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> If such a statement is ratified when it *doesn't* match the conditions, >>>> ratifying the statement would lead to an inconsistency between the >>>> gamestate and the rules. >>> >>> I'm not convinced. Imagine a situation where making arbitrary rule >>> changes requires a process that takes between 28 and 32 days in length >>> (say we have to RWO a switch first, then go through two rounds of >>> proposals and those 27 days in total). If there's only one switch that >>> matters, I can imagine that ratifying the non-ossification of Agora >>> could flip that switch. >> >> I'm not sure I see the example clearly here (and am fairly sure that an >> indirect effect like that wouldn't work unless it was explicitly described >> in the RWO attempt to the level tabled actions need - which would be a >> different beast?) > > Just to clarify, I'm not sure I'm correct here, but: imagine a > "proposals switch" which makes it possible to turn the proposals system > on and off, with no specific rules-defined method of flipping it. Also > imagine that the security system is changed so that proposals are the > only way to amend rules. > > In this hypothetical, if the proposals switch gets turned off, then any > attempt to get rule changes made necessarily has to start with turning > it back on, so that'd be the first step in any attempt to make an > arbitrary rules change, and that step could make a process that > otherwise fits within the four-week limit take four days longer. > > A ratification of "Agora is not ossified" seems to me like, under rule > 1551, it would flip the proposals switch – it's a gamestate change that > minimally modifies the gamestate to deossify Agora, thus makes the > statement as accurate as possible. Ah - that's plausible. On the other hand, I'm thinking that if you could ratify the ossification statement and thus flip a switch, you could also perform a direct ratification of that switch without mentioning ossification. And if so, Agora would not be ossified as long as that option was available. So trying to ratify "Agora is not ossified" would give the answer "It's already not ossified - you just have to ratify the proposal switch in question to make the rule change"? Of course there may be a way to purposefully contrive a very-weirdly secured switch to make it work, or time it so that by the time the de-ossification intent was mature, it was too late to announce a new intent for the switch itself... -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer has had visions of a dark future
On 8/18/2022 7:33 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 8/18/2022 3:18 AM, Madrid via agora-business wrote: >>> I intend to ratify without objection the following: "Agora is not ossified." >> >> [snip] >> >> If such a statement is ratified when it *doesn't* match the conditions, >> ratifying the statement would lead to an inconsistency between the >> gamestate and the rules. > > I'm not convinced. Imagine a situation where making arbitrary rule > changes requires a process that takes between 28 and 32 days in length > (say we have to RWO a switch first, then go through two rounds of > proposals and those 27 days in total). If there's only one switch that > matters, I can imagine that ratifying the non-ossification of Agora > could flip that switch. I'm not sure I see the example clearly here (and am fairly sure that an indirect effect like that wouldn't work unless it was explicitly described in the RWO attempt to the level tabled actions need - which would be a different beast?) > (Actually, this could lead to an interesting paradox – at the end of > the intent period for the RWO, we have a situation where a gamestate > change – possible to make in zero time, via resolving the intent – > could unossify Agora. This implies that Agora is not ossified. However, > if Agora is not ossified, ratifying the statement has no effect, > because you'd be ratifying a true statement; as such, in that > hypothetical Agora is actually ossified! Agora is thus ossified if and > only if it isn't.) >
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer has had visions of a dark future
On 8/18/2022 3:18 AM, Madrid via agora-business wrote: > I intend to ratify without objection the following: "Agora is not ossified." So this is sorta instructive in terms of the behavior of switches versus attributes. Ossification as per 1698 is a continuously-evaluated condition encoded in the rules. At any given moment, either the game meets the conditions for being ossified, or it doesn't, as per the text of R1698. If a statement "Agora is/is not ossified" is ratified when it matches Agora's current state, nothing happens. It asserts a truth, but it doesn't stop ossification status from later changing if the Rules-described conditions change. If such a statement is ratified when it *doesn't* match the conditions, ratifying the statement would lead to an inconsistency between the gamestate and the rules. This explicitly means that ratification fails, as covered by this clause in R1551: > Ratification CANNOT occur if it would add inconsistencies between > the gamestate and the rules. This is another difference between a continuously-evaluated conditional attribute in the rules and, say, having the status tracked via an ossification switch. -G.
Re: DIS: Petrinets
On 8/16/2022 6:38 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > * I really don't know when to use switches and when to directly define > attributes. Switches comes with all kinds of protections including weekly (or monthly) self-ratifying reporting and how to resolve uncertainty in values. This is useful if the attribute is a "primary" status which you want to correct the game towards in case of error, where in the long run it's more important for game play to be certain about a fixed status than to worry about how you got there. The best case study for Switches is Offices. If some problem with a past election turns up months after the election, you don't want to invalidate everything the supposed winner did as that officer - it's better for the game to auto-correct through self-ratification that we knew who the officer was, even if the election "failed". (this exact thing happening was instrumental in designing the switch rules). On the other hand, if you're tracking the result of non-fliplike actions that are themselves tracked, continuously-evaluated attributes might work better. For example, for CFJs: > At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or > assigned exactly one judgement that was validly assigned. For CFJs you'd rather correct any reporting errors towards the actions that happened, not towards the reported state. Like, if you have a case report that erroneously says of an Open CFJ "CFJ X switch=judged" that self-ratifies, but no judgement was actually delivered, the case ends up being weirdly stuck as being "judged" but not having an actual judgement, with no really good way to resolve the problem. Here, the history of the actions is more important than the reported state. So you wouldn't want a switch to self-ratify there. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Militia Court validity
On 8/16/2022 7:20 AM, Rose Strong via agora-business wrote: > I CFJ: The Militia Court created by Madrid is a valid alternative to the > current CFJ system. Valid alternative to what aspect exactly? On one hand, it can be used to resolve disputes, sure. No different than adding gratuitous arguments to something. However, it likely can't fill R217's need to not "prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve matters of controversy" because of the keyword 'formal' that's in there.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3982 assigned to G.
On 8/15/2022 2:35 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, 2022-08-15 at 12:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: >> Not part of judgement: I think that under the current rules, "submit" is >> most clearly read as a synonym for "adding a proposal to the proposal >> pool" which is a consequence following on from creation (performable >> through the method of creating a proposal) but is not the act of creation >> itself. This would also mean that when a promotor adds a failed-quorum >> proposal back to the proposal e is "submitting" it, and e may thus become >> its author. In any case some legislative clarification is probably really >> good here but it doesn't affect this particular case. > > We've had that legislatively clarified already (after the CFJ was > raised, so it doesn't affect your judgement): for proposals, "submit" > and "create" are now rules-defined as synonyms. > Oh oops! I was looking at the online FLR but only just realized it's a few weeks behind the SLR. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8815-8821
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 4:16 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 7/24/22 20:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:56 AM secretsnail9 via agora-official > > wrote: > >> 8821~ nix, Jason, secretsnail 3.0 More Intuitive Rule Changes > > Opinion of the rulekeepor sought: > > > > In all previous history, the phrase: > > > > "Retitle rule X to Y, and Amend it to read..." would be listed as two > > separate historical annotations in the FLR, I'm quite concerned that > > changing this to: > > > > "Amed Rule X by retitling it Y and changing it to read..." would > > greatly obscure historical, reconstruction, as the amendment would be > > a single action (retitling and text change on a single line of > > history). > > > > Often, when looking at historical annotations to figure out which > > proposal changed what, retitles are milestones which signify > > significant change in the function of the rule. Would this > > information be obscured/lost under this proposal? > > > I'd be inclined to record it as a single amendment, but I could > potentially include "amended (title)" or "amended (text/title)"? > > In any case that would require me to write more code *grumble grumble*. Thanks! Yeah, I would personally prefer that retitling remain its own thing, maybe a way to do it while fixing the error potential is to add a parenthetical to the Retitle list item to note that "amend its title to" is synonymous with "retitle", and/or (if absolutely necessary, though I don't think it is) state that "amend the title of Rule N to X and its text to Y" is two sequential rule changes?
