Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Ian Kelly wrote: >other than to annoy the CotC. If e got annoyed by this, wouldn't e be violating 698/15(b)(3) "don't panic"? >By the way, no need to bar me: I deregistered in December. Oops, missed that. It's been a rapid catch-up for me. Now to find out why no one's sure whether Goethe is a Player... -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
I wrote: >why no one's sure whether Goethe is a Player... Ah, found it. It's trivial: game custom is that where part of a Rule makes no sense then the remainder of it is applied as far as possible. The CotC's posting of the Writ deregisters the Player, and the "instructing the Registrar" bit is null. Thus Goethe is not a Player. If the Rules were written in an Eka-Platonist style there'd be none of this argument, Goethe would just be deregistered and that would be that. It's this Pragmatic court system you've acquired that's causing all the fuss. You're running into Platonist situations anyway, but the Pragmatic legislation can't handle it. I always said General Chaos's drafting sucked, but no one listened. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Kerim Aydin wrote: >But what about the utility of calling a CFJ with only one eligible >judge (of the caller's choosing)? I agree, nice one, Zefram! Heh. What I like is that there's a procedure to unlink the CFJs, which would resolve the problem, but you can't do it until a Judge has been assigned. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Kerim Aydin wrote: > The paradox arose because ... >our judgments so they deferred to each other, thereby invalidating >themselves as judgments (circularly). That works regardless of the >validity of the original argument In a Platonist system this wouldn't be a problem. In the Platonist model, Judgements don't actually change the state of anything, they're just meant to point out what the state actually is. A contradiction of Judgements isn't a problem then: one of the purported Judgements is wrong and the other right, neither changes anything, and the game goes merrily on. Judges have power to affect things only in a Pragmatic system, which is what lands you in this mess. Now you have two Judgements claiming to actually change the game state, and you can't tell which one does. >ps. if you like the new rule 101, want to try to gut the judicial >system... Ooh, yes please. Looks like the judicial system makes up a good half or so of the current ruleset. I came to the tentative conclusion that you'd decided to centre the whole game on legal process for the time being. What started the Great Repeals anyway? They've been monstrously more successful than any of the Chromatic Repeals ever were. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Ed Murphy wrote: >YAFI, YGI. What does that expand to? > The Clerk of the Courts may, without objection, unlink one or > more of the linked CFJs from the others by announcement. If e > unlinks more than one as a set, then those CFJs remain linked > to each other. There are interacting time limits here. Taking an action Without Objection takes at least four days, and the Judge has to be assigned within a week. What if the CotC is away for three days? "Without Objection" and "Linked CFJs" should be capitalised. If the restriction on Barring passes -- it's the obvious fix -- then there's no need for preemptive unlinking. Unlinking is a matter to be decided on the content of the CFJs, so I think that's better left to a Judge rather than the CotC. -zefram
DIS: proto-proto: expiry of rules
I have a concept for real-life national law, which I think would work well in nomic too. The idea is that, based on the principle that no society can morally bind its successors, laws should not automatically last more than a generation. Thus every law should expire twenty years after enactment, unless extended by a positive legislative act. Extending a law for another twenty years would be a much simpler process than enacting it again from scratch, of course, provided that it's uncontroversial. So there wouldn't be any fuss about continuing the law against murder, but a law banning demonstrations in certain places would have a harder time of being extended for another generation. In Agora the effective generation length is much shorter, perhaps two years. I envision recording an expiry date for each Rule, which would be published in the Rulesets. Extension of the expiry date for a Rule would be by a vote resembling a Proposal, possibly actually a Proposal. Interested? If so, I'll draft a proto-Proposal. -zefram
DIS: proto: broaden annotations
Proto-proposal: --- Amend rule 789 "Orders to Annotate Rules" by replacing the paragraph that begins "The Judge of any CFJ" with: The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE or FALSE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question accordingly. If the CFJ was judged TRUE then the annotation shall be the Statement of the CFJ, and if the CFJ was judged FALSE then the annotation shall be the contrary of the Statement of the CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule. --- Rule annotations are one of the best ideas to come from the earlier period when I was a Player. I'd like to see them used more. It always seemed to me an unwarranted limitation that the Statement had to have been expressed in the same sense that the Judge ultimately agreed with; any positive decision on a CFJ should guide play. It is the decision, not the Statement per se, which guides play. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: votes on 4877-4892
Jonathan Fry wrote: >I thought voting power was set at the beginning of the week (so you >wouldn't have any votes on these proposals), but I can't seem to find >that in the ruleset any longer. Did that requirement go away? Looks like it. The phrase "voting limit" appears only in Rule 1950, which sets the defaults, and Rule 2126, which allows modifications by expenditure of VCs. Rule 106 says the eligible voters are "the active players", but I don't see anything that says when that's determined, so my interpretation is that eligibility should be determined at the time of voting. -zefram
Re: DIS: proto: broaden annotations
Ed Murphy wrote: >Expressing the contrary of a given statement is not always trivial, >unless you resort to the form "The statement 'foo bar' is false". I think it is sufficiently simple, generally a matter of inserting the word "not". >require the rule to be annotated with the Statement and Judgement. I think that would be confusing. I think the annotation should consist of the legal holding that is to be applied. Consider: potentially we could have annotations from other sources; it would be clearest to have all annotations expressed in the same form. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Red Tape Scam
Ed Murphy wrote: >Amend the rule titled "Fantasy Rule Changes" to have number 105, Please don't renumber Rules. It screws up the amendment numbers (though I see they're no longer formally defined). -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Arms
Grey Knight wrote: >The coat of arms of Agora is defined by the following blazon: Nice. I was just thinking about proposing a rule specifying symbols of the game. I noticed that the rule specifying that the name of the game is "Agora" has gone, and I thought it ought to come back. But if it does, then why not generalise the concept? In addition to a name I thought the rules could also specify a flag, an anthem, a motto, and so on. A coat of arms is a good one to have too. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Taral wrote: >It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no? Certainly not. Game custom has never supported definitions outliving their repeal. The meaning of the formerly-defined term reverts to whatever it would be if the definition had never existed. In this case, "Unanimity" has a meaning from ordinary English, which I believe now prevails, but that meaning has no numerical aspect. -zefram
Re: DIS: proto-proto: expiry of rules
Michael Norrish wrote: >How would the expiry date change in the rule was amended? With indivisible Rules as we have, I think any major change would want to extend the expiry date just as a new enactment would. Small amendments, however, such as a change of responsible officer due to repeal of an office, should not. Probably the way to handle it is that an amendment by default does not extend the expiry date, but the proposal doing the amendment has the option to explicitly extend it. Thanks for pointing out the issue. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity
