DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ Re my win (no, I'm not assigning it to myself)

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 27, 2017 9:18 AM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:

Third: Is Aris's attempt to object sufficient? E simply stated "I
object to all the intents in the below message" or similar. Under our
precedents, which ban somebody from taking an unreasonable number of
actions in shorthand where copying and pasting would be hard, does
this shorthand take too many actions? Is our precedent in this area,
more common-law than textual, able to be flexibly applied to serve the
purpose of stopping scams as Aris contends?


I submit the following gratuitous arguments:

I think it's important to consider, esp since shorthand is common law, an
interpretation where the intent and outcomes are important. In this case,
where Aris specifically isolates a group of intents and uses shorthand to
object to all of them, it's clear what the intent and outcome are. I think
this is clearly different from a message sent directly to a-b claiming "I
object to everything it is legal to object to."

If we are willing to use clarity as part of our interpretation of
"acceptable shorthand," I think an unambiguous intent to perform a specific
action (ie object to a specific intent) and outcome (that specific intent
fails).

If we accept this interpretation, the CFJ is very easy and the brightline
is clear for future cases. That said, since I'm still a new(er) player I
don't know much historical precedent to inform this argument. Considering
that shortcutting seems to be a long-honored tradition from well before I
arrived, I'd be happy to consider historical evidence if someone could
direct me.


-grok

Re: DIS: proto: more trust

[grok (caleb vines)]

Sure would. Given the timeframe of pending / promoting / assessing, I'm
assuming that would quickly not be the case if this was pended.


-grok

On Sep 27, 2017 10:19 AM, "VJ Rada" <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

There's an agency of Quazie's that allows people to get trust tokens
from em if they give them to em. It would be trivial to get 50 from em
and win the game on the spot.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:14 AM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> {
> Excessive Trust
> AI = 1
> Authors: grok
>
> Amend Rule 2452 "Trust Tokens" to include the following text immediately
> after the final paragraph:
>
> "A person can win the game by announcement if e has been issued fifty
Trust
> Tokens by another individual player; if no person has won via this
mechanism
> in the past; and if, in the same message, e quotes, for each trust token,
a
> public message in which that player issued em a Trust Token."
> }
>
> the only reason this is proto is because I find it likely that someone
> already has fifty trust tokens.



--
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: proto: more trust

[grok (caleb vines)]

{
Excessive Trust
AI = 1
Authors: grok

Amend Rule 2452 "Trust Tokens" to include the following text immediately
after the final paragraph:

"A person can win the game by announcement if e has been issued fifty Trust
Tokens by another individual player; if no person has won via this
mechanism in the past; and if, in the same message, e quotes, for each
trust token, a public message in which that player issued em a Trust Token."
}

the only reason this is proto is because I find it likely that someone
already has fifty trust tokens.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Slower Promotion

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 26, 2017 9:42 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:

I hereby issue em a Pink Slip by summary judgement.



Pretty amusing implications given that there's an election going on.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating election for the Assessor and Herald

[grok (caleb vines)]

NttPF

On Sep 26, 2017 9:06 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:



I vote (myself, Publius) for Herald (would like to run Karma).

I vote (Publius, players who vote for themselves first in order of vote)
for Assessor.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Resolving Elections: Correctly this time!

[grok (caleb vines)]

Monthly ratification would be a positive step. Maybe increasing the
window of self-ratification for Registrar reports only. Maybe both in
combination.


-grok


On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> It occurs to me that (thinking back over a couple years), several registration
> errors have been ratified, and given that this kicks people out of the game,
> it's a fairly big error that can lead to anger.  Also changes in registration
> are infrequent enough that a weekly reset isn't needed, it's not too hard to 
> go
> back a little further and reconstruct.  So I'm thinking that weekly 
> ratification
> is too much for playerhood, maybe monthly...?
>
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> No one made any campaign or supporting/opposing speeches during the election,
>> at least not that I saw?  This is key to any election that's actually
>> contested.  Reading your vote, it seemed like a general preference against
>> incumbency, but not as if you had any direct reason to protest against PSS.
>>
>> The closest challenger didn't vote for emself first so probably wasn't too
>> keen on the position, and as PSS's reports have generally been timely I'd
>> prefer someone who proves themselves willing.  The various CoEs that go by
>> on all the reports blur together and I don't notice a pattern unless I'm
>> involved with the CoE.
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:45 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Registrar
>> > > This result has changed. Nichdel had three first-preference votes, but
>> > > PSS had six and remains registrar. This resolver disagrees with the
>> > > result. Anyway.
>> >
>> >
>> > Either people forgot that PSS attempted to deregister me by
>> > ratification four weeks in a row or it wasn't important enough for
>> > anyone to care. But in either case, I'm pretty unhappy with the result
>> > of the registrar election and with the players who voted PSS back into
>> > the position.
>> >
>> >
>> > -grok
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Resolving Elections: Correctly this time!

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:45 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Registrar
> This result has changed. Nichdel had three first-preference votes, but
> PSS had six and remains registrar. This resolver disagrees with the
> result. Anyway.


Either people forgot that PSS attempted to deregister me by
ratification four weeks in a row or it wasn't important enough for
anyone to care. But in either case, I'm pretty unhappy with the result
of the registrar election and with the players who voted PSS back into
the position.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Attempt to resolve ambiguity

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 14, 2017 9:45 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:


> On Sep 14, 2017, at 10:40 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:
>
> (Not everyone is receiving my messages sent via this emergency backup
method. Could someone quote this email in a message of their own so that
everyone can see it?)
>
> I become an option in the current Victory Election.

The above was sent through the agora-business list.

-o


Just for reference: I did not receive that message in a-b. I am also a
Gmail user, since that seems to be a common characteristic.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3557 judged FALSE

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 14, 2017 7:44 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:



> >> CFJ 2120 states (apparently in accordance with previous precedent
which I
> >> couldn't find) that, where there is a SHALL without any reasonable
mechanism to
> >> fulfill it, it implies CAN by announcement.

Unfortunately, CFJ 2120 gets precedent wrong, and this concerns me.

CFJ 2120 says "SHALL implies CAN by announcement, based on the precedent in
CFJ 1765".

But a look at CFJ 1765 shows the arguments are:
 I believe that the obligation to perform an action in conjunction with
 the phrase "by announcement", as used in the last paragraph of
R1871/18,
 implies a mechanism for the action

In other words, the chain of precedents that we're relying on actually
starts
with:  SHALL by announcement implies CAN by announcement.

This isn't so much of a stretch!

So I'm worried that the missing "by announcement" is never addressed with
any reason
and based on faulty precedent...

It would be great to be clear and set a precedent, if "by announcement" (or
other
method like w/o objection) isn't specified, when can we infer "by
announcement"?
I mean, why doesn't it imply w/o objection instead, just as an example.  If
SHALL
works, does it work for MAY?  Lower case directives?  Etc.






I find this pretty compelling but I have no skin in the game (and am a fan
of pragmatism generally).

I would support a motion to reconsider if others find this argument
compelling enough and provided additional arguments/evidence about the
gamestate, but I'm not going to initiate one.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[grok (caleb vines)]

For reference: if you resolve that vote as present and that vote causes PSS
to be elected, I will probably CFJ the assessment.


-grok

On Sep 14, 2017 7:15 PM, "VJ Rada" <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would say use eir preferred English character titles but there are
two different ones which start with different letters. I guess if
there is a tie here, I would resolve as PRESENT due to ambiguity.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There isn't one. For anyone who wants to try this, I'd suggest
> ascending order of unicode code points. In fact, I may propose making
> a rule that defines alphabetical order that way.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2017, at 4:11 PM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2017 6:22 PM, "VJ Rada" <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Please note the already ongoing election for agronomist.
>>
>> I initiate the elections for and the agoran decisions for the
>> determination of the Arbitor, the Superintendent, the Tailor, the
>> Promotor, the Referee, the Registrar, the Surveyor, and the
>> Rulekeepor. These elections are either legal under the 90 day rule or
>> are vacant offices. The vote collector is the ADoP and the quorum is
>> 2.0.
>>
>> --
>> >From V.J Rada
>>
>>
>> In the election for registrar , I vote for the player with the most votes
>> that is not the incumbent, using alphabetical order as a tiebreaker.
>>
>>
>> What is the alphabetical ordering of 天火狐 with respect to myself, and why?
>>
>> -o
>>



--
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 14, 2017 7:01 PM, "Owen Jacobson" <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:


On Sep 14, 2017, at 4:11 PM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 13, 2017 6:22 PM, "VJ Rada" <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please note the already ongoing election for agronomist.

I initiate the elections for and the agoran decisions for the
determination of the Arbitor, the Superintendent, the Tailor, the
Promotor, the Referee, the Registrar, the Surveyor, and the
Rulekeepor. These elections are either legal under the 90 day rule or
are vacant offices. The vote collector is the ADoP and the quorum is
2.0.