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8815-8821
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:56 AM secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote: > 8821~ nix, Jason, secretsnail 3.0 More Intuitive Rule Changes Opinion of the rulekeepor sought: In all previous history, the phrase: "Retitle rule X to Y, and Amend it to read..." would be listed as two separate historical annotations in the FLR, I'm quite concerned that changing this to: "Amed Rule X by retitling it Y and changing it to read..." would greatly obscure historical, reconstruction, as the amendment would be a single action (retitling and text change on a single line of history). Often, when looking at historical annotations to figure out which proposal changed what, retitles are milestones which signify significant change in the function of the rule. Would this information be obscured/lost under this proposal?
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette - 22 Jul 2022
Pseudo-coe: I think this is missing the Cfj called by snail with the subject line [Proposal?]. If so and it’s not taken I favor that one. -G. On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 4:10 AM Jason Cobb via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) > Fri 22 July 2022 > > DEADLINES (details below) > --- > [none] > > INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASES > --- > Regular Judges: > 3971 Secretsnail9 > 3976 Jason > 3977 4st > 3979 ais523 > 3980 Murphy > > Occasional Judges: > [None currently] > > Overflow Judges: > 3888 nix > > Recused: > > 3956 R. Lee > 3941 Cuddlybanana > 3926 Gaelan > 3924 Madrid > > OPEN CASES > --- > [none] > > RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES > --- > 3976 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 17 Jul 2022 21:19:58] > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2022-July/049569.html > G. Earned a Magenta Ribbon in 2022. >
DIS: Re: BUS: Can I be Referee?
On 7/3/2022 8:37 PM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, 2022-07-03 at 20:30 -0700, Forest Sweeney via agora-business > wrote: >> I intend, with 2 support, to start an election for Referee with >> myself as a candidate. > > I support. > > (For anyone who's confused, like I was – under the current rules, only > the ADoP can do this unilaterally for a vacant office, other players > need 2 support. We used to allow this unilaterally throughout most of > the time I've been playing; I'm not sure why it changed.) > The usual mechanism since the change has been to deputize by publishing a report (becoming the interim officeholder) and use the bit[0] in the rule that says the officeholder CAN initiate an election by announcement. This provides a useful (but maybe over-cautious/unneeded?) filter of "show that you're interested either by getting support or by getting to grips with the office via a report or other duty". -G. [0]From Rule 2651/0 b) By announcement, if e is the ADoP (or, if the office is the ADoP, if e is the Assessor) and the office is interim, or if e is the holder of that office.
Re: DIS: A Quick Agora Survey
1. Venerable, finicky, historical, magisterial. 2. A comment in Slashdot let me know it still existed, a post in rec.games.board (usenet) brought me to its predecessor Nomic World. 3. 2004-era cards (lots of chaos), moment in cards = first paradox. 4. The people mostly (old friends). 5. That it continue with some activity and reports of history for a long time. On 6/25/2022 2:00 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > Hey all, please take a moment to answer this survey. I'm gonna use some > of it for something later, but I also figured it'd just be fun to discuss. > > 1) Choose 3-5 adjectives to describe Agora. > > 2) What brought you to Agora? > > 3) What's your favorite era/event/moment in Agora? > > 4) What do you miss from previous times in Agora? > > 5) What do you want to see in the future of Agora? > > I may ask a few more questions later, not sure yet. > -- > nix > Herald, Registrar, Collector >
Re: DIS: British or American Spelling
On 6/22/2022 6:43 PM, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > Going thru the SLR spelling... > Do we prefer deputise or deputize? > Authorise or authorize? > Summarise or summarize? > > etc. > > Based on what's currently there, deputise is the outlier with the british > deputise spelling. > But I'd like some confirmation, since there are a lot of counts of it. Either. We've historically had enough participants from both languages that we've remained flexible about that one (sometimes consciously though it hasn't come up in awhile). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3969 Assigned to ais523
On 6/22/2022 3:30 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: > On 6/22/22 17:25, nix via agora-business wrote: >> On 6/22/22 17:22, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >>> On 6/20/22 17:41, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 6/20/22 17:40, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 6/19/22 18:51, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >>> >>> Rule 2621/9 (Power=1.0) >>> VP Wins >>> >>> If a player has at least 20 more Winsomes than each other >>> player, >>> e CAN Take Over the Economy by announcement, provided no person >>> has won the game by doing so in the past 30 days. >> I agree to the following contract: "Winsome More": >> 1. G. is the only party to this contract, and can amend or >> terminate >> it by announcement. >> 2. Winsomes are a currency tracked by G. in eir monthly report. >> 3. G. CAN create, destroy, or transfer Winsomes by announcement. >> >> >> I create 21 Winsomes in my possession. >> >> Winsome Report: I have 21, nobody else has any. >> >> Comment: >> >> There's a bit of ambiguity in these two paragraphs in Rule 1586: >> A rule, contract, or regulation that refers to an entity by name >> refers to the entity that had that name when the rule first came >> to include that reference, even if the entity's name has since >> changed. >> >> If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it >> no longer defines the second entity, then the second entity and >> its attributes cease to exist. >> >> Winsomes are no longer "defined" by the rules but they rules do "refer" >> to >> Winsomes. If Winsomes have ceased to exist as per the second paragraph, >> they are no longer entities, and the "reference" bit may or may not apply >> to *former* entities. "Even if the entity's name has since changed" is >> very different than "even if the entity no longer exists", and if rules >> referred to no-longer-existing entities then we'd have to go back a long >> way into the rules to find terms that were repealed and brought back... >> >> -G. >> > The above is CFJ 3969. > > I assign CFJ 3969 to ais523. > Sorry, subject line was wrong. This message contains no game actions. >>> >>> Okay apparently I'm an idiot and the message never actually called a >>> CFJ, so the assignment failed and ais523 has nothing to judge. >>> >>> -- >>> Jason Cobb >>> >>> Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >>> >> >> CFJ: CFJ 3936 does exist, is the entire contents of the message from G. >> quoted above, was created by Jason, and was assigned to ais523 successfully. >> >> Arguments: We let people create CFJs by simply calling text a CFJ pretty >> regularly. Jason called it a CFJ and assigned it. Looks like a CFJ to me. >> >> -- >> nix >> Herald, Registrar, Collector >> > > I withdraw the CFJ I created above. I CFJ: CFJ 3969 does exist, is the > entire contents of the message from G. quoted above, was created by > Jason, and was assigned to ais523 successfully. > > -- > nix > Herald, Registrar, Collector > Gratuitous: Using the typical Arbitor assignment-format language for assigning (but not calling) a cfj does not "set forth intent" to call a cfj to the clear-and-unambiguous standard for by-announcement actions (R478/40).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Speaker Appointment Clarification
On 6/22/2022 2:46 PM, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 2:41 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> Amend Rule 103 (The Speaker) by replacing "held continuously by the same >> person for 90+ days" with "held continuously by the same person for the >> last 90 days". >> > 90+ seems important, not only 90. If 90+ is true, the last 90 is also true.