Ian Kelly wrote: >Come to think of it, it's also more correct. A voting index of >aleph-null should properly only be used when infinitely many FOR votes >are placed, Not at all. The voting index is not inherently a cardinal. It is not a count of FOR votes, but (mostly) a ratio between two cardinals. Provided that there's at least one AGAINST vote, the VI is a rational number, and it can well take values such as 1/3 or 7/2. If there is fewer than one AGAINST vote counted then it is to be expected that the VI would exceed the number of FOR votes. (Imagine if it were possible to cast a half vote.) If there are no AGAINST votes at all then we have no choice but to leave the realm of rational numbers. Calling it "Unanimity" just obscures its true behaviour as a transfinite hyperreal. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Kerim Aydin wrote: >judge would be allowed to fall back on game custom and precedent, >i.e. use its old definition. Its old definition was not game custom, it was a Rule. The precedent of using that definition also does not apply, because a highly relevant aspect of the preceding situation has changed (i.e., the definition has been repealed). If you want to ressurect the old definition then reenact it. You can't ignore a repeal just because it's turned out to be inconvenient. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity
Ian Kelly wrote: > By your argument, aleph-null should >never be used for voting index, since aleph-null is not a hyperreal >(as far as I am aware -- my understanding is that an infinite >hyperreal is defined as the inverse of an infinitesimal hyperreal, >which is not how aleph-null is defined). Curious. I rather thought it was. Which infinite hyperreal do you suggest in its place? I must confess I have never formally studied nonstandard analysis. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity
Ian Kelly wrote: > And I'm not convinced that n/0 (I don't know whether >it has a name, let's call it h)is actually a hyperreal, It's not. It's undefined. That's why the Rule determining the voting index needs a special case for where there are no AGAINST votes. 0/0 is also undefined, which is why that's got a special case too. Strictly, what we want for the case of zero AGAINST votes and more than zero FOR votes is the limit of 1/n as n approaches zero from above. I think that's aleph-0, but I'm not 100% sure. This does seem to match your definition of an infinite hyperreal. Applying the same logic to the case of zero votes both ways, we could reasonably pick either the limit of n/n as n approaches zero, which is 1, or the limit of 0/n as n approaches zero, which is 0. The present Rule chooses the latter of these. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity
Michael Norrish wrote: >Life would be a lot simpler if we dispensed with ratios entirely, and >framed AIs in terms of differences. Interesting. I have a concept for quorum which might interact with that idea. There is a problem with the usual way quorum works, that there are situations where voting AGAINST a proposal actually makes it more likely to pass. (For example, if there have been four votes FOR and there is a quorum of five.) I'd like to avoid such perverse situations. So instead of requiring that a certain proportion of the electorate vote on a proposal for it to pass, there should be a requirement that a certain (smaller) proportion of the electorate vote in favour. This is in addition to the requirement that a certain proportion of those expressing an opinion vote in favour. For example, an ordinary proposal might require that at least 10% of the electorate and over 50% of those expressing an opinion vote in favour. A very significant proposal might then require 20% of the electorate and 75% of those expressing an opinion. Working with differences instead of ratios, my quorum replacement would require a proposal to get at least N more votes in favour than against, and at least M votes in favour absolutely. Both of these numbers could be selected as (modified) proportions of the size of the electorate. Another approach to the whole thing would be to express the voting result as the ratio of votes in favour to the total number of votes cast. The maximum voting index would then be 1 (i.e., 100%). We can translate VIs and Powers: 1 -> 50%, 2 -> 67%, 3 -> 75%, 4 -> 80%, Unanimity -> 100%. This still needs a special case for where there are no votes cast, but we don't need infinite numbers there. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Michael Slone wrote: >Zefram was a Fugitive from Justice for over nine years. That's funny, I don't recall having any Blots when I deregistered. Now that Blots and Stain are no longer defined by the Rules, do the references to them in Rule 1437 mean that they still exist with their previous semantics? -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: switch off the fountain
Benjamin Schultz wrote: >The Town Fountain was created through a scam. You'll have to repeal >it through another scam, if you want my vote. The scam is that only a simple majority is required, due to the bug in Rule 105. Actually I could set the AI of the repeal to 0.01 and then I wouldn't need anyone's vote but my own, but I think unilaterally repealing a trophy would be bad form. That's why when I realised a proposal could take effect with such a low AI I proposed a new trophy rule to take advantage of it. -zefram
Re: New quorum (Was DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity)
Kerim Aydin wrote: >This isn't a bug, it's a feature. What's the advantage? -zefram
Re: DIS: a sentence from rule 105
Michael Slone wrote: >The following sentence appears in rule 105: > >However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have > power greater than its own. > >This doesn't appear to affect Murphy's elegant scam, but it does imply >that Zefram's scam wouldn't work. I disagree. The quoted sentence is in the section that is concerned with modifying rules. Enactments are governed by section (a) which has no such restriction for the case where the proposal does not specify the power of the new rule. Game custom does not support taking sentences from rules out of context. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix proposal efficacy
Ed Murphy wrote: >Nope, Rule 955 prevents it: Ah, you're right. I missed that. -zefram
Re: DIS: a sentence from rule 105
Michael Slone wrote: >Where the rules are not silent, game custom is irrelevant. The rules are silent on whether sentences from them can be taken out of context and applied as rules in isolation. Ordinary English usage, game custom, and the best interests of the game are the controlling standards on that point, and they all say no. -zefram
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Unanimity issue
Michael Slone wrote: >You have not clearly identified anything except your intent to vote >AGAINST things. It seemed pretty clear to me. E unambiguously specified which things e was voting AGAINST. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Kerim Aydin wrote: >judge would be allowed to fall back on game custom and precedent, >i.e. use its old definition. I just noticed that Rule 1586 explicitly prohibits such a course of action: # If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that # they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all # its properties shall cease to exist. So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of Unanimity have ceased to exist. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Arms
Benjamin Schultz wrote: >I argued against the repeal of R1020. I lost. Taking a sentence from Rule 105: # If the title is not specified, the Rulekeepor may select any title e # sees fit. it appears that the title of the game, being no longer specified, is up to the Rulekeepor's discretion. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re; BUS: Proposal: Egregrious AI Modification Abuse
Kerim Aydin wrote: >Uh oh, when did the definition "Index = real number" disappear from >the Ruleset. Same time as Unanimity went, presumably. They were in the same Rule. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Kerim Aydin wrote: >And like it or not, your argument implies an ordering. Your >argument implies that Unanimity has an ordering E where E is less than >any positive rational number. No it does not. My argument is that Unanimity is unordered with respect to any real number. So "Unanimity is greater than 1" is false, and "Unanimity is not greater than 1" is also false. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Zefram wrote: >No it does not. My argument is that Unanimity is unordered with respect >to any real number. So "Unanimity is greater than 1" is false, and >"Unanimity is not greater than 1" is also false. Oops, thinko. "Unanimity is not greater than 1" is true, being the contrary of "Unanimity is greater than 1". "Unanimity is less than or equal to 1" is false. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Taral wrote: > Zefram is a Player. > >Repeal the Rule just created. I was wondering what would happen if we created and then repealed a rule along the lines of This Rule defines the Earth. The Earth is a planet approximately 40 Mm in circumference, orbiting the yellow dwarf star Sol at a distance of approximately 150 Gm. The Earth is inhabited by a species of intelligent bipeds. I think it would either create a legal fiction that the Earth (and humans) had vanished, or have no effect due to the Earth's independent physical existence. The concept of unanimity, that is of agreement without exception, has an independent existence, but its former numerical property does not. -zefram
Re: DIS: Dream