--
>From V.J Rada


In the election for registrar , I vote for the player with the most votes
that is not the incumbent, using alphabetical order as a tiebreaker.


What is the alphabetical ordering of 天火狐 with respect to myself, and why?

-o


Hopefully that will not be information required to resolve my vote. If it
is, it'll be a fun exercise for a lucky judge.


-grok

Re: DIS: No Telepathy v2

[grok (caleb vines)]

We could regulate time with ticks or something if we really wanted to waste
weeks slash months slash years drafting the legislature.

And by we I mean y'all, no way in hell I'm doing that.


-grok

On Sep 12, 2017 7:11 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Very Very Important part of the game. (I am being serious.)

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Sep 12, 2017, at 8:10 PM, Gaelan Steele <gael...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
> Time passing.
>
> Gaelan
>
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What intended interaction with IRL do we have aside from being a person
to be a player and Pledges possibly summoning it?
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
wrote:
>>
>>
>> Check out this CFJ:
>>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3411
>>
>> result:  R2125 may need to have better handshakes with external reality
>> to handle this sort of thing.
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> > How does 869 interact with determining the gamestate exclusively
>> > through public fora anyways? The public fora doesn't have record of
>> > whether each registered player is a discrete organism capable of
>> > freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas,
>> > it just assumes that players are following the rules when they
>> > register. Before the moment of registration, a person's personness is
>> > only calculable outside of public fora. I guess registration is
>> > activating a restricted action, which makes me prefer G's possibility
>> > to CB's, but I'm honestly a little stumped on that one.
>> >
>> > also i'm a big fan of "the crime of invisibilating"
>> >
>> >
>> > -grok
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > This whole conversation rung a memory bell for me, something Old
(12+ years old) that might be
>> > > still in effect!
>> > >
>> > > There was a Proposal, that read something like the following:
>> > >
>> > >Be it Hereby Proclaimed that from this moment forward, anyone who
causes gamestate
>> > >changes without creating a public record is Guilty of the Crime
of Invisibilitating.
>> > >
>> > > Note that Instruments don't lose power (they just reach the end of
their effects).  So
>> > > if a Proposal defines an effect as ongoing, there's still a Powered
instrument out there
>> > > proclaiming people guilty of this crime whenever they do it...
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> > >> Public messages. You can send a message to all players separately
and have it count as public,
>> > >> presumably as a defense against fora going down suddenly.
>> > >>
>> > >> Gaelan
>> > >>
>> > >> > On Sep 12, 2017, at 8:47 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > The Telepathy problem seems like a puzzle to crack, I'd like to
keep on trying:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Proto:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Title: No Telepathy v2
>> > >> > AI: ?
>> > >> > Content: Add to rule (something):
>> > >> >
>> > >> > "The gamestate is at all times calculable from information posted
at the public fora."
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>

Re: DIS: No Telepathy v2

[grok (caleb vines)]

How does 869 interact with determining the gamestate exclusively
through public fora anyways? The public fora doesn't have record of
whether each registered player is a discrete organism capable of
freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas,
it just assumes that players are following the rules when they
register. Before the moment of registration, a person's personness is
only calculable outside of public fora. I guess registration is
activating a restricted action, which makes me prefer G's possibility
to CB's, but I'm honestly a little stumped on that one.

also i'm a big fan of "the crime of invisibilating"


-grok

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> This whole conversation rung a memory bell for me, something Old (12+ years 
> old) that might be
> still in effect!
>
> There was a Proposal, that read something like the following:
>
>Be it Hereby Proclaimed that from this moment forward, anyone who causes 
> gamestate
>changes without creating a public record is Guilty of the Crime of 
> Invisibilitating.
>
> Note that Instruments don't lose power (they just reach the end of their 
> effects).  So
> if a Proposal defines an effect as ongoing, there's still a Powered 
> instrument out there
> proclaiming people guilty of this crime whenever they do it...
>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Public messages. You can send a message to all players separately and have 
>> it count as public,
>> presumably as a defense against fora going down suddenly.
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>> > On Sep 12, 2017, at 8:47 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> >
>> > The Telepathy problem seems like a puzzle to crack, I'd like to keep on 
>> > trying:
>> >
>> > Proto:
>> >
>> > Title: No Telepathy v2
>> > AI: ?
>> > Content: Add to rule (something):
>> >
>> > "The gamestate is at all times calculable from information posted at the 
>> > public fora."
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Test of Confidence

[grok (caleb vines)]

Dunno where you got that idea. I like scams and funny business, I just was
particularly annoyed by "funny business" that was clearly impossible.

This is clearly an action I'm allowed to take, regardless of whether you
want to shame me out of my civic duty or not.

Also "arbitrary" in this case is pretty flimsy. Just because you don't know
why I'm performing my voting procedure this way doesn't mean it wasn't
carefully considered.

But if you're really that incensed by me playing the game, I'm happy to
take my ball and go home. Just say the word.



-grok

On Sep 11, 2017 11:38 PM, "Aris Merchant" <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Really? Can people cut it out with the arbitrary voting? Agora is
supposed to a legislative nomic, which as I understand it is why
everyone is here. The idea of the nomic is that we discuss and think
about ideas, constantly striving for improvement. I'm used to
CuddleBeam pulling this kind of thing, but really, grok? I thought you
were the one who didn't like all the scams and funny business?

-Aris

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:33 PM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I vote "AGAINST" on all Agoran Decisions for which it is legal for me to
do
> so.
>
>
> -grok

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3555 assigned to grok

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 6, 2017 9:24 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 18:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> I CFJ on the following (using AP if I am a Player) and barring
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
>>
>>  G. and Cuddlebeam, and no one else, have won the game via tournament
>>  since July 1, 2017.
>
> This is CFJ 3555 and does not have a judgement reward. I assign it to
> grok.

Could someone please do something about this CFJ? It seems to be long
overdue, and has suddenly become more important (FTR, it now
determines who the current Regkeepor is, due to a deputization
fiasco).

-Aris


I haven't been able to give it proper thought or more than cursory glances
at Agora recently, and that's unlikely to change until mid September. I
recommend the Arbitor reassign the case and the Referee assign me a card
for failing to assign judgment.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[grok (caleb vines)]

Oops. I didn't read the quote text and thought you were asking me. Sorry
for the snark, Aris


-grok

On Sep 6, 2017 7:28 PM, "grok (caleb vines)" <grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.


-grok


On Sep 6, 2017 7:27 PM, "Aris Merchant" <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Mine, or nichdel's? Mine was sent to a-d, and is extremely vague (what
exactly is a 'provocation' anyway)? And no, there isn't a time limit,
although there is one potential way out of any SHALL at the moment.

-Aris

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Is there a time limit or other get-out on pledges at the moment? If
> not, this sort of indefinite promise could become problematic once it
> outlives its usefulness.
>
> --
> ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[grok (caleb vines)]

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.


-grok

On Sep 6, 2017 7:27 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:

Mine, or nichdel's? Mine was sent to a-d, and is extremely vague (what
exactly is a 'provocation' anyway)? And no, there isn't a time limit,
although there is one potential way out of any SHALL at the moment.

-Aris

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> Is there a time limit or other get-out on pledges at the moment? If
> not, this sort of indefinite promise could become problematic once it
> outlives its usefulness.
>
> --
> ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[grok (caleb vines)]

Does it? I'm not 100% convinced that's the case, but I'm not about to
provide arguments at midnight if I don't have to.


-grok

On Sep 6, 2017 12:01 AM, "Gaelan Steele" <g...@canishe.com> wrote:

That’s fair, although simply sending a message to a-b kills it anyway.

Gaelan

On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:00 PM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 5, 2017 11:57 PM, "Gaelan Steele" <g...@canishe.com> wrote:

I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and
Leave Agora
index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
--- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
+++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
@@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
   If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.

   If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
-  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
+  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
+  with 2 Agoran Consent.

   The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
   to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
}

[This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to
re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]


I would like an exception that a player cannot be deregistered with two
Agoran consent if that player objects. But I understand that isn't the
point.


-grok

DIS: Re: BUS: [Prop] Not so cuddly now

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sep 5, 2017 11:57 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

I create the following proposal “Not So Cuddly Now” with AI 1 by Gaelan: {
diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and
Leave Agora
index 4683d3d..962eb2c 100644
--- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
+++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
@@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ text: |
   If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.

   If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
-  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
+  month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection or
+  with 2 Agoran Consent.

   The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
   to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
}

[This is both a legitimate proposal and an experiment. I’m happy to
re-submit it as a “normal” proposal if that’s what people prefer.]


I would like an exception that a player cannot be deregistered with two
Agoran consent if that player objects. But I understand that isn't the
point.