Re: [CFJ] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Speaker Experiment
On 6/22/2022 2:08 PM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Wed, 2022-06-22 at 15:40 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Jun 22, 2022, at 3:15 PM, ais523 via agora-business < >>> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >>> I intend, with support, to appoint ais523 to the office of Speaker. >>> >>> [As far as I can tell, although I can't actually resolve this intent, >>> that doesn't prevent me making the intent. It seems as though it could >>> potentially be resolved by someone else?] >>> >> I don't think you can actually make the intent? It's not a tabled >> action because it's not an action described in the rules. "any player >> CAN appoint *another player* to the office with support." And since >> you didn't do that I don't think it works? Just like you couldn't >> intend to deactivate someone with notice before it's been 30 days of >> inactivity. Unless you can idk > > I call a CFJ on the statement "My attempt to intend to perform a tabled > action in the above-quoted message succeeded". > > Arguments: > > This basically boils down to whether I can intend to perform a tabled > action, despite it being an action that I personally could not perform > even if I had the required support. There are situations in which one > person can act on a different person's intent (either due to an office > changing hands, or due to the "I support and do so" mechanism), so it > can matter whether the intent is valid even if the stated action isn't > possible. > > Historically, I think we've held that intents to perform an impossible > action are valid, and can be made in case, e.g., rule changes make that > action possible in the future, although the action has to be described > precisely enough to make it clear that the intent matches up. This > situation is analogous. (As a side note, rule 2471 has an explicit > exception for intents – this was designed so that a player could table > an intent to perform an action simply so that they'd have the option > available, without planning to actually act on the intent later on, > despite the wording of the announcement.) > > However, the rules for tabled actions have changed since the previous > precedents, and they may no longer be applicable; a judge would need to > check the current wording of the rule and see if anything has changed. > In particular, the key to the case seems to be whether "table an intent > to perform a tabled action" permits intents to perform a hypothetical > tabled action, or only tabled actions that are defined in the rules. > > For what it's worth, I've been assuming that you can intend to > deactivate someone before they've been inactive for 30 days (e.g. > because you're planning to resolve the intent after the 30-day timer > has expired) – the action that you're intending to perform is an action > that can only be performed in the future, but that's fine because the > your intention is to perform the action in the future, rather than > right now. So "you can only intend to perform an action that you could > (if you had an appropriately ripe intent) perform right now" seems like > it's the wrong reading of the rule. Another possibility is "you can > only intend to perform an action that you could (if you had an > appropriately ripe intent) perform in the future", but that's a future > conditional, and those are almost impossible to resolve correctly (and > in this case, the 14-day ripeness limit is enough time to pass a > proposal to make the action possible, so this sort of future > conditional would hardly exclude anything anyway). So the most > reasonable reading seems, to me, to be "you can intend to perform an > action even if you can't envisage circumstances under which you could > actually perform it". > > However, there's a disagreement about this, thus this CFJ. > > (The judge might also want to opine on whether the intent in question > could be acted upon, without rules changes, if it's resolved by a > supporter rather than the sponsor – the action of "appoint ais523 as > Speaker" is impossible for ais523 but would be possible for a > hypothetical supporter of the intent. I didn't file a separate CFJ on > this because it was too difficult to come up with a short and loophole- > free statement.) > Since the CFJ called, the "stretch" interpretation I mentioned is here: A person CAN act on eir own behalf, by announcement, to table an intent (syn. "intend") to perform a tabled action... the possible interpretation being "it's not an intent to perform a tabled action if it isn't currently a rules-defined action you can do via tabled action" (instead, it's an intent to perform a non-tabled action via a tabled action method, which doesn't qualify). But I think this still supports the old interpretation of "if I say I'm intending to perform an action by a tabled action method, it's an intent to perform the tabled action. Because even if it's not currently possible, I still *intend* to do it that way,
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Speaker Experiment
On 6/22/2022 1:40 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 22, 2022, at 3:15 PM, ais523 via agora-business >> wrote: >> I intend, with support, to appoint ais523 to the office of Speaker. >> >> [As far as I can tell, although I can't actually resolve this intent, >> that doesn't prevent me making the intent. It seems as though it could >> potentially be resolved by someone else?] >> >> -- >> ais523 >> > > I don't think you can actually make the intent? It's not a tabled action > because it's not an action described in the rules. "any player CAN appoint > *another player* to the office with support." And since you didn't do that I > don't think it works? Just like you couldn't intend to deactivate someone > with notice before it's been 30 days of inactivity. Unless you can idk You can make the intent, but not complete the action. For example, if there's a rule change coming up to allow something via tabled action, you can intend to do that thing before the rule change happens as long as it's within the 14 day window when the rule changes to allow it. The way tabled actions are written, at the time you *complete* the task, you look back to see if there's an intent within the right past time range, and it works even if it couldn't be performed when the intent was announced. Aaand as I write that, I can see at least one place in the Tabled action rule (not the old dependent action rule) that *could* be argued the other way, though it's a stretch IMO. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8696-8699
On 6/21/2022 10:34 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, 2022-06-21 at 08:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> I don't agree with this interpretation. There are quite a few examples of >> using "wrong" nicknames if the person is clear from context (it's ancient >> so I'm not citing this as strict precedent, but CFJ 1361 is an example). >> I think there's sufficient context in the Agoran discussion forum of >> Discord (including the nickname Jason gives emself there) for this to be >> person-specifying. > > Counterevidence: not being a Discord user, although I'm vaguely aware > that there's someone named "Random Internet Cat" on Discord, I couldn't > remember which Agoran it was (until this thread reminded me). So this > didn't immediately specify a particular person, from my point of view. > (I could probably have figured it out if it were important.) The sole criterion for a coauthor is that they must be a "person other than the author" (Rule 2350). Doesn't have to be a player, the coauthor doesn't have to be aware of the coauthorship, and can't formally opt out or anything like that. A famous person who's never been in Agora could be listed, AFAICT. Or if I listed an unknown name as a coauthor, and when asked said "oh that's my non-Agoran friend here in RL who was reading over my shoulder and made a suggestion" I suspect it would meet our "trusting to the preponderance-of-evidence" standard. So if cat was a person on Discord who hadn't registered and never posted on the main lists, it might work fine - a cfj on the subject would probably turn up "yep that's a person who's not 4st, more likely than not" if a discord conversation between the two of them was posted as evidence. So it might boil down to: does the fact that it wasn't clear that cat==Jason to some people make it FALSE to that standard? Recently (but before you re=joined maybe? can't remember) I think we had someone post something from an unknown email account and say "I swear I'm a registered agoran under a different email account, I'm not saying who I am but I take [action]." Does anyone remember the outcome of that or am I misremembering the circumstances. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8696-8699
On 6/20/2022 2:43 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 6/19/22 21:13, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote: >> // >> ID: 8697 >> Title: Dream of Wandering >> Adoption Index: 1.0 >> Author: 4st >> Co-author(s): nix, Madrid, snail, cat > > > CoE: either no such proposal exists, or such proposal was not validly > distributed. > > "cat" is me (since I go by Random Internet Cat on Discord), but I don't > believe that's sufficiently well-known to the lists to count as > specification. > I don't agree with this interpretation. There are quite a few examples of using "wrong" nicknames if the person is clear from context (it's ancient so I'm not citing this as strict precedent, but CFJ 1361 is an example). I think there's sufficient context in the Agoran discussion forum of Discord (including the nickname Jason gives emself there) for this to be person-specifying. -G.
DIS: [proto] engineers should be pragmatic
I don't submit the following proto-proposal, "Engineering Pragmatism", AI=1: Amend Rule 2655 (The Mad Engineer) by replacing: a) Randomly select exactly one rule. with: a) Randomly select exactly one current or former rule version from among those in one of the two most recently-published SLRs, and by appending the following text to the end of list item (d): Such an announcement of intent is a self-ratifying attestation that the proposed modification was selected and composed in full accordance with this rule.
DIS: Re: (@ADoP) BUS: Resignation
On 6/17/2022 9:07 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > I resign Mad Engineer. > > [Working out a proper random rule selection is more effort than I'm > willing to go so when there's still doubt about the ruleset, and > there's now only a couple of days left for this week's invention > process.] > Should we key it on "last week's SLR" instead of platonic? (I'd say "most recent SLR" but that could mess up if the Rulekeepor published a new one just before you were planning to do a draw). After all, selecting an old text and using it is harmless - just because a rule text was repealed/changed doesn't mean you can't make a device text from the old rule text. -G.
DIS: Fwd: [proto] The Firm
[Seems like a good time to bring this back -G. ]
Proto: The Firm v2
[A change in the way vote cards lead to votes]
[v2. vote cards => coins].
Enact a Rule, "The Firm" (Power 2), with this text:
The Firm is a secured ordered list of players. HR is an office;
the firm as it was at the beginning of the week is part of HR's
weekly report. A player's position on the list is their Employee
Number.