Cctoide wrote: >And on it was written, in black pen, >"Goethe's Repeals". Heh. Just shows that your subconsious was (or had been) thinking about Agora. My experience is that the subject of text in a dream can be pretty much anything that I've thought about, regardless of context. -zefram
DIS: Re: OFF: Judicial backlog
Ed Murphy wrote: >Players generally eligible to be Trial Judges: >Players currently ineligible to be Trial Judges: Why am I not in either list? -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion
Michael Norrish wrote: >I'd say it was clear that this "truth or falsity" refers to the >situation as the Rules see it. If the rules say "JFK was shot by an >invisible pink unicorn", and someone calls a CFJ stating that JFK was >shot by someone else, then it has to be judged false. In this case, the Rules don't say that -- it's only a proposal that says it. The Rules don't admit to any legal fictions, and actually it's not stated so unequivocally anyway. I think that, even glossing over whether an adopted Proposal is capable of having such lasting effect, this one isn't written to successfully construct a legal fiction. It actually says: |Upon the adoption of this proposal, Goethe is deemed to have been |deregistered due to Rule 1789 (Cantus Cygneus) as of the posting of |Murphy's message It does not say "Goethe was deregistered". It says e "is deemed to have been" deregistered, which clearly means that in some specific context e is to be treated as deregistered while tactily admitting that in general e was not in fact deregistered (or at least might not have been). As for what that specific context is, all it says is "Upon the adoption of this proposal". It says nothing about *after* the adoption of this proposal. It seems to say that Goethe was deregistered for the purposes of interpreting the rest of the proposal. The rest of the proposal actually makes no use of this explicitly counterfactual context, so I read the whole thing as a nullity. For Suber's sake, Players, if you're dead set on establishing a legal fiction then please at least draft it correctly. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Egregrious AI Modification Abuse
Benjamin Schultz wrote: >I consider the attempt to modify the AI to fail. There's nothing preventing it. There's no Rule restricting the range of values that an AI can take. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion
Michael Norrish wrote: >The Rules admit all sorts of legal fictions. The existence of units >of currency is a good example for a start. Not at all. Currencies are entities defined entirely by the Rules, and so the Rules determine what *factually* happens with those currencies. A legal fiction, on the other hand, is where there is some independent reality but the Rules state some facts that legally override the reality. >Come off it. Upon the adoption of this proposal, rule 101 is amended >to say something completely different, but *after* the adoption of >this proposal it goes back to the way it was? That's quite different. A proposal with that wording *factually* changes Rule 101, and the Rule won't change back because Rules don't change without a cause. A legal fiction applies within a particular context (which might be a period of time, or a piece of text, for example). Outside that context the legal fiction does not apply, and reality applies as usual. >Proposals change the game-state, and the state of the game clearly >includes the content of any legal fictions that may be in force. I disagree with the concept that the game state includes an arbitrary set of legal fictions that are not reflected in the present Rules. It's tantamount to having unwritten Rules. I maintain that legal fictions can only continue to apply so long as the Rules, or other competent instrument designated by the Rules, specifically require them. >Refer again to 1728: there it deems something be true. Ah yes, that is indeed a legal fiction. I was incorrect in saying that the Ruleset does not have any. I think the use of a legal fiction here is sloppy: the desired semantics can be achieved just as easily without it. But it's not a very troublesome fiction, because it only affects the operation of another part of the same Rule. There is no attempt to give the fiction a persistent effect. See the Wikipedia article [[legal fiction]] for a discussion of what constitutes one. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion
Michael Norrish wrote: >And I claim that a "deeming" event *factually* changes the set of >legal fictions that we have to respect. Deeming is not an event. It is the origin of a counterfactual context. >Sure. But if the scope of the fiction is the registration status of a >particular player, then that will have ramifications in our >game-state, and not elsewhere. You've got scopes and subjects the wrong way round here. Goethe's registration status is the subject of the alleged legal fiction. I claim that its scope is the Proposal that created it. The entire future course of the game does not seem like a valid scope for a legal fiction unless the Rules at the time require it. >Just as, to use one of the Wikipedia's >example, the doctrine of survival can insist that one person died >before another, which will have big effects on the state of the dead >people's estates. The scope of the legal fiction in that case is legal action relating to probate. In any other context, such as a newspaper report, the objective truth prevails. If the doctrine of survival were to be repealed then the truth would prevail in all subsequent legal action, even concerning deaths that occurred prior to the repeal, though the validity of legal actions completed while the doctrine was in effect would probably not be changed. > It is clear that the rules >support the notion of legal fictions, and that they exist. Therefore >they are part of our game-state. The Rules do not support an arbitrary set of legal fictions that are in effect in the game generally. They support certain narrow types of legal fiction that they specifically mention. >Sure it has persistent effect. If in ten years, I call a CFJ on the >question of whether or not someone posted an objection in the sense of >the relevant clause, after they had performed a retraction, then the >court will say that they did not. Only if the Rule creating that legal fiction still exists. If it has been repealed by that time (or amended to remove the fiction) then the CFJ must be judged according to the objective truth. > Moreover some action that is >supposed to occur without objection will have actually occurred. The action that occurred without objection was authorised by R1728 as it was at the time. The operation of R1728, and so the legality of that action, depended on the legal fiction that was in effect at that time. Whether that legal fiction remains in use later has no effect on the validity of the action. >As Murphy says, one might also see ratification as the creation of a >legal fiction. In that case, the language has it that we simply >assert that the game-state changes, but it seems pretty similar. That's entirely different. Here the Rules change the actual gamestate. They do not change the history, of who sent which message, nor do they deem the history to be other than what it really is. All they change is the state of entities that are defined purely by the Rules. >Registrar's report is ratifiable, and if it does not record a >particular registration, and we ratify it what happens to the >game-state then? A person's registration status is an entity defined solely by the Rules, and so the Rules are free to modify it arbitrarily. In this case, upon ratification the person simply ceases to be a Player. That's what really happens, not a fiction. The only awkward bit is the retroactivity. Immediately before the ratification e had been a Player under the Rules and gamestate that then prevailed. The ratification retroactively changes this, so that after the ratification e had not been a Player immediately before. The Rules used to explicitly allow for retroactive effect, and though that's gone we haven't legislated to the contrary either. I think a Proposal could effect a retroactive change to Rule-defined entities, such as a person's registration status. I think using retroactive changes is ugly, and it's certainly unnecessary in this case, so I'd rather we didn't. It's still preferable to a legal fiction, though. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: "Deem" deemed harmful
Taral wrote: >This is a perfectly reasonable use of "deem". I find it difficult to imagine a reasonable use of "deem". We should avoid legal fictions as far as possible. >I read "deemed" like "defined" here. Let's write it like "defined" too, then. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion
Michael Norrish wrote: >Good. I feel that Zefram is objecting to the latter (but perhaps I am >mis-representing him, in which case I apologise), I'm not objecting to the latter. Actually I do have an objection to retroactive effects, which is what that one is, but that's a much smaller objection than the one at issue here. I'm objecting to legal fictions, and particularly to legal fictions that are not supported by the Rules that are in effect at the time. >However, the 105/106 combination doesn't specify that accumulated >(judicial) decisions as to how rules should be interpreted can not be >changed by proposal. Again, I make the claim that these decisions are >clearly part of the game-state The decisions don't change what the rules actually require. >I agree that it's aesthetically ugly, but I think the real problem >lies in 106 and the use of the phrase "gamestate", which is nowhere >defined, and which with a common-sense interpretation encompasses far >too much. I'd like to see a much narrower version of ratification, which has not retroactivity and no hint of legal fiction. We can, for example, ratify registration status by having a Rule that allows all registration statuses to be set at the time of ratification to whatever was reported. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion
Michael Norrish wrote: >I deem something. What just happened? An event of deeming. The only way I can interpret that as an event: you took some action in the course of which you deemed something. But since you didn't make any use of whatever you deemed to actually *do* anything, it was a null action. Nothing changed. You seem to be thinking that deeming something is akin to changing something. Deeming does not in itself have any persistent effect. It only has effect indirectly, via events that took place under the influence of the fiction. >I think that rather the rules explicitly support an arbitrary set of >legal decisions, which accumulate until deemed invalid. Past CFJs do not have the status of Rules. They are meant to guide play, but they cannot overrule a Rule if they conflict with one. I maintain that CFJ decisions cannot create legal fictions. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial motion
Kerim Aydin wrote: > This would be more interesting if it deemed something >with game effect. I don't think bananas are allowed to become Players. But really I'm just hoping to CFJ on "Goethe is a banana". And see whether Michael thinks you've changed species. -zefram
DIS: Re: OFF: Judicial Assignments
Grey Knight wrote: >It not being possible to assign a judge for the linked CFJ [1600-1604], >I issue a Notice of Rotation. All turned players are now unturned. So you agree with the argument of those CFJs, that it is impossible to assign any current player to them. It's a pity that Rule 1871 is written so Pragmatically: we could have created a lovely paradox by making your Rotations and CFJ assignments Schrodinger-illegal. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC, on behalf of] CFJ 1606 assigned to Quazie
Quazie wrote: >Interestingly if i judge this as true, then it could never have been called >and I never could have judged it, as (unless i'm mistaken) deregistred >players cant CFJ. You are mistaken. Any person can Call for Judgement. This is well established. -zefram
DIS: Re: OFF: Corrections and dismissals
Some questions on dismissal: is dismissing a CFJ the same thing as delivering a Judgement of DISMISSED? Is the CotC capable of dismissing CFJs even where not explicitly permitted by Rule 2024? -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Timing Order for CotC GreyKnight
Michael Slone wrote: >I vacate the above quoted Timing Order. It's already been satisfied, so vacating it doesn't have any effect. Mine's been satisfied too. Yours was satisfied by the assignment of Sherlock, and mine by the assignment of Manu. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Corrections and dismissals
Grey Knight wrote: >However, the situation here is the reverse of that described in R1871; >it talks about "selecting a Player to Judge a CFJ or Appeal who is not >eligible to judge that CFJ or Appeal solely because e is turned", >whereas here the Player in question *was* eligible, and what is more my >mistaken criterion for declaring Manu ineligible was because of being >"on hold" rather than being turned. AIUI, Sherlock was ineligible because e was Turned, you having failed to unturn em. That would be the case if a Notice of Rotation is invalid when not required. -zefram
Re: DIS: A bit of heresy...
Jonathan Fry wrote: >The rules are overwritten and overlong, the process convoluted and the >results often questionable or worse. I was just thinking that it really needs a reworking. Today's events have probed an awful lot of ill-defined situations. I was pretty unhappy about this legal system when it was introduced. Kelly's drafting was in vogue back then. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Corrections and dismissals
Michael Slone wrote: >Dismissal by the Clerk of the Courts is not a judgement. To answer >your second question, since rule 2024 states that the CotC may dismiss >a Call for Judgement if certain conditions are satisfied, then by rule >2125, dismissal is a regulated action, so by rule 101 the CotC has >no right to perform it unless authorized to do so. Ah, I missed that bit. That resolves my Rotation question too. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Corrections and dismissals
Michael Slone wrote: > dismissal is a regulated action, so by rule 101 the CotC has >no right to perform it unless authorized to do so. Hang on, Rule 101 doesn't say that. It is silent on the issue. The Rules are silent on the issue of whether regulated actions are possible when not explicitly prohibited. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC, on behalf of] CFJ 1612 called by Zefram
Michael Slone wrote: > But nothing >in rule 1871 requires a Notice of Rotation to be valid in order to be >ineffective. So this ought to be judged TRUE. Presumably you intended "effective" there. In this case, the assignment of Manu to CFJ 1609 was invalid, as Sherlock was fully eligible when e was ostensibly assigned and so e remains assigned. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Corrections and dismissals
Michael Slone wrote: >Of course they're *possible*. Are explicitly-prohibited actions also possible? -zefram
Re: DIS: A bit of heresy...
Michael Slone wrote: >Kelly's drafting is about the best I've ever seen (but I only started >watching in 1998), but it tends to be hard to amend parts of her >legislation without introducing subtle errors. My recollection is that it tends to have plenty of subtle errors to start with. And I consider the baroque complexity to be a bad thing. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation
Ed Murphy wrote: > The Clerk of the Courts may (without 2 objections) turn a player > e expects to judge CFJs slowly or not at all. What's this supposed to mean? Sounds like a barbecuing procedure. > When the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Notice of Rotation, all > players become unturned. The Clerk of the Courts shall only do Please explicate whether a Notice of Rotation is effective when published illegally. > so when all open CFJs without a Trial Judge have no players > eligible to be assigned, and at least one of them has at least > one player ineligible solely to being turned; e shall list all > CFJs in the first set, and at least one in the second. Listing all outstanding CFJs is a tricky requirement. I see why you want to require it, though. How about "at least one open CFJ without a Trial Judge assigned and no players eligible to be assigned has at least one player ineligible due solely to being turned, and all CFJs that were called earlier than this CFJ either have a Trial Judge assigned or have no players eligible to be assigned"? Also, the "without a Trial Judge" bit makes a presumption about court procedure that won't necessarily hold. Dismissed CFJs, for example, may have no Trial Judge and not be due to get one. I suggest that you replace "without a Trial Judge" with "with a Trial Judge assignment pending". > selection stands. However, if the player has not yet delivered > judgement, then the Clerk of the Courts may point out eir error > and recuse the player. I'd rather we just make the assignment stand, without the option to reassign. Also, possibly a better way to draft the whole thing: since it is possible to assign a turned player, e's not really ineligible. Perhaps the whole Rule should be recast that way, so that being turned doesn't make a player ineligible but does make it illegal (although possible) to assign em. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No Silly Orders
Grey Knight wrote: >not to perform, is considered an invalid order. I would vote FOR that if it were not for the "considered" bit. This should be just plain "is invalid". -zefram
Re: DIS: A bit of heresy...
Jonathan Fry wrote: >Well, let's look at what's happening with my recent ruling regarding >the Cantus Cygnaeus CFJ. No one complained about my judgment or argument >at the time. Now it's probably going to be appealed and overturned not >on the basis of the facts, but so that you can remain a player. I appealed your judgement on the grounds that I think it's wrong. -zefram
Re: DIS: A bit of heresy...
Kerim Aydin wrote: >Zefram do you want to take a lead? Yes, I really ought to. It's a big target, though, so it'll take a while. Especially with needing to preserve continuity. -zefram
Re: DIS: A bit of heresy...