-grok

Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Aug 24, 2017 10:15 PM, "Ørjan Johansen"  wrote:

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:

Luckily, your CFJ isn't valid; you can't call a CFJ nowadays without
> paying for it. So it hasn't actually been called yet. Also luckily, we
> still have some vestiges of the old officer system in which officers
> had, in lieu of pay, a certain allowance for abuses of the office. That
> means that it's totally legal, and in fact somewhat encouraged (see the
> penultimate paragraph of rule 991), for me to do this:
>

Unfortunately, eir registration attempt was sent to the wrong forum, and
IIRC non-Players don't have to pay.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


In defense, that does make the judgment much easier.

-grok

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I bring up Blognomic a lot tbh but I bring Agora up a lot in Blognomic too.
> I strive to improve stuff for both via sharing stuff between them, a bit
> like how tea was brought from China to Britain and become super cool stuff
> in both places.

this would not be my first example of cultural mutualism

Re: DIS: CFJ 3529 numbering?

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Aug 1, 2017 7:10 PM, "Alex Smith"  wrote:

On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 17:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Hi ais523,
>
> CFJ 3529 was assigned to Sprocklem on 20 Jun 2017, and the
> same number used for a different CFJ statement assigned to
> Quazie on 27 Jun 2017.
>
> Has this been cleared up (I saw some traffic on incorrect CFJ
> numbers, but none are coming up in my search in reference to
> 3529).

It looks like it's an accidental duplicate nobody caught. I maintain
records of the next unassigned CFJ ID number but keep forgetting to
update them when assigning a CFJ, and the circumstances there were ripe
for failing to catch a lack of update (the CFJ before having been
judged already so it didn't show as pending, and no CFJs having been
called for some time so I was unlikely to remember the numbers used).

How should we fix this? Just finding an unused number for one of the
CFJs?

--
ais523


I'm pretty sure I mentioned this last week, but I know you have a lot to
keep up with these days so I won't hold it against you.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>>
>> The Weekly Report of July 3 and the Monthly Report of June 30, if not
>> earlier.
>
>
> There was no July 3rd report. There was one published [1] on the 2nd, but it
> didn't ratify because of a CoE [2].
>
> Also, Grok didn't register again until the 6th [3] so that doesn't matter.
>
> There was also a report on the 24th [4], but it too didn't ratify [5].
>
> To be clear 'accepting' a CoE does nothing by itself. If you don't deny or
> CFJ, you must publish a corrected report (see R2201). The original document
> won't ratify because it is still 'doubted'.
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08118.html
> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28799.html
> [3] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28820.html
> [4] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28911.html
> [5] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28918.html


I was about to start the CFJ but this looks pretty good. Thanks for
saving me the time, heh.

It also tells me that the Registrar's office is available for
deputisation, because the Registrar has not ratified a report since
June and has a weekly report as port of eir duties.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[grok (caleb vines)]

If you accepted last week, I'm a player by ratification. Also considering
you've accepted other changes to the game state I've caused in your other
reports for this week, I believe I have sufficient evidence to win the CFJ.


-grok


On Jul 30, 2017 2:22 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

I am not sure whether to accept this or not. I accepted a CoE last week,
but I shouldn’t have because you had been deregistered by ratification, so
should I accept this?

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jul 30, 2017, at 3:18 PM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> CoE grok is a player
>
> On Jul 30, 2017 9:39 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> 
>Registrar's Weekly Report
> 
>
> (all times UTC)
>
> Date of last report: 23 Jul 2017
> Date of this report: 30 Jul 2017
>
> Recent events:
>
>
> Players (17) (Rule 869, self-ratifying)
>
> Player   Contact
 Registered
> --   ---
 --
> ais523   callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk [1] 20 Mar 11
> Aris thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail.com   13 Sep 16
> Murphy   emurphy42 at zoho.com   27 Oct 07
> oowen at grimoire.ca 12 Jul 16
> Sprocklemsprocklem at gmail.com  19 Oct 13
> 天火狐draconicdarkness at gmail.com   06 Nov 16
> Zachary Watterson [2]tannerswett at gmail.com26 Mar 17
> Quazie   quazienomic at gmail.com15 Apr 17
> P. Scholasticus [3]  pscriboniusscholasticus at gmail.com[4] 16 Apr 17
> tmanthe2nd   trstnbrdwg0 at gmail.com13 May 17
> Gaelan   gbs at canishe.com  15 May 17
> Ienpw IIIjames.m.beirne at gmail.com 21 May 17
> Veggiekeks   martinjroensch at gmail.com 25 May 17
> omd  comexk at gmail.com [5] 03 Feb 11
> V.J. Radavijarada at gmail.com   07 Jun 17
> Bayushi  thelas.staloras at gmail.com29 Jun 17
> nichdel  nichdel at gmail.com29 Jun 17
>
> [1] also ais523 at alumni.bham.ac.uk
> [2] also known as Gumball
> [3] In full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [4] officially, but technically equivalent p.scribonius.scholasticus at
googlemail.com
> [5] officially, but technically equivalent c.ome.xk at gmail.com
>
> Fora (Rule 478, self-ratifying)
>
> Type Location  Typical use
>   ---
> Public   agora-official at agoranomic.org  official reports
> Public   agora-business at agoranomic.org  other business
> Discussion   agora-discussion at agoranomic.orgdiscussion
> Discussion   irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/##nomic   discussion
> Public   agora at listserver.tue.nlbackup
>
> Subscribe or unsubscribe from main lists:
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
>
> Subscribe or unsubscribe from tue.nl backup list:
> http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
>
> The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client to
> server irc.freenode.net, port 6667, channel ##nomic, and whatever
> nickname you like.
>
> Other rules pertaining to this office
> -
> Rule 2139 (The Registrar)
> Rule 1789 (Cantus Cygneus)
>
> Watchers (4)
>
> The list of Watchers is not governed by the rules, but is
> traditionally maintained in the Registrar's Report.  If you'd like to
> be listed as a Watcher or removed from the list, feel free to email
> the fora or the Registrar directly.
>
> Watchers confirmed as of May 2017:
>
> Nickname  Contact
>   ---
> Ørjan oerjan at nvg.ntnu.no
>
> Watchers confirmed as of May 2013:
>
> Nickname  Contact
>   ---
> Dave  davidnicol at gmail.com
> Phlogistique  noe.rubinstein at gmail.com
> Steve zardoz37 at gmail.com
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[grok (caleb vines)]

CoE grok is a player

On Jul 30, 2017 9:39 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:



   Registrar's Weekly Report


(all times UTC)

Date of last report: 23 Jul 2017
Date of this report: 30 Jul 2017

Recent events:


Players (17) (Rule 869, self-ratifying)

Player   Contact Registered
--   --- --
ais523   callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk [1] 20 Mar 11
Aris thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail.com   13 Sep 16
Murphy   emurphy42 at zoho.com   27 Oct 07
oowen at grimoire.ca 12 Jul 16
Sprocklemsprocklem at gmail.com  19 Oct 13
天火狐draconicdarkness at gmail.com   06 Nov 16
Zachary Watterson [2]tannerswett at gmail.com26 Mar 17
Quazie   quazienomic at gmail.com15 Apr 17
P. Scholasticus [3]  pscriboniusscholasticus at gmail.com[4] 16 Apr 17
tmanthe2nd   trstnbrdwg0 at gmail.com13 May 17
Gaelan   gbs at canishe.com  15 May 17
Ienpw IIIjames.m.beirne at gmail.com 21 May 17
Veggiekeks   martinjroensch at gmail.com 25 May 17
omd  comexk at gmail.com [5] 03 Feb 11
V.J. Radavijarada at gmail.com   07 Jun 17
Bayushi  thelas.staloras at gmail.com29 Jun 17
nichdel  nichdel at gmail.com29 Jun 17

[1] also ais523 at alumni.bham.ac.uk
[2] also known as Gumball
[3] In full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
[4] officially, but technically equivalent p.scribonius.scholasticus at
googlemail.com
[5] officially, but technically equivalent c.ome.xk at gmail.com

Fora (Rule 478, self-ratifying)

Type Location  Typical use
  ---
Public   agora-official at agoranomic.org  official reports
Public   agora-business at agoranomic.org  other business
Discussion   agora-discussion at agoranomic.orgdiscussion
Discussion   irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/##nomic   discussion
Public   agora at listserver.tue.nlbackup

Subscribe or unsubscribe from main lists:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo

Subscribe or unsubscribe from tue.nl backup list:
http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora

The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client to
server irc.freenode.net, port 6667, channel ##nomic, and whatever
nickname you like.

Other rules pertaining to this office
-
Rule 2139 (The Registrar)
Rule 1789 (Cantus Cygneus)

Watchers (4)

The list of Watchers is not governed by the rules, but is
traditionally maintained in the Registrar's Report.  If you'd like to
be listed as a Watcher or removed from the list, feel free to email
the fora or the Registrar directly.