If a player is not on the list, or their position on the list
is indeterminate, they are unemployed. Whenever a set of players
becomes unemployed, HR CAN by announcement, and SHALL in a
timely fashion, add them to the bottom of the firm in random
order. [*]
The Nth position in the firm is held by the player in the Nth
ordinal position on the list. To promote someone is to move em
up one position in the firm (towards the lowest ordinal position
on the list), to demote someone is the opposite.
All active players are board members. A board member CAN, as a
board action, promote a specified player for a fee of N times 5
boatloads of coins, where N is one plus the number of board
actions that member has previously performed in the week.
[* this mechanism probably needs wording work. Intent is that if Alice
becomes unemployed, than later Bob and Carol simultaneously, then finally
Dan, that HR would add Alice first, then Bob&Carol in random order, then
Dan. On adoption, all players would become unemployed so the first
addition would be completely random].
[TODO: rename Extra Votes and Vote Cards to Extra Shares and Share Cards -
take into account possible Votives name switch]
Enact a Rule, "Org Chart" (Power 2), with this text:
The employee positions (Employee #s) in the firm are named as
follows and are in the indicated categories:
Top Brass
1. President
2. CEO
Middle Management
3. Executive Assistant
4. Marketing
5. R & D
6. Logistics
All other positions are in the category "Staff" and are staff
members. Employee #7 is also known as the owner's nephew.
The Bonus for each position is set at the beginning of each week
as +6 for top brass, +3 for middle management, -1 for the owner's
nephew, and 0 for all other staff and the unemployed. On an
ordinary referendum, the voting strength of a board member is
adjusted by their bonus at the time the referendum was initiated.
Notwithstanding the rest of this paragraph, the bonus for the holder
of HR is +2.
Enact a Rule, "Performance Reviews" (Power 2):
A valid Notice of Promotions is a public document that:
* is clearly labelled as a notice of promotions;
* is published by a person explicitly authorized by the rules
to do so; and
* clearly specifies one player in the top brass, one player in
middle management, and one player in staff.
Upon the publication of a valid notice of promotions:
1. the indicated top brass player is moved to the bottom of
the firm;
2. then the indicated middle management player is moved to the
position in the firm formerly held by that top brass player;
3. and finally, the indicated staff player is moved to the
position in the firm formerly held by that middle management
player.
Once per month, the HR CAN and SHALL publish a notice of promotions.
Enact a Rule, Strikes (Power 2):
If no strikes have been initiated or resolved in the last 30 days,
a staff member (the instigator) CAN Trigger a Strike with Notice,
optionally specifying a single different staff member as eir
lieutenant.
A player who announces intent to trigger a strike, or supports such
an intent, becomes a Striker ("goes on strike") for the purposes of
that strike intent. When a strike intent is announced, any
specified lieutenant goes on strike a moment after the instigator.
When a player goes on strike, e is demoted.
After a strike is triggered, HR CAN once and SHALL in a timely
fashion resolve the strike by randomly determining and publishing
whether the strike succeeds. The
strike succeeds with probability (S/P) where S is the number of
strikers and P is the number of players, as calculated when the
strike is triggered.
If the strike fails, all strikers are demoted, in reverse order
to the order they went on strike.
If a strike succeeds, the following happens in sequence:
1. All players become unemployed;
2. Strikers are added to the list in the order they went on
strike.
3. An election for HR is initiated, if one is not ongoing.
[The remainder of the unemployed would be added randomly as
described in the previous rule, though s
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Put a sock in it
On 6/12/2022 3:26 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > [Some or all of this may have already occurred, see CFJs 3965 > through 3967. Possibly only rules numbered higher than 2658 > still contain ~> <~ delimited text.] There aren't any rules like that. One key fortunate fact is that no matter what, R2658 is the highest-numbered rule that had any ~> or <~ in it (by virtue of it being created by the same proposal that inserted the symbols), so I can't think of any circumstances where some but not all of those symbols were deleted. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Sets Repeal Cases
On 6/12/2022 12:43 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 2022-06-12 at 12:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> The Winds Died Down recently, beginning the procedure described in >> R2658. >> >> It's pretty clear to me that all of the repeals of (1) went through, >> and I can't think of an argument that those repeals failed. > > The rule says "the following happen in order", referring to a list. If > any of them can't happen, does that mean that none of them happen? > > I think our normal precedent is to do as much as possible, but I'm not > sure why I think that, nor whether there's a rule about that, and > there's more than one reasonable interpretation. > That's a good point. I'll definitely address it on the next draft. My first sense is that, since R105 makes rule changes rigidly sequential and therefore severable, you have to follow the "text of the rules" as long as that text exists, so if you get to a step that fails, undoing the previous steps is re-amending the rules back to what they were, which *definitely* isn't rule 105 specified. This would be the default assumption, if the rule said explicitly "if one of these fails they all fail" it would specify what happens well enough to be atomic, perhaps? I've also *generally* felt uncomfortable with any conditionals that say "if any of these steps fail they all fail" because it's a conditional based on a future state (even if it can be evaluated hypothetically in the present without any doubt), which we've generally disallowed as being ambiguous, and if interpreted with rules-text level deference can lead to more paradoxes - but that's sort of a last-ditch "good of the game" argument. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Sets Repeal Cases
On 6/12/2022 9:35 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 is a Rule." > > CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has performed at least > one amendment of a Rule." > > CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has been amended at > once during the time when it is/was a Rule." > > > Rule 2658/0 (Power=3) > The Winds Die Down > > When the wind dies down, the following happen in order: > > * The following rules are repealed in order: R2620 "Cards & Sets", > R2623 "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege", R2629 "Victory > Auctions", R2624 "Card Administration", R2622 "Pending > Proposals", R2651 "Proposal Recycling", and R2653 "Buying > Strength". > > * All rules including the text "~>" and "<~" are amended in > ascending numerical order by removing all text between and > including each "~>" and the first following "<~". > > * This rule is repealed. > > Draft arguments: Referring to the *'d list items in rule 2658/0 as (1), (2), (3): The Winds Died Down recently, beginning the procedure described in R2658. It's pretty clear to me that all of the repeals of (1) went through, and I can't think of an argument that those repeals failed. For what happens when (2) is performed: * All rules including the text "~>" and "<~" are amended in ascending numerical order by removing all text between and including each "~>" and the first following "<~". First of all, R2658 is the highest-numbered rule that contains the cited text (the ""s do not escape the text from being amended). Rule changes are always sequential, so all of the rule changes before R2658 are therefore amended successfully. Then, this rule self-amends itself to this: * All rules including the text "" are amended in ascending numerical order by removing all text between and including each "". I can't think of why this would fail up to this instant in the procedure, so I find CFJ 3966 TRUE and I find CFJ 3967 TRUE. So now we're midway through a rules-procedure and the procedure has been amended. The next question is whether the amended sentence would do anything. I find that it would not. On the principle that "all sets include the empty set", all rules include "". However, it's unclear *where* in the rule the blank text is "included", so the idea of "between" here is ambiguous, given the strict R105-standard of rules changes. So whether or not the above text attempts to go back and amend every rule (because every rule contains "" and we reevaluate the set of rules that the "All" refers to), or whether the determination of "all rules that include the text" was only performed once at the beginning of step (2) when the criteria involved ~> and <~, the net effect is the same. No rules were changed by (2) after R2658 was so-amended - either R2658 was the last amendment in the established set of rules, or an amendment for all rules containing "" was attempted that all failed due to ambiguity (the judgements don't depend on which of these is true). The final CFJ (CFJ 3965) comes down to whether (3) "this rule is repealed" succeeded after the amendments/failed amendements in (2) were complete? The question comes down to this - if a rules procedure is triggered by an event (like the Winds), but the procedure isn't finished and the rule is amended while the procedure is ongoing, does the process continue because it was started under the original trigger, or does it stop because the new rule contains a new process that hasn't been triggered yet? We're actually a bit mixed on that, in precedent/custom. Let's say: "When a player judges a CFJ, the Arbitor CAN and SHALL award em 15 coins in a timely manner by announcement" is amended by only changing the value of the award: "When a player judges a CFJ, the Arbitor CAN and SHALL award em 20 coins in a timely manner by announcement" In this case, if a player makes a judgement under the old rule, and the rule changes before the Arbitor acts, the player loses both. The old award is no longer performable, and the new award conditions haven't been triggered. On the other hand, let's say we have an auction or election procedure that has been initiated (where the steps are all in a single rule), and we're trying to patch something wrong with the concluding part of the election/auction. Often, in that case, we take care to say "all elections/auctions in progress terminate with no winner" or similar, assuming that amending the part of the rule dealing with the end state doesn't end the process started earlier in the rule (and since we've effectively finished step (2), the clause governing the next step (3) hasn't been amended. At this poin
DIS: Re: (@Treasuror) Re: BUS: Self-promotion and some dirty work
On 6/12/2022 11:26 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, 2022-06-12 at 19:24 +0100, ais523 via agora-business wrote: >> On Sun, 2022-06-12 at 11:20 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >>> I issue a cabinet order of Dive on ais523, levying a fine of 2 blots on >>> em, because e has not yet been graced with blots in the current era, that >>> I'm aware of, and it grieves me that e should miss out. >> >> If Blot-B-Gones still exist, I twice pay a fee of 1 Blot-B-Gone to >> expunge a Blot from myself. > > [and if they don't...] > > If possible via the mechanism in rule 2555, I expunge a Blot from > myself. > The first one depends on whether the recent CFJs means repeals didn't happen - Haven't seen any other arguments for BBGs still existing (let me know if I missed one). I think the second one definitely didn't work because you gained a blot this week: Any player who has not expunged a blot by this method this week CAN expunge 1 blot from a specified player who has not gained a blot this week, by announcement
DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 6/6/2022 4:41 PM, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-06-07 at 01:40 +0200, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
> business wrote:
>> The dice roll was: 125
>> This is R2631, Charities.