Kerim Aydin wrote: >I dunno if "orders" where Kelly's drafting (looks >like General Chaos proposed them). That is Kelly's work. Kelly == General Chaos. >3. "What would the features list be... hmm... stays, vacation, > appealability, applying to each other...hmmm." Orders have the form that they do in order to fit the procedurally- defined CFJ system, not out of any inherent need. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...
Kerim Aydin wrote: >I deem myself to not be a banana, Michael, in your theory of an arbitrary set of legal fictions that are part of the game state, does Goethe's deeming here have any effect on it? If I deem Rule 101 to have a different text from what it actually has, does that affect the game? -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation
Ed Murphy wrote: >>What's this supposed to mean? Sounds like a barbecuing procedure. > >"cause a player to become turned", then. It's the whole thing that I have a problem with, not the verb "turn". I really can't make head or tail of it. What's it for? >>Listing all outstanding CFJs is a tricky requirement. > >Not if the database is up to date, A new CFJ can always be called while the Notice is being prepared or in transit. > "CFJ 1607 is assigned to Quazie. > This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600. > CFJ 1608 is assigned to Quazie. > This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600. > CFJ 1609 is assigned to Quazie." Hmm. In that case we'd want to require a Judge to be assigned to CFJ 1600 before any others. Perhaps that should be part of a Notice of Rotation: a newly unturned Player must be assigned to the cited CFJ. That would enormously reduce the scope for abuse. Another way to express it: assigning a turned player has the side effect of unturning everyone else. That could even be made implicit. >Allowing reassignment when an error is caught quickly leads to greater >adherence to the spirit of Turns for All. I think the situation is rare enough, and by its nature confusing enough, that the risk of further confusion is greater than the benefit of more accurate TfA. We are only talking about *unintentional* TfA violation, remember. >I suppose we could - Notices of Rotation would depend on a CFJ for which >all eligible judges are turned - but I don't think it's any better. I think it's better in that it makes it clearer that assignments to turned players are valid. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation
Ed Murphy wrote: >Shortly after you last deregistered, we repealed the requirement for ... I understand the purpose of the Rule as a whole. What's the "turn slowly or not at all" bit about? I don't follow that sentence. >>Another way to express it: assigning a turned player has the side effect >>of unturning everyone else. That could even be made implicit. > >I have a bad feeling that that would eventually lead to some sort of >Platonic mess. There's the potential for us to lose track of who is genuinely turned, but the "good faith" clause means that that doesn't invalidate any assignments. We could add an "unturn everyone Without Objection" clause so that unknown turn status can be recovered. No mess, and less mechanism. Platonism to a pragmatic (small "p") end. -zefram
DIS: proto: Timing without Orders
Proto-proposal "Timing without Orders":
---
Amend Rule 1006 ("Offices") by deleting the paragraph that starts "If
an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order".
Amend Rule 1794 ("Classes of Orders") by deleting item (d).
Create a rule titled "Default Timing" in the category "Definitions"
with the text:
Where the Rules oblige a person to perform some action but do
not otherwise specify a time limit by which the action must be
performed, the action must be performed as soon as possible
after the first instant when both the person was obliged to
perform that action and the action was logically possible.
---
Rationale:
Timing Orders as they are currently are a mechanism to compel official
actions to be performed, if anyone cares about making sure they get done.
I think we don't need the extra step of a manually-executed Order.
If the time limit for an action is automatically set then a tardy player
is still only punished if someone cares enough to CFJ about it.
The text is written in terms of obligations of a particular person.
This handles the case of an office changing hands without all the awkward
and brittle wording in the Order rules. If an office changes hands then
it is only at that moment that the new holder becomes obliged to perform
outstanding official actions, so under this rule e has ASAP from that
moment to perform them.
The current rule about performing official duties on behalf of a tardy
officer seems unnecessary. We can always replace an unsatisfactory
officer by Agoran Consent.
-zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation
Ed Murphy wrote: >"slowly or not at all" refers to the player's judging, Ah. I think it'd be a lot clearer if the rationale "e expects ... at all" were omitted. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...
Kerim Aydin wrote: >As long as it's unregulated, Rule 101 grants me, as a person, the >privilege of doing what I wilt. We used to have a Rule about this, "Nomic Entities May Not Be Changed Arbitrarily" or something like that. And the fact of not having decided this issue yet was one of the main features leaving Rishonomic open to invasion in the Risho-Agora war. It seems embarrassing to now be suffering from this problem on our own territory. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: Pineapple CFJ
Quazie wrote: > without any photo >evidence that e doesn't wear pineapple suits at all time, http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/personal/pics/ -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: Pineapple CFJ
Quazie wrote: >I ment while playing Agora, and none of those pictures inform me of how you >look while playing agora. Admittedly most of those pictures are from the period between my 1997 deregistration and my recent re-registration. But in the final one, with the diminutive infant Robin, I'm a registered Player. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Makes a nice salad with mango
Kerim Aydin wrote: >I, for one, never implied that pineapple-ness, etc. was exclusive >of being a person. However, in the message quoted below, Zefram implies >(by switching back to being a human) that e believed that, in deeming >emself to be an avocado, e was deeming emself to not be a person. I never said anything at all about personhood. >E also implied, by quoting a message about agreements, that e was >doing so as a binding agreement. I did not perceive there to be any such agreement. I took actions purely of my own will. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Makes a nice salad with mango
Kerim Aydin wrote: >The person != human is also an open question, debated but never >resolved. Yes. CFJ 805 touched on this, but may no longer be relevant since Rule 754 could be interpreted as importing the legal definition of "person". You raised some other interesting issues too. >Another argument in your favor is that allowing you to sign >away your rights to personhood severely abridges your rights >as a person... or does it? Rule 101 doesn't explicitly say whether these rights are inalienable. But if they were alienable and a person signed them away then ey'd no longer have them, contradicting R101. So I think R101 has to be interpreted such that the rights are inalienable from a person who remains a person. R101 takes precedence over R754, so would not necessarily be tainted by the legal definition of "person" even if the rest of the Ruleset is. R101 does not appear to say anything about transitions from and to personhood. However, I think any legal fiction that a person is not a person which were to be established by a lower-power Rule could not influence the interpretation of R101. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Orange you glad I didn't...