Watchers confirmed as of May 2017:

Nickname  Contact
  ---
Ørjan oerjan at nvg.ntnu.no

Watchers confirmed as of May 2013:

Nickname  Contact
  ---
Dave  davidnicol at gmail.com
Phlogistique  noe.rubinstein at gmail.com
Steve zardoz37 at gmail.com

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJs 3544, 3545 assigned to Aris

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> Ugh, you're right

this is exactly what i hope to hear every time i send a message to a-b


(Thanks for all the hard work)


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3537 reassigned to o

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> I reassign CFJ 3537 to o.
>>
>> See below for relevant context. (I apologise for the formatting; it
>> seems that our various email clients have been fighting each other
>> about it. We used to use a consistent format for Agora; perhaps we
>> should mandate or at least recommend a suggested email formatting in
>> the ruleset.)
>
> I've noticed with the new crop of players in the last few months there's
> been a lot of things that look fine in the archives, but are mangled by
> my client (all line-break stuff).
>
> I think (though I'm not sure) those are all from gmail - is there some
> line-break setting that longer-term players set in the past that newer
> players aren't using or aware of, or a change in gmail?
>
> -G.

i'm gonna reply here b/c the nested replies to this message have a
truly absurd amount of quoted text

i switched to gmail's plain-text editor about a month ago and, as far
as i can tell, it's making my messages easier to read for terminal and
non-web-client users. at least, nobody complained like they did with
gmail's rich text editor. problem is, i'm pretty sure my messages look
awful coming out of my phone compared to my web client.


-grok

Re: DIS: Proto: Cleanup on Aisle "Agency"

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Jul 24, 2017 7:09 PM, "Quazie"  wrote:

I am pro the concept, but questioning the Specifics - I think the super
should be able to unquestionably kill any agency without a valid director -
and then the w/o two objections should only be for invalid agents.


I left in w/o two objections for certain very rare cases, like former
players with agencies they'd rather keep around that could persuade others
to keep them alive. In hindsight, 24 hours after registering is not a huge
impediment. I'll consider that change when moving to submission.


-grok

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3544 assigned to grok

[grok (caleb vines)]

I would appreciate gratuitous arguments on this CFJ in the coming day or
two, especially from PSS regarding eir denial of the initial CoE.


-grok

On Jul 24, 2017 3:54 PM, "Alex Smith"  wrote:

On Sun, 2017-07-23 at 15:21 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 07/23/2017 03:08 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Denied, nothing caused it to cease to exist.
>
> I submit the following CFJ: C♥️U is an agency.

This is CFJ 3544. I assign it to grok.

> Arguments:
>
> Agencies are defined as follows in R2467:
>
> "An Agency is a document empowering persons to act on behalf
>  of another player."
>
> C♥️U was created by CuddleBeam. CuddleBeam is not a player. C♥️U
> does
> not empower any persons to act on behalf of a player. Regardless of
> whether it exists, it is no longer an agency.
>
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 23, 2017, at 3:23 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> > >
> > > On 07/23/2017 01:33 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > > > Superintendent's Weekly Report
> > > >
> > > > Short List of agencies:
> > > >
> > > > ASC - Head: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > BÖÖ - Head: Quazie
> > > > C♥️N - Head: CuddleBeam
> > > > C♥️U - Head: CuddleBeam
> > > > GII - Head: Gaelan
> > > > GOD - Head: Quazie
> > > > MKD - Head: Gaelan
> > > > PRN - Head: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > SSP - Head: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > WTQ - Head: Quazie
> > > > gFP - Head: grok
> > > > ⌑შए - Head: 天火狐
> > > >
> > > > New or changed agencies since last weekly:
> > > >
> > > >There are none.
> > > >
> > > > A History of agency related events:
> > > >
> > > > 2017-06-05 - Superintendent's Weekly Report Published
> > > > 2017-06-05 - Quazie establishes BÖÖ
> > > > 2017-06-04 - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus establishes ASC
> > > > 2017-05-27 - Gaelan establishes GII
> > > > 2017-05-27 - CuddleBeam establishes C♥️U
> > > > 2017-05-27 - CuddleBeam establishes C♥️N
> > > > 2017-05-27 - CuddleBeam revokes BGW
> > > > 2017-05-27 - CuddleBeam revokes ACP
> > > > 2017-05-25 - Superintendent's Weekly Report Published
> > > > 2017-05-24 - grok establishes gFP
> > > > 2017-05-23 - 天火狐 establishes ⌑შए
> > > > 2017-05-23 - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus establishes PRN
> > > > 2017-05-22 - Quazie establishes WTQ
> > > > 2017-05-22 - CuddleBeam establishes ACP
> > > > 2017-05-22 - CuddleBeam establishes BGW
> > > > 2017-05-21 - Quazie changes GOD
> > > > 2017-05-20 - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus establishes SSP
> > > > 2017-05-20 - Gaelan establishes MKD
> > > > 2017-05-20 - Quazie establishes GOD
> > > > 2017-05-18 - Superintendent's Monthly Report Published
> > > > 2017-05-18 - Superintendent's Weekly Report Published
> > > > 2017-04-23 - Aris revokes PDA
> > > > 2017-04-16 - Superintendent's Monthly Report Published
> > > > 2017-02-13 - Aris establishes PDA
> > > >
> > > > [Note: Events and Agencies preceded by a ! are potentially
> > > > invalid pending CFJ]
> > > >
> > > > [Archive available at https://agoranomic.github.io/Superintende
> > > > nt/]
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > CoE (possibly needs to be a CFJ): C♥️N and C♥️U are not agencies
> > > because they do not empower someone to act on behalf of a player
> > > (because CB is no longer a player).

--
ais523
Arbitor

DIS: Proto: Cleanup on Aisle "Agency"

[grok (caleb vines)]

The pending CoE on the Superintendent's report (C♥️U is an agency)
raises the issue of Agencies with non-Player directors, and the
existence of Agencies after players deregister. I put together this
proto last night to solve the issue.

{
Title: Agency Closures and Cleanup Act
AI: 1
Author: grok

Enact a rule named "Agency Closures", reading:

When a player deregisters, e is removed as Director of all agencies e
is Director of.

If an Agency does not have a Director, OR if an Agency's Director is
not a player, OR if an Agency does not have any legal Agents, the
Superintendent may destroy that agency without two objections.
}

comments welcomed.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment on CFJ 3541

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>
>> There is some ambiguity of what, exactly, a nickel is. Common
>> knowledge tells us it is a metal, but one would rarely refer to an
>> amount of nickel as "a nickel" without qualification--a lump of
>> nickel, or a vein, or an atom. Nickel is ultimately an adjective in
>> this sense--using it as a noun alone is not common in the language and
>> grammar used in Quazie's initial statement.
>
>
> As thorough as your judgement is, I'm going to have to withdraw points for
> grammatical terminology:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

yeah yeah, it's a collective noun rather than a discrete singular
noun. easier to explain as an adjective. lazy. blagh blegh murgh
grumble grumble


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Organization: Agoran Estate Bloc

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 14:40 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
>>> As will be mentioned below, this charter doesn't stop CEOs from
>>> violating SHALLs and so I think the CEO can just refuse to ever
>>> assess.
>>
>> Right, an Organization isn't a Contract or a Pledge, although people
>> seem to be using it as one.
>
> Quick fix, which I've had lying around for a while:
>
> Change the paragraph reading
>
> "Any player may become a member of AEB by setting eir budget switch for
> the pair of em and AEB to 25. Any player may leave AEB by setting eir
> budget switch for the pair of em and AEB to 0."
>
> to read
>
> "Any player may become a member of AEB by setting eir budget switch for
> the pair of em and AEB to 25, on the condition that in the same
> message e announces that e 'pledges, covenants, and contracts to abide
> by the charter of the AEB' for so long as e remains a member.  Any
> player may leave AEB by setting eir budget switch for the pair of em
> and AEB to 0."
>
> Technically the covenants and contracts bit isn't necessary, but it
> sounds cool and makes it solemn, so why not?


IDK if I need people to pledge allegiance at the outset since they
have to make pledges to activate the powers of the org anyways.
Besides, I doubt anyone's going to want to pledge to follow an org
that can be so easily amended like this one.

DIS: Re: BUS: Organization: Agoran Estate Bloc

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/21/17 10:58, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> At the beginning of the second week of each month, the acting CEO
>> SHALL initiate an AEB Board Election with a voting period of at least
>> 4 days and no longer than 7 days. All members in Good Standing or on
>> Official Warning at the calling of each AEB Board Election are
>> eligible voters and valid selections for that AEB Board Election. At
>> the end of each AEB Board Election, if there is a clear winner, the
>> winner of the AEB Board Election SHALL flip the CEO switch to eir own
>> name.
>
> Is there an enforceable punishment for ignoring a SHALL in an org? I
> know this org includes one (with its own flaws below), but is there a
> default?
>

There's one that comes later. I assume there isn't a default because
org charters aren't part of the ruleset.