>
> For reference:
> {{{
>Donation Level is a natural switch for contracts, tracked by the
>Notary, with a default of 0 and a maximum of 25. A contract with
>nonzero donation level is called a Charity.
>
>The Notary CAN flip a contract's donation level to a non-default
>value with 3 Agoran consent. This SHOULD only be done if the
>contract's provisions ensure that its funds received from Agora
>will be used solely for the betterment of Agora. Any player CAN
>flip a contract's donation level to 0 with Agoran consent.
>
>Whenever a payday occurs, half of each charity's coin holdings
>(rounded down) are destroyed, and then each charity gains a number
>of boatloads of coins equal to its donation level.
> }}}
>
> Any suggestions?
>
Whenever a payday occurs, half of each charity's device holdings
(rounded down) are destroyed, and then each charity gains a number
of boatloads of devices equal to its donation level.
DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Treasuror, Mad Engineer; @Jason) BUS: Blowing up the economy
On 5/28/2022 2:03 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > As I think has been discussed on the list before, after the recent > change to the tabled actions rule, it appears that you can take a > tabled action multiple times from a single intent. (The wording of the > rule is fairly clear on the requirements, and "not having used the same > intent to take the action before" is not mentioned.) Recent game custom > also implies this – people have been objecting to attempts to take > fairly innocuous actions that would have been quite dangerous if > repeated many times. FWIW, this was a bug in the old rule too. It was purposely preserved in the re-write under the idea of "make sure to produce the same results in a big re-write, make bugfixes later". > The main question, therefore, is whether I can succeed 100 times in > assigning the Device to myself. A power-1 rule says that I CAN, and no > rule seems to imply that I can't, as long as "[the] Device has no judge > assigned". (I also need to be eligible to judge the Device, but I am > eligible to judge generally, and there is no reason why the Device > would be a special case.) If I do succeed in doing this successfully, > then everyone gains 100 of every Card, and I win as a result of being > able to convert my Win Cards to Winsomes faster than everyone else can. Counterarguments: I think common language holds that when you've assigned something to yourself, assigning it to yourself again isn't an actual action (it does nothing so you can't do it, because the thing is *already* assigned to you, and trying to assign it you yourself again is ISIDTID). As evidence, we have to explicitly say in the rules where "a change that is no change is actually an action" (e.g. with switches). Note: to be clear I'm smiling at this scam and think it's great I just wasn't comfortable with my ability to judge fairly as long as there are counterarguments I can come up with (if I couldn't think of any reasonable counterarguments at all I'd go ahead and judge it). > We therefore need to interpret what it means for the device to have a > judge assigned. I can see three main possibilities: either there isn't > any way for this to occur, and thus the Device is never in a state of > having a judge assigned (even though it is possible to assign the > Device to a person, this is distinct from assigning the person to the > Device); or else the action of assigning the device to a person causes > the person to become an assigned judge for that Device (which is how > the Arbitor interpreted it, possibly as a counterscam attempt); or else > the concept of a judge being assigned to a Device is a concept that's > based on the mental state of the Arbitor (i.e. the Arbitor considers > that player to be the primary judge for the Device). > > With the first interpretation, this sequence of actions obviously > works. > > With the second interpretation, there's some inclarity because the > "device changes" as a consequence of being assigned, which would turn > it on (the Device is a switch with two states, so changing it would > presumably cause it to change state) – and that causes the part of the > rule about judge assignment to Devices to turn off, so it may cause the > assignment to disappear in the same way that repealing the rules > defining something normally cause that thing to disappear. > > With the third interpretation, the Arbitor has stated that e will > assign CFJs about the Device to me if my intent is successful; however, > this assignment policy is reliant on the Arbitor being aware that the > intent has gone through (if someone called a CFJ about the Device after > I sent this message, but the Arbitor happened to read the message > containing the CFJ and assign it before e read this message, e would > not have any reason to assign the CFJ to me specifically), so the > required mental state in the Arbitor comes about only after e has > received this message, and thus I'm not assigned to the Device until > after the message has ended. (Incidentally, I'm a little dubious that > this interpretation can be correct because it would seem to violate > rule 2140, in that the meaning of "a judge is assigned to a device" > would appear to be a substantive aspect of the Device rule, and the > Arbitor does not have enough power to change that.) > > I'd like the judge to rule on which interpretation of the Device rule > is correct, in addition to ruling on whether or not I won as a result > of this message – as usual with this sort of rule, the wording can > often lead to interesting questions of interpretation because it was > originally intended for a different context. > }}} >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 5/22/2022 6:41 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-05-23 at 03:38 +0200, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
> business wrote:
>>
>> The dice roll was: 80
>> This is R2481, Festival Restrictions.
>
> For reference:
> {{{
> While Agora's Festivity is nonzero, the following apply:
>
> 1. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, non-Festive players
> CANNOT support/be a supporter for tabled action intents;
>
> 2. Quorum for Agoran Decisions is equal to half the number of
> Festive players, rounded up;
>
> 3. Each Festive player has the maximum possible voting strength.
> All other players have the minimum possible voting strength.
>
> ~>4. Non-Festive players CANNOT cause proposals to become
>Pended.<~
>
> While Agora's Festivity is zero, the paragraphs above have no
> effect and are ignored.
> }}}
"While Agora's Device is zero, the paragraphs above have no
effect and are ignored" could cascade in some fun ways, though I haven't
thought through exactly what would be ignored...