Kerim Aydin wrote: >Conditions under which patent titles may or must be "awarded" are >listed, but no where does it say that it is done by announcement. Patent titles are awarded by Rules or Proposals, not by Players. No announcement is involved. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4904-4909
Michael Slone wrote: >The format of whitespace in rules is up to the Rulekeepor, so this >shouldn't end up making a difference. I'm more concerned that the loss of indentation might be interpreted as breaking the block quote nature of the new rule text. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pineapple
Michael Slone wrote: >Where is your argument for the claim that the Pineapple >Partnership is actually a partnership? The agreement creating the Pineapple Partnership contains all the legal elements to construct a partnership. Principally, it is an entity distinct from the partners, obligations on the Partnership become obligations on the partners, and this is all legally binding (via the contract). Unlike incorporation, partnership is quite a lightweight concept. It comes naturally out of contract law. In Rule 1742, Agora has established a contract law. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pineapple
Michael Slone wrote: >According to the Partnership Act 1958, Pt 2 Div. 1 s. 5 (1): That's only the Australian law on the matter. Not applicable here. Many legal jurisdictions have their own set of regulations about partnerships. (E.g., here in the UK partnerships cannot have more than 20 partners, with a few exceptions for specific types of partnership.) Agora's contract law does not contain those restrictions, but does have a peculiarly Agoran restriction that only players (rather than all persons) can enter into contracts. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Decision in CFJ 1614: DISMISS
Benjamin Schultz wrote: >I DISMISS CFJ 1614. The status of Zefram being an avocado -- indeed, >of any player being any type of foodstuff -- is not relevant to the >Rules. This judgement is a judicial admission that personhood is not restricted to members of Homo sapiens, but extends at least as far as Persea americana. Taking the obiter dictum "any type of foodstuff" at face value suggests that natural personhood is available to (but not necessarily automatic for) all members of the kingdoms Plantae, Fungi, Animalia, and possibly Protista. While this is good for the principle of non-discrimination, it is disappointing that it preemptively resolves the question of whether Goethe can remain a player after having been rendered legally a banana by one interpretation of proposal 4904, and thus renders 4904 ineffective in determining the behaviour of legal fictions. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pineapple
Michael Slone wrote: >If Austrian law does not apply to Agora, then how do you explain the Map? The Map is part of Agoran law, and clearly not part of either Australian or Austrian law. The Map does not purport to incorporate any outside source of law into Agora. What connection are you trying to make? -zefram
Re: DIS: Try 2 on firming up proposal AIs
Benjamin Schultz wrote: >The adoption index of a proposal is a positive rational number with one >decimal place precision Better phrasing: "The adoption index of a proposal is a multiple of 0.1, with a default and minimum value of 1.0." -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dear, damn'd distracting town, farewell!
Ed Murphy wrote: >Well, crap. Would anyone else (preferably already familiar with CVS) >like to be Rulekeepor? I'm up for it. I'm very familiar with CVS, but actually I'd like to develop a more suitable database for the ruleset, like what Chuck operated. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not-Election for Rulekeepor
Levi Stephen wrote: > From the rules it looked to me as if the >rulekeepor role was fairly simple: Publish the ruleset, update as >proposals were accepted. But, I must have missed something there. That's essentially the rulekeepor job. The subtlety is that it has to be done with the utmost precision. Proposals don't necessarily do what at first glance they appear to. >To those considering a database I'd ask you not to under estimate what >CVS and some text processing scripts can do Quite so. I favour this kind of system myself. I envision a system where the ultimate repository of rule data is a plain text file (which I would maintain under CVS), and all other formats (such as the logical rulesets, and web-based browsing) are automatically derived from that. -zefram
DIS: updated ruleset
I've posted the updated FLR to agora-official, but it's held for moderator approval due to size. In the interim, the new version can be retrieved from http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/tmp/full-ruleset This URL won't remain valid indefinitely. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Clarify actions
Generally I think this proto is a good idea. Just a couple of nits: Michael Slone wrote: > Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the > time date-stampted on that message. Better to say "... at the time the message is sent". Email messages get more than one datestamp, and any of them can easily be inaccurate. > Agoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at > midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT on > the first day of each Gregorian month. Would be better to say "UTC" instead of "GMT". "GMT" is a poorly defined term, and what is usually used in practice under that name is actually UTC. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903
Benjamin Schultz wrote: >Amendment numbers were repealed? That must have snuck by us. Should >we bring it back? I don't think there's any need for them to be defined in the rules. The rules never *did* anything with them. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903
Kerim Aydin wrote: > I would disagree >with Zefram's choice, and follow the old regulation governing >amendments, As I noted, that too would result in a clash. The old definition was "the number of times that a rule with that number has been amended". Repealing a rule and then creating a new one with the same number doesn't involve any amendment, so the process ends with the same amendment number that it started with. > Not the least of which, it screws up the >searchable rules database I'm about 95% finished with. I reckon it's the renumbering that does that. I suggest that any historical database of the rules be keyed on the rules' *original* number, rather than current number. There is no duplication or change there. Proto-proto: renumber 105 back to its original 2131, so that all current rules have their original number; add a precedence clause to 2131 to restore the high precedence that the number 105 gave it; enact a Power=4 rule that defines the concept of a rule, and in particular says that rule numbers cannot change. -zefram
DIS: proto: fix R105's number
Proto: give the "Rule Changes" rule its own number back --- Create a rule with Power=4, title "Fix number of Rule Changes", and text Immediately upon the creation of this rule, rule 105 is amended by appending the sentence "This rule takes precedence over all other rules." to its final paragraph. Immediately after a rule has been amended by the preceding paragraph, rule 105's number is changed to 2131. Immediately after a rule has been renumbered by the preceding paragraph, this rule is repealed. --- This restores the original number of the present "Rule Changes" rule. This means that every rule will have its own number, a number never used by any other rule. That will avoid confusion in databases and the like. There are some other rules that do not currently bear their original number, such as rule 1006, but their numbers are nevertheless unique to them. It doesn't seem necessary, or indeed wise, to change those long-standing numbers. The precedence clause being added to the "Rule Changes" rule gives it essentially the same precedence that its low number gave it. I presume that's why P4894 renumbered it in the first place. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts -> rules
Michael Slone wrote: >How are Agoran Contracts indistinguishable from rules? The essential features of both are that they bind all players and can only be created and amended by proposals. Anything that can be done with an Agoran Contract can be done equivalently with a rule. >In any case, this repeal is going in the wrong direction. Instead of >making more contracts into rules, we should be outsourcing more of the >ruleset into contracts, That's OK for agreements between subsets of players, but I disagree for anything meant to bind all players. I think we should have all such universal agreements collected in one place, and all subject to the same mechanisms, because they have the same needs. We have better mechanisms for rules than for Agoran Contracts: CFJ annotations, history annotations, identity numbering, and so on. To get Agoran Contracts up to the same standard you'd have to duplicate all the mechanisms that exist for rules, and then we'd have two parallel mechanisms doing the same thing. I also note that R1503 already says that the rules are a binding agreement between players. If you want to replace rules with contracts, well, it's already done. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts -> rules
Kerim Aydin wrote: >In the current ruleset it looks redundant. It's there for whenever >we play "subgames", e.g. have money, land, points and scoring rules, If a "subgame" automatically involves all players then I reckon that's not very "sub". Subgames in which participation is optional can be dealt with by contracts, of course. As for the specific current use, the sole existing Agoran Contract doesn't look anything like a subgame. Even if Agoran Contracts are to be retained for subgames, I think the Envoy should be governed by an ordinary rule. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts -> rules