>> In the event of a tie, the acting CEO SHALL initiate an AEB Instant
>> Run-Off Election immediately, with a voting period of at least 4 days
>> and no longer than 7 days. The set of valid voting selections is equal
>> to the set of players who recieved the most votes in the most recent
>> AEB Board Election, and all members in Good Standing or on Official
>> Warning are eligible votesr. If an AEB Instant Run-Off Election is
>> held and there is a clear winner, the winner of the AEB Instant
>> Run-Off Election SHALL flip the CEO switch to eir own name.
>
> Why not always do it IRV instead of two-step?

Including immediate calls to vote provides more information. I do need
to edit this section to include a shorter timeframe for the runoff
election, though. Its intended design would ensure that all voting for
CEO positions wraps up in 14 days. I also am planning to include a
punishment for failing to initiate a voting period, which will come in
the next draft.

>
>>
>> If there is no clear winner following an AEB Instant Run-Off Election
>> and the CEO switch is not set to 0, the current CEO remains the CEO
>> until the results of the next AEB Board Election are assessed.
>>
>> The acting CEO is the assessor for all AEB voting procedure.
>
> As will be mentioned below, this charter doesn't stop CEOs from
> violating SHALLs and so I think the CEO can just refuse to ever assess.

I mean, it does. But like you say, we'll get there.


>> If the Standing switch for the pair of a member and AEB is set to
>> Suspended, that player may pay ten shinies to AEB at any time. If e
>> does, e MAY flip the Standing switch for the pair of emself and AEB to
>> Good Standing.
>
> Weirdly I think this makes Official Warning a worse punishment. After
> you get flipped to it (ie, after 'a timely manner') you can't pay the
> normal 5 and you can't pay the 10 that you can pay for Suspended.

Right, except members on Official Warning have all of the same
privileges as members in Good Standing. Your votes still count if
you're on Official Warning, and you can still make a pledge to
activate the primary effect of the org.


>> If a member did not vote on the last Agoran Decision, the acting CEO
>> may flip the Standing switch for the pair of that member and AEB to
>> Idle. The next time that player votes on an Agoran Decision, e may
>> Invoke AEB Privilege and pledge not to change eir vote on a specific
>> voting matter. If e does, the CEO may flip the Standing switch for the
>> pair of that player and AEB to the value it had before it was most
>> recently set to Idle.
>
> Depending on the results of our discussion about switch-flipping, it may
> end up that the last state before Idle was also Idle.

That's true. I'll have to fix that.


>>
>> A player's Standing switch may only be flipped once per month unless
>> it is flipped by a Suspended player paying ten shinies to AEB.
>
> This makes the 'pay 5 shinies and your switch can't be flipped again'
> clause redundant. Though there's something to say about clarity above
> parsimony.

I'd rather keep the two explicit clauses, even if they overlap. It's
possible that you can scam the system and flip someone from Good
Standing all the way to a Suspension in one period depending on how
the CFJ plays out, so I'd rather nip it here.



>> ==EXPULSION==
>>
>> Expulsion is a set of switches belonging to (AEB, Player) pairs with a
>> default value of 0 and legal values of the set [0,Expelled]. All
>> Expulsion switches are tracked by the acting CEO.
>>
>> If a player breaks a pledge which Invokes AEB Privilege while e is a
>> member, the acting CEO MAY initiate a vote to place that player into
>> Expulsion, with Consent among members that are not named in the voting
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:53 PM, grok (caleb vines)
<grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2017 10:02 PM, "Alex Smith" <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:52 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> > On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > ibonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
>>
>> As the proposal’s imminence had already been flipped to Pending by
>> V.J Rada, I believe that this fails and will record that you paid
>> nothing to do nothing unless someone feels strongly enough to open a
>> CFJ.
>
> Does anyone know whether there's an existing CFJ on whether you can
> flip a switch to its own current value or not? It seems like the sort
> of thing that's almost certain to have come up at some point.
>
> Rule 2445 certainly allows you to pend a pending proposal, so the only
> way this failed is if the whole concept of "pending a pending proposal"
> is invalid due to the fact that nothing actually changes.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>
> I distinctly remember that switch question being a discussion, possibly a
> CFJ. I don't remember the results, just that I was on the wrong end of them.
> I will do some research in the morning when I'm less useless.
>
>
> -grok


I found the citations. It looks like the switching question was CFJ
3529 was originally assigned to Sprocklem [1]. The debate was over a
player attempting to register while still a player (omd in this case);
the statement posed questions of if a switch could be flipped to the
value it was already set to, and if that would have any effect in the
case of Citizenship switches.

However, it looks like that CFJ was not answered. Worse, CFJ code 3529
was re-used a few days later for a question of whether Cuddlebeam
possessed a Platinum Ribbon [2]. That CFJ was assigned to Quazie, who
submitted proto-judgment in a-d but never published a judgment in a-b
[3].

Seems a bit easier to fix since there has been no response to CFJ
3529(1) and Quazie has not submitted a judgment on CFJ 3529(2) to a
public forum, but it still likely requires attention.


[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08088.html
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08101.html
[3] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg36475.html


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Jul 20, 2017 10:02 PM, "Alex Smith"  wrote:

On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:52 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus  > ibonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
>
> As the proposal’s imminence had already been flipped to Pending by
> V.J Rada, I believe that this fails and will record that you paid
> nothing to do nothing unless someone feels strongly enough to open a
> CFJ.

Does anyone know whether there's an existing CFJ on whether you can
flip a switch to its own current value or not? It seems like the sort
of thing that's almost certain to have come up at some point.

Rule 2445 certainly allows you to pend a pending proposal, so the only
way this failed is if the whole concept of "pending a pending proposal"
is invalid due to the fact that nothing actually changes.

--
ais523


I distinctly remember that switch question being a discussion, possibly a
CFJ. I don't remember the results, just that I was on the wrong end of
them. I will do some research in the morning when I'm less useless.


-grok

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Jul 20, 2017 9:19 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> I find that a Red Card is appropriate, and hereby issue one to Cuddlebeam
by summary judgement.

I agree with this carding. CuddleBeam has repeatedly shown that e
cares neither about the feelings of the other players, nor about the
interests of the game. As the player who spoke most strongly in eir
support when this whole mess started, I believe this obligation falls
on me. I intend, with 2 support, to Throw the Book at CuddleBeam.

-Aris


I Support this motion.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[grok (caleb vines)]

I got yours, I just didn't wanna say anything because I thought it might be
funny


-grok

On Jul 20, 2017 8:09 PM, "V.J Rada"  wrote:

I already did this. Did my message not send?

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I pend this for the minimum allowable amount.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > Title: Less Strict Faking
> > AI: 1
> > Author: nichdel
> > Co-authors:
>
> >
> > Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
> >
> > A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
> > to be possible so as to deceive others.
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Proto: Pledges

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Jul 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "V.J Rada"  wrote:

Also I need to spend my money before it gets blanked for value.

Title: Pledges, again.
Amend rule whatever "Pledges" by adding at the end
{{{
No message shall be construed as a pledge unless it contains the word
"pledge".
A pledge is "publically made" only if the full effect of the pledge is
public and
understandable by all players at the inception of the pledge.
}}}

y/n? better way to say it?

Also will take ideas on how to fix loopholes to spend my other five shinies
for
_VALUE_.


I would recommend spelling "publicly" correctly if closing loopholes is
your goal. Also I'm not sure the second sentence is really necessary. A
pledge can only compel the person who makes it to do it, so idk why it
matters if anyone else really understands. Plus pledges that aren't in
public forums and actions that are not comprehensible have no effect on the
gamestate.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Jul 20, 2017 6:07 PM, "V.J Rada"  wrote:

Oh man there's always nothing better than waking up
to 20 new messages and a Cuddlebeam scam.


You're a pair of scare quotes short of my perception of the morning.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> I'm on vacation and only have mobile internet at the moment so I can't
> check, but does the rule specify that the trust tokens needed to win are to
> be issued by other players explicitly or that players can issue trust tokens
> and one needs such tokens from multiple players? In the event of the latter
> case it might be worth looking into because I think there is real ambiguity
> with how it interacts with Agencies and this is a good excuse to look into
> it.
>
> 天火狐


The last paragraph of the rule, for your reading pleasure:

"A person can win the game by announcement if e has been issued a
Trust Token by each player except emself; if no person has won via
this mechanism in the past; and if in the same message, e quotes, for
each of those players, a public message in which that player issued em
a Trust Token."