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Resolving elections
On 5/22/2022 3:18 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: > Voting strength was measured at the end of the voting period (R955). Per > the Referee's report of May 15, I believe each voter had 3, except Jason > (not Madrid) who had 2. This is incorrect. After the referee's report was published, but before the voting period ended, Madrid gained two blots (Dive) to a total of 3 Blots [0], and Jason expunged 1 blot by a BBG to get down to 2 Blots [1]. I haven't checked to see if this affects final election results. [0] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2022-May/049169.html [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2022-May/049159.html -the referee
Re: DIS: [Proto] Birthday Tournament - Nomaoic 2
On 5/15/2022 9:21 AM, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > 111. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered > from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of > n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that > establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while > they are mutable) be amended or repealed. When a player wins, the Herald > shall announce this fact, and the tournament ends with that player as > the winner. [snip] > 210. If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if > the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the > Herald's reasoning, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the > first player who attempts, but is unable to complete, a turn is the winner. As part of my J.D. Thesis on the continuity of the judicial system (CFJ 3822), ancient CFJ 7 was judged in modern times, 27 years late (by Judge Jason and co-author judge Aspen), which found a weird thing with these two initial Suber/Agora rules. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?7 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3822 Summary: R111 says "winning can't be altered from achieving N points to any other state of affairs." But according to R210, the game starts with the rules *already* in "another state of affairs" by describing an additional way to win (the judgement in CFJ 7 found that all the initial rules came into effect simultaneously, so R210 wasn't blocked by R111 existing). Since the game isn't in R111's "state of affairs" to begin with, R111 has no effect. (i.e. Rule 111 says "you can't go from A to B" and R210 says "but we're starting out at B already so that limitation has no effect.") However, this means that repealing R210 (a mutuable rule) would put the rules back into the R111-state (state A) and thereafter R111 would be controlling, so repealing that mutable rule makes the immutable rule function. I don't think it has a practical effect or that it needs to be changed for this tournament, but it was fun to find an "ancient bug" as it were in the Suber ruleset. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Election update
On 5/8/2022 4:29 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: >* Prime Minister - if voting for myself would cause me to win, then > myself, otherwise endorse G. Note: this vote may be indeterminate -> PRESENT if there are any ties in the instant runoff procedure (because at the time voting ends, it's not determinate whom the vote collector might eliminate).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Re: endgame
On 5/8/2022 11:13 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 2022-05-08 at 11:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> I withdraw my previous proposal, Endgame. >> >> I submit the following proposal, Endgame, AI-1, and pay a pendant to pend it: >> >> --- >> >> Create the following power=1 rule, titled Buyout: >> >> Any player who has not taken over the economy in the last 30 >> days CAN pay a fee of N Winsomes to create 500 times N coins >> in eir possession, provided e does so unconditionally and >> without disclaimers, acting as emself, in a message body >> containing no other actions or other action attempts, and explicitly >> specifies N in the message (i.e. without indirect references such >> as "all"). >> >> One week after this rule first takes effect, the winds die down. >> >> Immediately after Rule 2658 (The Winds Die Down) is repealed, >> this rule is repealed. >> >> - > > I'm suddenly really curious about what scam this is trying to prevent. > So, the reason this is "endgame" and not just "trade-in" is of course that if people start to trade in and there's fewer winsomes in the game, last-minute wins are quite possible. This is obviously a "move as close to the deadline as possible" sort of game (if anyone actually tries to win that way), which are never great in Agora, but any hard end to Sets would be against a some kind of hard deadline - so I was just trying to make it as dynamic as possible. To that end IMO: - Requiring specification of N improves instead of allowing "all" etc. adds an element of risk to getting it wrong. - Conditionals: "If I have enough Winsomes I take over the economy, otherwise I trade in" greatly reduces the risk of doing stuff last-minute, making the exercise pretty boring. - Disclaimers: You can fake someone out by saying "I trade in 10" if you've only got 9. But to avoid No Faking, you'd need to include a disclaimer. This limits that tactic and makes it ILLEGAL to do that kind of thing. - No other actions in the message: You could get around the "explicit specification of N" by saying "I pay 20, I pay 19, I pay 18..." and having only the one corresponding with "all" succeed. - acting as emself: Unwinding arrangements like the OP is less interesting if a side-contract is written so one person does it at the same time on behalf of all the involved parties. Will this make an interesting endgame? Dunno. But once I started writing out the principle of just "all moves must be basic unconditional moves" there were lots of loopholes to patch - and I'm sure I didn't get them all... -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Decriminalizing Lateness
On 5/7/2022 3:50 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/7/22 16:57, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> I agree with moving to something like this in principle, but I think that >> the metric needs work. >> >> - you can clear your name by resigning and re-deputizing for the office; > > FWIW if someone did do this they'd then have to do their job well > afterwards for it to stick and doing that would be somewhat conspicuous, > so it doesn't seem like a big issue? I'm basing this on the fact that officers did it so often to get a Cyan ribbon (without the conspicuousness costing them anything) that we modified Cyan. I suspect, like Cyan, it's something we'd say when it happened "well that's allowed but undesirable so we should fix it systemically, not impeach or anything." Just trying to save introducing something we'd want to fix? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Decriminalizing Lateness
On 5/7/2022 1:02 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: > Amend R2138 "The Associate Director of Personnel" by appending: > > 4. For filled offices, the percent of reports that have been > published in a timely fashion since either this clause was added > to the rules or the last change in officeholder for the office, > whichever is more recent. I agree with moving to something like this in principle, but I think that the metric needs work. - you can clear your name by resigning and re-deputizing for the office; - there's no notion of forgiving the past without resigning in this manner; - as time goes on in an office, each missed report contributes less %, so it means the longer you hold the office the less the % matters and the less you might care (I have learned this point playing Wordle lol). Overall this seems opposite of what we'd want a metric to do - which would be to go lower if you missed a present/recent report, but forgive the more distant past. So I'm concerned this incentivizes what we don't want? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] (@Treasuror) A Little Economic Takeover
On 5/1/2022 12:29 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I take the following action 5 times:
> {
> If I have any blots, I expunge a blot from myself by paying a fee of 1
> blot-b-gone.
> }
[Referee voiceover: e didn't have any blots]
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer wants to confirm [attn. Tailor]
On 4/13/2022 12:36 AM, Madrid via agora-business wrote:
> This gave me a stupid idea that likely doesn't work but I will try it
> anyways.
>
> I create the following contract called 'Glitter Grifting':
> {
> Any player CAN by announcement Award themselves X Glitter, where X is any
> adjective of the following list: {Red, Orange, Green, Emerald, Cyan, Blue,
> Magenta, Ultraviolet, Violet, Indigo, Platinum, Lime, White, Black,
> Transparent, Gray}. To do so is the following sequence of actions:
> - Join this Contract
> - Transfer all of your Coins to Madrid
> - Leave this Contract
> }
This is basically stopped by Rule 2519; that is, you can't consent by
saying magic hidden contract words "unknowingly". An attempt to join
using trigger words would be governed by:
4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
take place or assented to it taking place.
And "context" is the keyword here - if you just claim glitter because you
think glitter is still in the rules, the message context would make it
clear you don't consent. If you claim glitter while citing this contract
(and no other disclaimers etc.), you probably join. It's slippery like
all language of course - if enough people actually joined (citing the
contract) it could become slang enough to work on it's own. Not now, though.
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 4/11/2022 3:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 3:00 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 23:59 +0200, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
>> business wrote:
>>> The dice roll was: 87
>>> This is R2499, Welcome Packages.
>>
>> For reference:
>> {{{
>> A Welcome Package is a set of assets containing:
>>
>> * 10 boatloads of coins~>, AND<~
>> ~>* 1 of each type of card defined in the rules.<~
>>
>> Any player CAN grant a Welcome Package to any player if the
>> grantee has neither received one since e last registered nor in
>> the last 30 days.
>> }}}
But - er I hate to say this - that welcome package rule seems to be
missing a "by announcement".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On 4/11/2022 3:00 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 23:59 +0200, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
> business wrote:
>> The dice roll was: 87
>> This is R2499, Welcome Packages.
>
> For reference:
> {{{
> A Welcome Package is a set of assets containing:
>
> * 10 boatloads of coins~>, AND<~
> ~>* 1 of each type of card defined in the rules.<~
>
> Any player CAN grant a Welcome Package to any player if the
> grantee has neither received one since e last registered nor in
> the last 30 days.