Kerim Aydin wrote: >http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2005-June/002262.html > >In particular Rule 2067, 2071, 2076, and 2077, 2079, and 2084. Look fine to me in the ruleset. And since it interacts with other rule-defined things, rather than being sealed off from the rest of the game, I think the ruleset is very much where it belongs. But if you really wanted to banish some rule-force legislation to a separate document, I think it would be better to do it via a rule in the main ruleset that references the specific document (and says how it may be modified). That way at least the main ruleset would give some hint as to the subject matter covered by the pseudo-rules. >Admit it, as new Rulekeepor you're just trying to centralize and >consolidate your power :). Meh. Being new Rulekeepor has motivated me to study the ruleset more closely, and it's in my nature to immediately try to fix the flaws in it that are easily fixed. Hence the bits of recategorisation, and the proposed repeals of obsolete rules, and I'm also updating the unofficial annotations. I classed Agoran Contracts as an easily-fixed problem. I really think that all the regulations that bind all players should be readily apparent, preferably all in a single document categorised by subject matter. That document is the FLR. Related issue: I think the Stare Decisis document is difficult to use. When the principle of stare decisis was enacted (I was there), no real thought went into how to manage it. Now the bare list of CFJs is long and unwieldy. I'd like to turn the whole thing into a set of annotations on the rules, which of course would appear in the LR and so be findable by subject. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903
Kerim Aydin wrote: >Remember that at the instant the new 105 was created, >"amending" had no definition in the ruleset (having been repealed the >instant before) Not true. The new 105 was created (as 2131) under the auspices of the old 105. When the new 105 was modified, that was under its own auspices, which said "A proposal ... can ... modify the ... text of a rule." much as the old one did. (Neither actually uses the word "amend": they say "modify" instead.) Continuity of definition was maintained throughout. >Remember the command was all one "amendment": Actually, I interpreted all versions of the "Rule Changes" rules as only permitting one of the aspects of a rule (power, title, text, or (under 2131/0) number) to change as a single rule change. Therefore I interpreted that part of the proposal as a sequence of four rule changes. This is consistent with the previous interpretation of rule 105, as revealed by the historical annotations to the rules. >I'd suggest the following record for R105: > >History: >Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993 That would not be true. Initial Immutable Rule 105 has been repealed; it is no longer a rule. The present Rule 105 was created on 2007-02-12 by Proposal 4894. >presevering the history of R105 in the full Ruleset, I'd hate for >that history going back to an initial rule to be lost. That's a matter for historical record. Chuck used to maintain a Historical Ruleset, which recorded repealed rules and (I think) superseded versions of rules. That kind of document, which it might be good to compile once more, is the place for the history of Initial Immutable Rule 105. >I'm concerned with linking whatever is the "current" ruleset to >its history. From that perspective, the "history" of R105 is a >line back to its original, broken by a scam. This follows the >substantive history of that rule even through its instantaneous >repeal. The historical annotations have never reflected the motion of text from one rule to another, which has happened many times. >is precedence for this... note in the history above it was already >renumbered once! The R1295 renumberings are a very different matter. Early on, any amendment to a rule changed its number to the number of the amending proposal. After the rules were changed so that rules retained their number across amendment, R1295 renumbered several rules back to numbers they had previously had. This did not cause any rule to acquire a number previously used by a different rule, which is what's going on here. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903
Ed Murphy wrote: >Proto: Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Rulekeepor shall >annotate Rule 105 with . I maintain that an explicitly historical document is the place for that. There are a great many rules that I recall playing under that have now been repealed, and I feel a sense of loss in no longer having their histories in the present ruleset. I think this is similar to what you describe for this single rule. I think a general approach is called for. I'm happy to do some work to recover our history. I suggest that I compile a record of the history annotations of all repealed rules, and combine it with the annotations of the present rules to construct a history of the entire ruleset. Maintaining this fuller history can then be codified as a part of the Rulekeepor's job. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: reorientation
Ed Murphy wrote: >But the concept (whether a player is turned or unturned) does still >exist, so the paragraph should be amended to refer to it properly. Ah, I didn't realise that that was what it was about. -zefram
Re: DIS: Idea, to be protoed
Quazie wrote: >Thus i could set a precedent of voting AGAINST any proposal that >removes a rule. The votes placed by a precedent would be placed immediately >upon the distribution of a proposal. Sounds like it'd be awkward to administer. Not least because the conditions you'd be likely to set would often be woollier and more difficult to judge than the conditions presently used for conditional voting. The vote collector job hasn't been reliably done in recent times as it is. Let's not make it any more difficult. Perhaps precedent voting would be more feasible if we had an official Assessor once more, rather than lumbering the Speaker with the task. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts -> rules
Kerim Aydin wrote: >The database I'm working on in "FLR" format Ah, cool. Please show me (privately) a sample of your data. I'd like to see how to fit it together with what I'm doing. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903
Kerim Aydin wrote: >It suddenly occurs to me that this unique precedent gives us two >entities with the same name and/or nickname by R1586 (self- >reference alert: is a Rule a Rules-defined entity?) Interesting. The rules do regulate some aspects of rules, but don't outright define them. There's an argument there that there's a partially-implicit definition. The two R105s did not both exist at the same time, so that's not actually a clash. I'm doubtful about rule numbers qualifying as names. The closest thing a rule has to a name is its title, but we tend to use the number more often to identify them. On the whole I'd say that our rules don't have names or nicknames; the invocation "Rule 105" is a description rather than a name. >We must therefore assume that R1586 demands a unique way to >distinguish the "old" 105 and the "new" 105. That's a big stretch. I don't think R1586 will go that far. We can, of course, easily refer to "the Rule 105 that was created in 1993" and "the Rule 105 that was created in 2007", or other such descriptions. >interpretation may be that 105 be given an "amendement number" >unique from past ones. I certainly don't think you can derive that from the rules. -zefram
Re: DIS: BUS: judicial activity overdue
Kerim Aydin wrote: >Can you point me to these motions? -Goethe |Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: Corrections and dismissals |Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:07:37 + |... |So let's try out another loophole: I hereby submit a Motion on CFJ 1610 |to Judge it FALSE. I also hereby submit a Motion on CFJ 1612 to issue |an Order of Annotation. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: VC raffle
Ed Murphy wrote: > As soon as possible after announcing the results of an Agoran > decision, Why all Agoran decisions, rather than just proposals? -zefram
DIS: rule 104
Quazie wrote: >4920: AGAINST By the way, for a rule that's never been amended, rule 104 sure has changed quite a bit. I'm researching the historical progress of the ruleset, and so far I've got six versions of it, and there are at least two more to go from the dark ages of the game's early days. Admittedly the *text* of the rule hasn't changed, though. Here are the six versions I have, in chronological order: -- Rule 104 (Immutable) The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish. History: Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993 -- Rule 104/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) First Speaker The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish. History: Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995 -- Rule 104/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) First Speaker The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish. History: Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995 Originator: Peter Suber Author: Peter Suber -- Rule 104/0 (Power=3) First Speaker The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish. History: Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995 Originator: Peter Suber Author: Peter Suber -- Rule 104/0 (Power=3) First Speaker The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish. History: Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995 -- Rule 104/0 (Power=3) First Speaker The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish. [CFJ 1534: This does not mean that Michael Norrish necessarily fills the position of Speaker at the present time.] History: Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995 -- (My sources from which the above are distilled are: the initial ruleset which is on the Web in several places; my personal record of FLRs from my earlier tenure as a player; the FLR on Chuck's now-defunct website, as it was at four different times, via the Wayback Machine; and the RCS version that Michael maintained and I have so far continued. I have yet to research Vanyel's archives, which are also now defunct but have some presence in the Wayback Machine.) As you can imagine, the number of versions for rules that *have* been amended is somewhat larger. -zefram