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> ...I also missed all of those other uses of "Public", sorry. Ctrl+F isn't
> useful to browse the ruleset when it's so large and there are so many
> references to a single term.


grepping through the ruleset is easy if you've read the ruleset.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> If that shielding doesn't get in the way, I'm guessing the trick would apply 
>> to
>> "publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an 
>> announcement
>> of intent to perform the action" too? Basically anything "public" but that 
>> isn't
>> explicitly grounded in the usual defenses. Like "Public Document" in a 
>> couple other
>> rules.
>
> Continuing on:  I'd agree we need to look at these case by case to see what 
> standards
> are required for each, as they're not covered in "by announcement".
>
> For example, R107 required a "Public Notice" to initiate a decision, but R107 
> itself
> describes exactly what has to be clear in this Notice, so there's a clarity 
> standard
> specifically for that.  Similarly, R2034 contains specific instructions for 
> what must
> be specified in a particular type of public message for it to have an effect. 
>  R2201
> is specific on what a "public challenge" consists of.
>
> R1551 says that a "public document" has to be contained in a public message 
> (i.e. not
> referred to via hash).  If the document is a report, R2143 says that "the 
> publication
> of all such information" is required (i.e. *all* of the info must be public).
>
> R991 has a completely different sense of the word public: "...to determine 
> public
> confidence..." but that's descriptive, can't see a legal problem there.
>
> I agree that Support/Object is fairly loose and you may be able to get away 
> with some
> unclarity there!  I think you tried a scam on that one already that was 
> rejected, but
> can't remember which case that was...
>
> -G.
>
>

i don't remember the case reference, but i remember that eir
support/object "scam" was to attempt to withdraw my objection to an
announcement that required a certain number of objections (which was
patched after ais and nichdel used it in the most recent win anyways
afaik, and failed because of that patch)

unless there was another "scam," they all run together to me lately.

-grok

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3541 assigned to grok

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 22:03 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>> > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as
>> > Assessor.
>>
>> I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5
>> shinies.”
>
> This is CFJ 3541. I assign it to grok.
>
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor


I intend to publish judgment on this CFJ in the coming hours. If there
are any further gratuitous arguments (as there have already been
several), I would request you get them in as soon as possible.


-grok

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:24 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> I'd prefer to spend a CFJ slot be spent but it's not an urgent CFJ at all.
>> I'm be up for retracting it if you pledge that you'll resubmit it when the
>> CFJ queue is empty enough (and if the economy eventually makes CFJs have a
>> price, I'll refund you).
>
> Why would I do something like that? I was hoping to avoid a CFJ
> altogether in order to avoid a judge having to waste eir time on
> explaining yet a gain why such a ridiculously implausible scam doesn't
> work. Delaying it wouldn't really help at all; there isn't a judge
> shortage, just a shortage of tolerance for that sort of nonsense.
>
> However, if you won't take it from me, I can find an uninvolved judge
> who will, I'm pretty sure, just reiterate the point that everyone else
> has been making. I was just hoping to avoid the effort for everyone
> (and the permanent embarrassment it'll create in the CFJ records).
>
> --
> ais523

I'd be happy to knock it out today, assuming Cuddlebeam doesn't bar me
as soon as e sees this message.


-grok

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:21 PM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super cool
>> though). Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal
>> consideration" is all it takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in the
>> "at the moment" argument? All cool?)
>
>
> is this a withdrawl of your CFJ and/or admission you broke your pledge
> to not post the string "ice cream"?
>
>
> -grok


lol nvm this is in DIS.


-grok

Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer doesn't break a pledge

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> Ah, oh well. No thoughtcrime then lol (would'be been bizarre but super cool
> though). Just the original loophole then, I assume, because "legal
> consideration" is all it takes to dodge legal consequences. (No flaws in the
> "at the moment" argument? All cool?)


is this a withdrawl of your CFJ and/or admission you broke your pledge
to not post the string "ice cream"?


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Payment

[grok (caleb vines)]

The theoretical answer is probably a function of known values, like the
price of an estate.

For a practical answer, I have an extra loaf in my pantry I'd be willing to
mail out...


-grok

On Jul 17, 2017 9:55 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:

Indeed. What’s the price of bread?

-o

On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:54 PM, Josh T  wrote:

I mean if I can buy the entire estate of Antegria for 50 cents, I think 10
cents a month is a lot.

天火狐

On 17 July 2017 at 22:50, Quazie  wrote:

> If this CFJ is true then all officers work for a very low rate of ~10
> cents a month - which to me is bonkers.
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 19:03 Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>> > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as Assessor.
>>
>> I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5 shinies.”
>>
>> -o
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Two Related Protos: Judicial Expansion and Criminal Cases

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> What about a system in which punishment packages were assigned without 3 
> objection or with Agoran Consent? The problem I see arising is that a player 
> breaks the rules harming a second player, but then the game votes does not 
> consent to punishing player one because they like em better than the second 
> player.


isn't that exactly what the proto suggests?


On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> That same officer takes all the finished cases and creates Punishment
> Packages. A Punishment Package is a list of effects, chosen from the
> list of appropriate punishments for each crime, that requires Agoran
> Consent. When a Punishment Package reaches Agoran Consent, its effects
> apply to the perp.


this reads as exactly what you're recommending and is the second
paragraph of the criminal court proto


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora

[grok (caleb vines)]

In your defense, I figured you were.

In PSS's defense, I wasn't 100% sure.

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:34 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was joking don't worry pss
>
>
> On Monday, July 10, 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Calm down! I don’t think he was the questioning the name, but rather if it
>> had a name.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 10, 2017, at 4:16 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I reject your CoE. The name of the newspaper is clearly News of Agora.
>> > Failing that, the name of the newspaper is the first heading, CuddleBeam
>> > condemned. This is totally discretionary. Dont question my name, dude.
>> >
>> > On Monday, July 10, 2017, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 12:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> > >> For a moment of levity in these trying times:
>> > >>
>> > >> CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir
>> > >> report.
>> > >
>> > > Gratuitous: the email's subject line contains a pretty reasonable name
>> > > for a newspaper. Can that be considered part of the report?
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > ais523
>> >
>> > Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in
>> > a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around
>> > 255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the
>> > subject line a precedent we're okay with? Is there other precedent to
>> > guide us on that subject? (pun DEFINITELY intended)
>> >
>> >
>> > -grok
>>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:29 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>
> Title: Vij's hip blog, because that's where people get their news from
> man. It's the internet age, man.
>

i am a fan of this

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 12:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> For a moment of levity in these trying times:
>>
>> CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir
>> report.
>
> Gratuitous: the email's subject line contains a pretty reasonable name
> for a newspaper. Can that be considered part of the report?
>
> --
> ais523

Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in
a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around
255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the
subject line a precedent we're okay with? Is there other precedent to
guide us on that subject? (pun DEFINITELY intended)


-grok

DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora

[grok (caleb vines)]

For a moment of levity in these trying times:

CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir report.

Rule 2446:
{The Reportor's weekly report includes:
1. A suitable name for a newspaper, at the Reportor's discretion.}

I interpret this to mean that the name of the newspaper is at the
Reportor's discretion, not the decision whether or not to name the
newspaper. Either way, I would certainly appreciate the flavor.


-grok


On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:26 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> I deputise for the Reportor under the fourteen days clause
> and publish the following newspaper.
>
> =Cuddlebeam Confronted=
> An uproar has occurred after CB's latest attempt to transfer
> all assets to himself! Some claim that CB is making the game
> unfun with such frivolous scams. This reporter hopes for the
> game of Agora's continued health, however that may come.
> ==FLR Published==
> The latest FLR has been published last month. However,
> the Rulekeepor is on vacation and unable to publish the
> SLR. E has gracefully allowed us to publish them by agency,
> and Agora needs a hero to publish the SLR and get Shinies!
> This reporter has considered doing so himself, and may do
> so soon.
> =Proposals Passed=
> Assets v.7, Gentle Judicial Updates, Cards are Power 1.7
> and Betterer Pledges have all passed.and are now law.
> Assets v.7 and GDU are both reenacting old standard rules
> that somehow got repealed, CaP 1.7 is a small fix to an area
> of the rules that desperately needs overhaul and Betterer
> Pledges makes the pledge system more administrable.
> =Elections Resolved, Initiated=
> The elections for three positions were conducted and the
> incumbents won two of them; the other was given to the only
> person who would agree to have it. V.J. Rada called 3 new
> elections but votes cannot be taken until Quazie initiates the
> Agoran decisions!
> =Proposals Put up for Vote==
> A proposal making pledges even better and a proposal about
> regulations have been placed up for vote. Given that it turns
> out that pledges are now not a game entity and a "promise"
> counts as a pledge, do we need a fourth pledge proposal?
> As to regulations, this reportor doubts the neccesity of yet
> another probably underused administrative apparatus.
> =Some People Register=
> V.J Rada is here, and he's a random teenager who stumbled
> here by mistake from a website he uses to pretend to be on
> reality television. If he ever seems less than smart, that's
> probably why. Also
> old standard Bayushi is back, along with
> two people who angrily deregistered like a month ago, grok
> and nichdel. And omd is back although he didn't deregister and
> he's making great contributions. And G. registered and
> deregistered in the very same message. He was angry about
> foreign language use which makes me angry sometimes too
> given we all speak English fluently and all. Anyway.
> =CFJ Roundup==
> Lots of CFJs! Lots of judiciary! Almost no actual game actions!
> Get ur priorities right nerds!* Also this reportor would like to
> remind you all PLEASE POST YOUR CFJ JUDGEMENTS IN
> BUSINESS NOT OFFICIAL OR AT LEAST LET'S MAKE THEM
> ALL IN THE SAME LIST thanks.
>
> 3528 (judge: ais523): It isn't possible to judge whether or not
> someone "enjoyed" typos until they actually post about it. Also
> in dicta: The discretion given to a Referee for carding something
> labelled a "cardable offense" is higher than breaking a "SHALL
> NOT".
>
> 3520 and 3021 (judge: quazie) Acting on behalf of someone will
> be counted as though that person performed the action in all
> circumstances. Also, giving someone power to submit a proposal
> on your behalf does not convey power to enter proposal
> competitions.
>
> 3523 (judge: Aris) A judgement bar can be made after the CFJ is
> called (but not after assigned).
>
> Some number (judge: me) Any attempt to transfer a non-integer
> quatity of Shinies is ineffective
>
> And lots of others I can't be bothered ah
> =Exclamation Points Overused=
> really ffs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for trying
> the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I *fail* to
> deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a loophole to
> try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded *regardless* of if I
> fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office somehow spare me of
> getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding, but I just want to
> understand that part better)

Trying to use a loophole that pretty patently does not exist or relies
on misinterpretation of common definitions of words pretty clearly
falls in foul of "No Faking" to me.