> }}}
>
> Any suggestions?
>
Well let's start handing out devices wcgw:
"Any player CAN grant a Welcome Device to any player..."
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: (indictment intent on @jaun for support/objections) resolving fingers for the forbidden
On 4/11/2022 11:05 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2022-04-11 10:49, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 4/11/2022 10:40 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >>> No, it's not reasonable to expect new players to read through decades of >>> judgements. However, that doesn't eliminate the fact that the precedent >>> exists. Generally relevant precedents will be brought up by people aware >>> of them when needed. >> >> I mean, it *might* be reasonable for a new player to think "I'm putting in >> a high-powered proposal that claims to freeze agora, directly trying to >> loophole something that the rules explicitly say is a High Crime and >> shouldn't be done - maybe there's reasons I shouldn't do that." >> >> -G. > > It might. And there may. There are also reasons to do it -- such as to > expose such loophole. Well sure - I respect the civil disobedience inherent in performing an action to prove what's wrong with the law, but that generally involves technically committing the crime. My point is more general - that while a new player might not be expected to *know* the cfjs surrounding a matter, it's not unreasonable for em to expect that tinkering around the edges of a crime might get em nabbed, even if the nabbing is on a technicality. > In any case, my action was to create a proposal > (with a very high AI), which by definition can only be implemented with > much support. I'd say it was nearly impossible for that action to ossify > the game. One thing that surprised me is that, so far, nobody's really said "it can NEVER be an attempt at ossification because I can read right in the rules that ossification would be blocked". In other words, we already *know* it's impossible unless the attempt would explicitly removes R1698 first, and that sort of impossibility hasn't been a defense. It would be interesting to see if that comes up more in your new cfjs. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: (indictment intent on @jaun for support/objections) resolving fingers for the forbidden
On 4/11/2022 10:40 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > No, it's not reasonable to expect new players to read through decades of > judgements. However, that doesn't eliminate the fact that the precedent > exists. Generally relevant precedents will be brought up by people aware > of them when needed. I mean, it *might* be reasonable for a new player to think "I'm putting in a high-powered proposal that claims to freeze agora, directly trying to loophole something that the rules explicitly say is a High Crime and shouldn't be done - maybe there's reasons I shouldn't do that." -G.
DIS: Re: (@secretsnail) Re: BUS: (@Referee) My first (noticed) crime
On 4/3/2022 7:55 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 9:04 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> >> On 4/1/2022 4:30 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: >>> I point a finger at myself for the crime of tardiness via failing to >>> publish the Registrar's monthly report last month, a missed monthly >> duty. I >>> request this be forgivable as I have published the report less than a day >>> late and it's only my second monthly report I've ever had to do. >>> -- >>> secretsnail >> >> I impose the CHoJ and levy the default 2-blot penalty on secretsnail for >> the above violation, but specify the violation as forgivable, with the >> following words: >> >> infamous, iron, investigator, imperative, indefatigable, illusionary. >> > > Below is a formal apology for the quoted crime I so foolishly committed. > > I am truly sorry for anyone who was relying on my punctuality. I intended > to be indefatigable in my duties, but I let the community down. My > procrastination on the Registrar's monthly report, and failure to publish > it last month, should never have occured. It was a genuine mistake, an > besmirching error, as I deeply wish to serve all Agorans promptly. It is an > error I will strive to never let happen again, by keeping better track of > all duties I must fulfill. > > I am ashamed of my behavior. As someone who values the rules and following > them, I have made myself laughable by breaking such a simple oath of duty. > Should anyone ridicule me for this transgression, they would be right in > doing so. As I am so infamous recently for my quick-pointing finger, my > crime is buffoonish as I knew well I should have been wary of potential > tardiness. The investigator has shown me mercy for this crime, for which I > am grateful, but I also feel as though I deserved the ruthless fury of an > iron fist, casting me down for my grave sin. > > I apologize for my tardiness. I wish I was better; I dream of a reality in > which I had not done this atrocious act, one where I am not regarded as > illusionary, rude, and selfish, yet that is what I deserve for my > negligence. The wrong I have done will not leave me, a permanent scar on my > heart that I will always feel. I beg everyone's forgiveness for my crime, > and hope I can atone with my actions in the future. It is imperative I > improve myself so as to never commit such a crime again, so I will endeavor > to do so. This passed without visible comment, so I wanted to say well done to secretsnail for an excellent, heartfelt, and (importantly) successful apology. -the Referee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
On 4/8/2022 12:52 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 19:45 +, nix via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 4/8/22 13:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Also, while timing scams are interesting gameplay, I don't think it's a >>> good idea to change the rules for the sole purpose of making them easier >>> to perform. In this specific situation, the timing element is likely to >>> be repealed soon anyway. >> >> Tangent to this topic: >> >> I feel like there's a recent push for these minmaxing/optimization tools >> (automation, acting on behalf, contracts) etc. The problem is that >> minmaxing/optimization is basically solving a puzzle. And once a puzzle >> is solved it's boring. This is what happened with Cards in Sets, they're >> solved now thanks to contracts. That was a fun exercise that took us a >> while of play. But that was a sub-game. If Agora as a whole becomes >> solve-able, it becomes boring. > > Huh? I don't think Cards are solved at all, and that's part of the > reason I find them interesting. We've solved the problem of forming > sets using cards from players who are active and willing to trade, but > there are lots of cards that players are unwilling to trade, or held by > inactive people, and making sets with those is much harder. I think the set-cashing part (so, like half the game) is nearly solved by the contracts - it's suppressed in-person dealing on discord noticeably, when a critical mass of players are just throwing things in a hopper, there are fewer opportunities to careful trading 1-by-1 (and the fun of guessing what a good deal is to different players etc). > The consequence is that our current economy has really interesting > liquidity issues, and in practice players have been known to form > suboptimal trades because they need products more quickly than they'd > get them by forming a set and distributing the resulting products > fairly. > Both are going on, and I agree the resource-spending side of it isn't solved, but I've noticed that the card trading has just slowly tilted more towards the contracts over time. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] No finger pointing on behalf
On 4/8/2022 11:05 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:54 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> I submit, but do not pend, the following proposal: >> >> Title: No finger pointing on behalf > > FWIW, I'd prefer to expand the set of actions-on-behalf rather than > shrinking it (e.g. allowing objections/support to be made on behalf). The Referee/Arbitor rules are written so that the accuser is not ever also the judge/jury; I think that it's reasonably important that this separation be maintained. Whether or not automation/contracts are "more fun" and should be increased for most gameplay in general (I'm generally opposed to that, but recognize it's a preference thing for game play), mixing justice with efficiency is concerning to me, at least a bit. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer wonders if they were a robot all along
On 4/1/2022 1:00 PM, Madrid via agora-business wrote: > I CfJ: An action by announcement can be performed by reasonable automated > means, like for example, via a bot that bridges between Discord and the > action-doer's own email. I'm confused at the for-example, because Discord <-> action-doer's email doesn't involve a public forum? We've been pretty accepting (like it's "trivially true") about automated systems that reach the public forum in general though - like a cron job sending an email works? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Referee) A sad Finger Point