DIS: collated rules history
Here's an early product of my historical research. I've collated all the history annotations from the rulesets that I've found, and resolved most of the many conflicts between them. The data behind this output includes rule text too, but I'm concentrating on the history logs to provide the framework on which to hang the text. http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/rules_history.txt This listing includes 17 rules for which I have not yet been able to resolve conflicts between multiple versions of the history. If anyone has mail logs that shed light on these situations, please let me know. In fact, if anyone has extensive mail logs preceding 2002-12 (the move to the present agoranomic.org mailing lists), or for the backup lists in any era, please let me know. As we've had lots of public archives disappear, I'd like to build up and host as full an archive as possible. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Motion bug: excess CFJs broken
Kerim Aydin wrote: >However, there is nothing to indicate that a "dismiss" by CotC due >to excess is in fact "judgement." The Stare Decisis list does not distinguish between CotC dismissal and dismissal by a trial judge. I'm not aware of any formal precedent one way or the other, though. My intent with the motions was to force assignment of judges regardless of what state the CFJs were in. I'm not at all clear on whether they've been legally judged. The dismissals are themselves of questionable legality. CFJ 1617 will determine whether these CFJs were excess or not. If they are not excess then arguably the CotC lacked the capacity to dismiss them. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Motion bug: excess CFJs broken
Kerim Aydin wrote: >(see CFJ 1575 for >a more far-fetched forcing that worked). Interesting. In reading through the judicial rules when I registered, I perceived considerable wooliness around such issues, so I'm not surprised by problems like that. >It is interesting to note that (I think) earlier versions of the >ruleset did not explicitly list DISMISS as a judgement, and in >fact there was a question on whether a DISMISSED case had been judged. The oldest CFJ rules have "UNDECIDED" or (later) "UNDECIDABLE" as legal judgements, up to 591/2. From 591/3 to 591/17 only "TRUE" and "FALSE" are legal judgements. "DISMISSED" appears only in the present 591/18. >perhaps you have a copy of R591/16 to see how it read? Yes: -- Rule 591/16 A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ. As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum. If a Judge delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the end of the assigned deliberation period, then the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out to the Judge the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication of eir Judgement. History: ... Amended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000 -- > I would say that it isn't, and plan on assigning judges >accordingly. I won't argue against that. -zefram
Re: DIS: collated rules history
Here's the current state of my historical rule text work: http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/rules_text.txt (Note the file is 2.9 MB in size.) This file is specifically concerned with the text of each rule, and does not indicate mutability or titles. Problems with the dataset are flagged by comments in square brackets. I'm pondering what to do, in the long term, about rule amendments that weren't counted properly. For example, there's one that I've just come across in R2071. In the last FLR that that rule appeared in, just before its repeal, its history was listed as Created by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004 Amended(1) by Proposal 4607 (Goethe), 8 August 2004 Amended(2) by Proposal 4611 (OscarMeyr), 10 September 2004 Amended(3) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004 Amended(4) by Proposal 4627 (root), 4 December 2004 Amended(5) by Proposal 4666 (Quazie), 9 April 2005 Amended(6) by Proposal 4709 (Manu), 18 April 2005 Amended(7) by Proposal 4722 (Quazie), 25 April 2005 This fails to mention that it was also amended by Proposal 4597 on 4 July 2004. The textual change of this amendment was correctly recorded at the time, but the history annotation was never updated for it and the revision number was never incremented. The forms of the rule immediately before and after that amendment were both consistently listed as "2071/0", with the history annotation having only the creation line. Under the old definition of amendment numbers, which was in legal effect during the entire time that R2071 existed, the rule after P4597 was legally 2071/1, and immediately before repeal it was 2071/8. The amendment numbers being reported were all off by one from 2004-07-04 to 2005-06-24. I think emending the record to show the true legal amendment number for each version would be terribly confusing. The off-by-one numbering got entrenched in practice, and contradicting it seems a bad idea. So I'm leaving the numbers 2071/1 to 2071/7 alone. But that means that "2071/0" is ambiguous. I now have the rule's history recorded as Created by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004 Amended by Proposal 4597 (Sir Toby), 4 July 2004 Amended(1) by Proposal 4607 (Goethe), 8 August 2004 Amended(2) by Proposal 4611 (OscarMeyr), 10 September 2004 Amended(3) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004 Amended(4) by Proposal 4627 (root), 4 December 2004 Amended(5) by Proposal 4666 (Quazie), 9 April 2005 Amended(6) by Proposal 4709 (Manu), 18 April 2005 Amended(7) by Proposal 4722 (Quazie), 25 April 2005 The case of R2071 coincidentally resembles a number of other cases where rules have a R750 automatic amendment. (I don't have the text of R750 or before-and-after of the amendments; they're just in the history logs.) For example, R1043's history goes thus: Created by Proposal 474 (Alexx), Sep. 17 1993 Amended by Proposal 1043, Sep. 21 1994 Amended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1305, Nov. 4 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996 Amended(3) by Proposal 2697, Oct. 10 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999 Amended(5) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000 The amendment by Proposal 1043 changes the rule's number from 474 to 1043. R750 then, AFAICT, amends R1043. P1305 then makes the second amendment to R1043, and so on. Legally the amendment number should be 2 after P1305, and more generally all the amendment numbers ever reported for R1043 are off by one. I'm certainly not going to change all of those revision numbers in the record. The coincidence is that R2071's uncounted amendment happens to precede all its counted amendments. For the moment I'm making use of that: I'm using the same code that handles regular pre-1069 amendments to handle R2071's irregularity. But it's quite likely that at some point I'll find an uncounted amendment between Amended(5) and Amended(6) of some rule, and then the same pattern won't apply. I'm considering extending the revision number with a letter in ambiguous cases. For R2071 we'd have "2071/0a" (the originally created version), "2071/0b" (post-P4597), and then back to the regular "2071/1" (post-P4607). The term "2071/0" would then be deprecated due to ambiguity: it is already de facto ambiguous. R1043, meanwhile, can have revision numbers "0a", "0b", and "0c" preceding "1"; these revision numbers could be unambiguously applied to either rule numbers 474 or 1043. -zefram
Re: DIS: collated rules history
Kerim Aydin wrote: >out a non-tedious way to get Repeal dates in; repeal dates >would be needed to reconstruct an FLR for any given date. >Any thoughts? I'm afraid that doing it properly is just going to be tedious. Not only do we have to examine the adopted proposals to see which one repealed each rule, it's also necessary to check for any last-minute amendments between the prior ruleset publication and the repealing proposal. However, it's possible to get approximate repeal dates by comparison of consecutive ruleset versions. At the moment I don't do that sort of analysis: my code takes the rulesets all mixed up (in a bucket, with the eggs on top), and works from the individual rule versions that they contain. Absence of a rule is never noted, only positive evidence is used. (The input consists of 351 rulesets so far, plus an extra file for short-lived rules that were never published but which I've recovered from Michael's archive of voting reports.) -zefram
DIS: web pages
Who controls the website at <http://www.agoranomic.org>? It needs updating. It points at Michael's copy of the ruleset, which is now out of date. I'm henceforth hosting the current ruleset at <http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/current_flr.txt>. The SLR is available in the same directory. While we're at it, it might be nice to put some actual explanatory text on the main website. And link to other people's Agora pages, such as the CFJ database. -zefram
Re: DIS: collated rules history
You may all be interested in this old ruleset from 1993-08: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.abstract/msg/86da94d8a3ba0ba6 Wes pointed this out to me, as an initial response after I contacted him about archives. I'll be adding it to my database. -zefram