But even if it doesn't, if the CFJ is ruled against you, then you
clearly were Faking when you submitted a Surveyor report and should be
carded for that instance.

Regardless, I don't buy "I thought it might work" as a defense when
the action is intended to avert the rules as intended. If it was a
legitimate accident, sure. But in the case of a deliberate attempt to
use the rules in a way that is not intended that fails due to an
action that is impossible, the player should be punished for
attempting an action that is clearly impossible.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: grok, Attorney at Law

[grok (caleb vines)]

Yeah, that was a drafting error.

I intend, with 24 hours' notice, to create the following agency:

Title: grok, Personal Attorney (gPA)
Agents: All players except grok
Director: grok

Powers: Any agent may pay grok 5 shinies to activate gPA. If a player
does, e may make the following pldege on grok's behalf, replacing the
string '' with a string of numbers that matches the numeric code
of an open CFJ: "I pledge to either submit one or more gratuitous
arguments for CFJ  or pay 5 shinies to the player who posted this
message on my behalf."



On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "gAL" doesn't exist I believe (Nowhere in the Superintendent report:
> https://agoranomic.org/Superintendent/reports/week/next.txt , not in a-b
> either aside from here). Perhaps a leftover from editting it?
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:43 AM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not going to let all this nonsense get in the way of interesting
>> gameplay. So here's my proto-Public Defender office, which I guess is
>> technically a Private Defender's office in this form:
>>
>> I intend, with 24 hours' notice, to create the following agency:
>>
>> Title: grok, Personal Attorney (gPA)
>> Agents: All players except grok
>> Director: grok
>>
>> Powers: Any agent may pay grok 5 shinies to activate gAL. If a player
>> does, e may make the following pldege on grok's behalf, replacing the
>> string '' with a string of numbers that matches the numeric code
>> of an open CFJ: "I pledge to either submit one or more gratuitous
>> arguments for CFJ  or pay 5 shinies to the player who posted this
>> message on my behalf."
>>
>>
>> -grok
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
> that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
> believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
> Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
> (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>> I would support, with a fair implementation.
>>
>> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>>
>> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB
>> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
>> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does
>> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player.
>>
>> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single
>> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or
>> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to anyone
>> but emself.


With these two finger points in play now, I'd like to make a quick
reminder that I recommended Cuddlebeam be carded if eir attempt to
deputize as Surveyor fails[1].

[1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28819.html


-grok

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> I intend to deregister myself without 2 objections - not one of these scams
> has even come close to working, and I'm finding it unfun.

I certainly hope you don't deregister. You're one of the players that
gave me hope enough to come back after this exact thing happened a
month and a half ago

But for what it's worth, you're not alone in this sentiment. If you do
deregister in a write of FAGE citing Cuddlebeam, there's a good chance
I do the same.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: yeah sure

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 09:12 grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> back in
>>
>>
>> -grok
>
>
> Welcome back

thumbs up emoji clap emoji clap emoji


-grok

Re: DIS: testing mailman 3

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Jun 30, 2017 4:00 PM, "omd"  wrote

(You're not using the Gmail web interface, right?)


Gmail's web client actually has the "plain text" button which automatically
applies fixed width rules to unformatted text. I've been using it when I
send messages from the web client and it's looked a lot nicer than my
messages used to.

Not that I'm demonstrating it well here, since I'm on the mobile client.
But it's the principle of the thing.


-grok

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3529 assigned to Sprocklem

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> (Also relevant, the gratuitous arguments by grok to agora-discussion:
> )

ooh, do I need to TTttPF gratuitous arguments into BUS? Since they
aren't codified in the ruleset I didn't think about it.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
<p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> For the purposes of clarity, CFJ “omd "most recently became a player” on the 
> 3rd of February, 2011.”

I submit the following as a gratuitous argument:

I'm fairly certain that both this statement and the statement "omd
flipped eir player switch to 'Player' on 19 June 2017" could be true
without harming the game state. If both conditions were true then
omd's registration date would not change AND switches would
(debatably) maintain their pragmatic use by officers as suggested by
g. This seems like a Good Solution, although I don't think it's the
Best Solution (which is ruling this CFJ FALSE or less optimally
DISMISS as indeterminable and then passing legislation that eliminates
the ambiguity).

First, I recommend a Judgment of FALSE as suggested by the pragmatic
value of switches that act this way and the net benefit of an
opportunity to change the rules and eliminate the ambiguity.

However, if this CFJ is ruled TRUE, I recommend a person submit the
CFJ "omd flipped eir player switch to 'Player' on 19 June 2017" and
recommend a Judgment of TRUE on that CFJ.


I also submit the following comments as gratuitous evidence:

I don't see any text in the ruleset that would make me believe a
switch cannot be flipped to the value it is currently set to.
Especially since "Flip" is a term of art defined textually, not
contextually. In casual and contextual cases, "flip" usually indicates
multiple exclusive states that can only be modified by changing from
one state to another [1]. However, the ruleset definition of "flip"
indicates to me that switches can be "flipped" to any legal value,
including their current value. The exact language,

>>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.

makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
legal change. In this case, the player flipping the switch is just
making it come to have the given value of "player," and it is
coincidental that its current value is also "player." If the textual
definition of "flip a switch" made the switch come to have a DIFFERENT
value, I would agree. But right now, all I see is that "flipping a
switch" just means "setting the value," rather than "changing the
value." Adding "different" may be a good decision in the future.

There are immediate possible impacts on registration date in this
specific scenario. Not a big thing in the current ruleset but it could
affect one's ability to give and receive white ribbons. Could also
make a player subject to any "new player restrictions" like the ones
that used to exist and have been discussed now.

Curiously, the ruleset used to have language specifically stating that
only non-players could register (R869/9 and R869/17), but that
language has been lost over time.[2]


[1]: I concede that, in some contexts, "flip" means "to rotate an
object along its horizontal axis."
[2]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1648

---

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> >>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.
>>
>> makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
>> legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
>> legal change.
>
> There's a causality debate to be had here.  If you set a switch from
> X to X, you weren't the one who "made it come" to have that value, it's
> whomever did it before you.  I think, just from basic definitions, it
> can be argued either way.  But your interpretation makes more sense in
> the context of Officers' duties.  If an Officer is required to set a
> switch to X, and it's already X, we want em to be able to say "I flip
> the switch to X" and have it count as a duty fulfilled.

I agree that your counter-interpretation might be slightly
semantically superior, but my interpretation might be slightly more
pragmatic [1]. If it is necessary (or if there is a decision to award
omd a card), a CFJ could certainly help iron this question out. Or it
could just be preempted by letting this time go and changing the rules
to add the word "different" and eliminating ambiguity.


[1] Of course, I think my interpretation is right, but that's because
I'm an egotist and I want my cool and good interpretation to be the
best one.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> >>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.
>>
>> makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
>> legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
>> legal change.
>
> There's a causality debate to be had here.  If you set a switch from
> X to X, you weren't the one who "made it come" to have that value, it's
> whomever did it before you.  I think, just from basic definitions, it
> can be argued either way.  But your interpretation makes more sense in
> the context of Officers' duties.  If an Officer is required to set a
> switch to X, and it's already X, we want em to be able to say "I flip
> the switch to X" and have it count as a duty fulfilled.

I agree that your counter-interpretation might be slightly
semantically superior, but my interpretation might be slightly more
pragmatic [1]. If it is necessary (or if there is a decision to award
omd a card), a CFJ could certainly help iron this question out. Or it
could just be preempted by letting this time go and changing the rules
to add the word "different" and eliminating ambiguity.