ais523 wrote: > A side note: I can't think if a time at which Agora ever had a culture > of punishing minor/inconsequential offences. There have been times at > which players felt that it might be a good thing to increase the rate > at which crimes were punished, but even after voting in Rules > encouragement, lots of minor offences typically slipped by anyway. The Blot Wars and Rebellions of the late 1990s to about 2002. Context: In that system, there was nobody who had subjective sentencing authority. A 2-blot infraction was a 2-blot infraction, applied instantly upon the finger-point with no adjustments (other than CFJs on whether the facts were correct). So most players accumulated a few blots and shrugged. The counterbalance was the Rebellion mechanism - if enough people rebelled (which was a crime in and of itself) a rebellion could succeed which expunged the blots of all rebels. It was a lot of fun, and most importantly there wasn't a lot of hand-wringing for each blot, especially the most inconsequential ones. nix wrote: > If the issue is what is and isn't a punishable offense then secretsnail > followed the letter of the law. I don't think e intentionally violated > Agoran custom. If someone breaks social custom e's not familiar with, e > should be told about it, not chastised. And if the letter of the law > allows apparently egregious breakages of customs, then change the law. Exactly. I've been thinking about this a lot, and I'm not sure the current "system" (or "social understanding") is equitable at all. I find myself not taking each individual finger-point independently, and thinking "oh Aspen is a good officer but this other player has been slacking off lately" for the same crime. I try not to, but it's a small community and hard not to, and to me this is fairly close to arbitrary and/or favoritism and it makes me, as referee, uncomfortable. I'd rather it was much more mechanical with *any* leniency (forgiveness, 0-blot indictments) saved for the more extreme miscarriages. And if those mechanical decisions are wrong, there's the legislative solution. I'll likely not resolve these right away to give a little more room for thought. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] SLR Ratification
On 3/22/2022 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 3/22/2022 1:38 PM, Aspen via agora-business wrote: >> I submit the following proposal. I plan to pend it with a pendant >> before the next distribution. >> >> -Aspen >> --- >> Title: SLR Ratification >> Adoption index: 3.0 >> Author: Aspen >> Co-authors: >> >> >> Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 8th of February, 2022, >> available here [1]. >> >> [1] >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015653.html > > I am strongly against any ratification that doesn't fix the error we > ratified into the Town Fountain last time. > sorry - that was an instantaneous reaction, but if I care enough to fix it I'll submit a proposal sometime. crumbling walls are ok.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] SLR Ratification
On 3/22/2022 1:38 PM, Aspen via agora-business wrote: > I submit the following proposal. I plan to pend it with a pendant > before the next distribution. > > -Aspen > --- > Title: SLR Ratification > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aspen > Co-authors: > > > Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 8th of February, 2022, > available here [1]. > > [1] > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015653.html I am strongly against any ratification that doesn't fix the error we ratified into the Town Fountain last time.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8655-8656
On 3/20/2022 6:58 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 3/20/22 20:53, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Mon, 2022-03-21 at 01:48 +, nix via agora-business wrote: >>> On 3/20/22 05:03, Aspen via agora-official wrote: ID Author(s) AITitle --- 8655& Jason, nix 1.0 Restricted Petitions 8656& Jason 1.0 Mathematical de-notation >>> On both proposals I vote: FOR unless someone has voted unconditionally >>> against, in which case I unconditionally vote AGAINST. >> Is this a conditional vote, or a conditional action? >> >> If it's meant to be a conditional vote (and it looks like one), I don't >> think you can conditionally make an unconditional vote. >> >> -- >> ais523 >> > > It is intended to be a conditional vote. I see no reason it doesn't work > as such, but I agree the "unconditionally" part might not do anything. > Since "unconditionally AGAINST" is not a valid vote, and R2127 explicitly requires resolving to valid votes, the "unconditionally" may have the effect of turning it into a PRESENT. -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Scroll of Agora, Mar 2022
On 3/18/2022 6:24 PM, nix via agora-official wrote: > Twosday Badge [Feb 02 2022] surely thats [02 02 2022]?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV?] Apathy resolution
On 3/6/2022 5:31 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 3/6/22 20:28, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 7:13 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >>> If I send an email to your email address, but all of your devices are >>> offline for the 4 day period, is the email sent "to" you? >>> >> Yes, because the message will in all likelihood still be there after the 4 >> days, and can still be seen. Discord messages are more fragile, being >> potentially deletable and editable, so that may invalidate discord messages >> in general. The medium of the message is probably a factor in >> conspicuousness. >> -- >> secretsnail > > > There's nothing in the text to suggest that an ephemeral or editable > message can't be a message. And iirc ais523 previously said that an IRC > channel was previously accepted as a public forum. > > I also don't buy the argument that the medium itself determines > conspicuousness. Nobody has suggested that sending an apathy intent to > BAK invalidates it on conspicuousness grounds, even though the entire > point of doing that is that some players might not be paying attention > to it. > For me it isn't about conspicuousness but about the definition of "sent to all players". "send to" is not explicitly rules-defined and I think its very reasonable to use sensible metadata clues specific to forum/media type in the definition - e.g. the To: header in an email (BAK included), the @mention ping in discord, in real in-person life a witness to the fact that the recipient was in earshot and reasonably capable of paying attention, etc. -G.
DIS: Re: (@arbitor) finger-pointing
On 3/6/2022 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I point a finger at Aspen for violating Rule 2143 by failing to publish a > notary's report in the week of Feb 28 (that's second missed report in a > row I think - despite earlier conversation not personally pointing at > single missing weeks). Oops, obviously shenanigans there from the copy/paste.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Recusal of cuddlybanana from CFJ 3941, assigned to G.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 8:47 AM ais523 via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-02-24 at 08:21 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 7:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion
> > > Although this reasoning would solve a few problems if it worked, I'm
> > > not convinced it matches the language of the rule in question. "When
> > > the sun is up, a plant is an entity that photosynthesizes", to me,
> > > implies that all plants photosynthesize when the sun is up, rather than
> > > implying that all things that photosynthesize when the sun is up are
> > > plants. (That is, my reading of the sentence is identical to "When the
> > > sun is up, a plant is an entity and it photosynthesizes".) Your reading
> > > seems awkward to me because it's attempting to define something in the
> > > middle of a sentence, with the definition given at the start and end, a
> > > word order which is completely unnatural, whereas my reading has the
> > > part of the sentence before the comma modifying the part afterwards,
> > > and thus is much more natural.
> > >
> > > Is there any reason to favour your interpretation of the sentence over
> > > mine?
> >
> > Can't stick around for formal procedures (and sorry to duck and run -
> > this is interesting and I don't mind if it's Motioned further) but I
> > think if we make it "When exposed to light, a plant is an entity that
> > phtosynthesizes" it's pretty clear for my interpretation, because it's
> > the plant being subject to the verb "exposed", rather than an
> > independent state ("the sun").
>
> I disagree even with this example; I still interpret it as "When
> exposed to light, a plant is an entity and it photosynthesizes", rather
> than as a definition of 'plant' (although the sentence is now starting
> to strain the bounds of grammar in both interpretations – this
> interpretation seems dubious but the interpretation as a definition
> even more so). Even "A plant is an entity that photosynthesizes when
> exposed to light", I interpret as ambiguous, rather than clearly
> following your interpretation.
>
> For what it's worth, I think the problematic word here is "is" rather
> than "that". Even simplifying the sentence to "A plant is an entity",
> the same ambiguity still exists (are all plants entities, or are all
> entities (and only entities) plants?). There's probably an interesting
> discussion somewhere in here about "biased ambiguities" in which there
> are two technically correct ways to read a sentence in a rule, but one
> is more much more obvious/reasonable than the other – can the fact that
> the wording is "biased" towards one interpretation rather than the
> other override the rule 217 tests, or does the existence of any
> ambiguity at all cause us to apply them?
Very helpful - "is" is indeed the problem (isn't it always). I think
my judgement could be rephrased like this: The sentence "When the sun
is up, a plant is an entity with active photosynthesis" is
ungrammatical no matter how you slice it, so it needs
judicial/interpretive "correction". This is different than the
situation of eg. CFJ 3575, where a misplaced comma created a single
clear alternate (though wholly unintended) reading. If a student
handed in an essay with that sentence, I would, with only a moment's
thought, correct it to "A plant is an entity with active
photosynthesis when the sun is up" (matching my current judgement)
wholly based on grammar not context, and not think for a moment of any
other reading. The question is whether that is just my personal bias
for the correction, whether I'm letting context/desired outcome guide
me too much in that, and even if it is my bias, whether this
correction is generally reasonable versus other candidate readings -
noting of course that if it's a truly split reading and there's no
strong single candidate for "most reasonable", the judge's job is to
make the choice.