[1] Of course, I think my interpretation is right, but that's because
I'm an egotist and I want my cool and good interpretation to be the
best one.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[grok (caleb vines)]

oof, also my apologies for the walls of text. i'm playing with gmail's
plain text editor and the input box doesn't automatically line break
for me. those paragraphs are...denser than expected.


-grok


On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:51 AM, grok (caleb vines)
<grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> You can not flip a switch to a value that the switch already held or at 
>> least that would make sense.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
> I don't see any text in the ruleset that would make me believe a
> switch cannot be flipped to the value it is currently set to.
> Especially since "Flip" is a term of art defined textually, not
> contextually. In casual and contextual cases, "flip" usually indicates
> multiple exclusive states that can only be modified by changing from
> one state to another [1]. However, the ruleset definition of "flip"
> indicates to me that switches can be "flipped" to any legal value,
> including their current value. The exact language,
>
>>>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.
>
> makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
> legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
> legal change. In this case, the player flipping the switch is just
> making it come to have the given value of "player," and it is
> coincidental that its current value is also "player." If the textual
> definition of "flip a switch" made the switch come to have a DIFFERENT
> value, I would agree. But right now, all I see is that "flipping a
> switch" just means "setting the value," rather than "changing the
> value." Adding "different" may be a good decision in the future.
>
> There are immediate possible impacts on registration date in this
> specific scenario. Not a big thing in the current ruleset but it could
> affect one's ability to give and receive white ribbons. Could also
> make a player subject to any "new player restrictions" like the ones
> that used to exist and have been discussed now.
>
> Curiously, the ruleset used to have language specifically stating that
> only non-players could register (R869/9 and R869/17), but that
> language has been lost over time.[2]
>
>
> [1]: I concede that, in some contexts, "flip" means "to rotate an
> object along its horizontal axis."
> [2]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1648
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I recommend that the Referee accept this apology and issue a green card if 
>> any card.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
> If I were a player, I would recommend avoiding punishment absent a CFJ
> indicating that omd actually committed an infraction. But I'm not, so
> idk. Maybe someone else would make that recommendation on my behalf.
>
>
> -grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> You can not flip a switch to a value that the switch already held or at least 
> that would make sense.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com


I don't see any text in the ruleset that would make me believe a
switch cannot be flipped to the value it is currently set to.
Especially since "Flip" is a term of art defined textually, not
contextually. In casual and contextual cases, "flip" usually indicates
multiple exclusive states that can only be modified by changing from
one state to another [1]. However, the ruleset definition of "flip"
indicates to me that switches can be "flipped" to any legal value,
including their current value. The exact language,

>>"To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value.

makes me believe that a switch can be flipped to any of the switch's
legal values. As long as it comes to have the given value, it's a
legal change. In this case, the player flipping the switch is just
making it come to have the given value of "player," and it is
coincidental that its current value is also "player." If the textual
definition of "flip a switch" made the switch come to have a DIFFERENT
value, I would agree. But right now, all I see is that "flipping a
switch" just means "setting the value," rather than "changing the
value." Adding "different" may be a good decision in the future.

There are immediate possible impacts on registration date in this
specific scenario. Not a big thing in the current ruleset but it could
affect one's ability to give and receive white ribbons. Could also
make a player subject to any "new player restrictions" like the ones
that used to exist and have been discussed now.

Curiously, the ruleset used to have language specifically stating that
only non-players could register (R869/9 and R869/17), but that
language has been lost over time.[2]


[1]: I concede that, in some contexts, "flip" means "to rotate an
object along its horizontal axis."
[2]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1648


On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I recommend that the Referee accept this apology and issue a green card if 
> any card.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com


If I were a player, I would recommend avoiding punishment absent a CFJ
indicating that omd actually committed an infraction. But I'm not, so
idk. Maybe someone else would make that recommendation on my behalf.


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I believe that to resolve this we should legislate that all attempts to pay 
> shinies shall be interpreted as a vector with a certain point in octonion 
> space and the distance from the origin along the vector to the first crossed 
> lattice point, being the amount to be payed.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com


Why not just require that shinies may only be given in positive
integers? Or that any entity that would give shinies may not give
fractional parts of shinies, negative amounts of shinies, or zero
shinies? (both also eliminate the "i give zero shinies" problem).

Those solutions make the ruleset a little easier (read: prevents us
humanities majors from having to know what octonian space and lattice
points are).


-grok

DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[grok (caleb vines)]

shit. eir registration. still getting used to spivak.

apologies

-grok

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:14 AM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I point my finger at omd for violation of No Faking.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>
> Question for you. Maybe a proto-CFJ.
>
> What part of the ruleset makes it IMPOSSIBLE for omd to register
> or makes his registration a violation of a SHALL NOT?
>
> Just curious. Maybe I'm missing something.
>
> -grok

DIS: Re: BUS: It's been a while.

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
>
> I point my finger at omd for violation of No Faking.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>

Question for you. Maybe a proto-CFJ.

What part of the ruleset makes it IMPOSSIBLE for omd to register
or makes his registration a violation of a SHALL NOT?

Just curious. Maybe I'm missing something.

-grok

Re: DIS: Interaction between CFJ 1709 and R869

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Jun 13, 2017 1:48 PM, "Quazie" <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:22 AM grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Jun 13, 2017 12:52 PM, "Kerim Aydin" <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> > Forgive me if I'm wrong but: since agencies cause the President of the
> agency to perform
> > the action, the person doesn't perform the action but rather the
> President. So person
> > acting through an agency might compel a player to perform a SHALL NOT,
> but that action
> > would be impossible, prevented, and punished via No Fakers, right?
>
> That's 100% correct for Agency actions specifically.
>
> But the broader argument is:
>
> 1.  I, G., have used an Agency while a non-player (Quazie's agency).
>
> 2.  Therefore, in a broad sense I am "playing" the game even if my
> Citizenship
>  is Unregistered.
>
> 3.  Therefore, I am somehow "bound" by the rules with my consent (consent
>  evidenced by my using the Agency therefore "making moves" therefore
> "playing").
>
> 4.  Therefore I can be penalized for doing wrong things (not
> President/Agency
>  stuff specifically, but if I break other rules in general).
>
> I think the old rules allowed this by being a bit murky on what "playing
> the
> game" meant.  Now, the R869 language specifically defining
> player=registered
> citizenship makes the above case a bit harder to justify... I could be
> wrong
> though...
>
>
> Sure. I think R869 makes a pretty good case (esp if C1709 predates it).
> But almost more importantly, what punishment can you even impose on a
> non-player through the ruleset? Curiously, a player can assign a Card
> through announcement to any person (2426), but the Referee appears to only
> be able to assign cards to players in an official capacity (2428).
> Similarly, players can only Point a Finger at other players (2427).
>
> I guess you could assign cards to non-players acting in bad faith through
> an agency without punishing the Director, in theory. Which could easily act
> as a control for non-players using agencies to do the things. But I don't
> think that necessarily makes you a player unless R869 predates C1709, in
> which case hmm.
>
> Also I was kind of under the impression that forming an agency inherently
> granted consent to perform actions on your behalf. But maybe that's just me.
>


If the agents of an agency are none, then i certainly don't consent to
people doing things for me (thought thats the only case i can immediately
come up with that disagrees with your conjecture)


More accurately, forming an agency inherently grants consent to perform
actions on your behalf to a set including all people who are listed as
agents.

Re: DIS: Interaction between CFJ 1709 and R869

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Jun 13, 2017 12:52 PM, "Kerim Aydin" <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:



On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm wrong but: since agencies cause the President of the
agency to perform
> the action, the person doesn't perform the action but rather the
President. So person
> acting through an agency might compel a player to perform a SHALL NOT,
but that action
> would be impossible, prevented, and punished via No Fakers, right?

That's 100% correct for Agency actions specifically.

But the broader argument is:

1.  I, G., have used an Agency while a non-player (Quazie's agency).

2.  Therefore, in a broad sense I am "playing" the game even if my
Citizenship
 is Unregistered.

3.  Therefore, I am somehow "bound" by the rules with my consent (consent
 evidenced by my using the Agency therefore "making moves" therefore
"playing").

4.  Therefore I can be penalized for doing wrong things (not
President/Agency
 stuff specifically, but if I break other rules in general).

I think the old rules allowed this by being a bit murky on what "playing the
game" meant.  Now, the R869 language specifically defining player=registered
citizenship makes the above case a bit harder to justify... I could be wrong
though...


Sure. I think R869 makes a pretty good case (esp if C1709 predates it). But
almost more importantly, what punishment can you even impose on a
non-player through the ruleset? Curiously, a player can assign a Card
through announcement to any person (2426), but the Referee appears to only
be able to assign cards to players in an official capacity (2428).
Similarly, players can only Point a Finger at other players (2427).

I guess you could assign cards to non-players acting in bad faith through
an agency without punishing the Director, in theory. Which could easily act
as a control for non-players using agencies to do the things. But I don't
think that necessarily makes you a player unless R869 predates C1709, in
which case hmm.

Also I was kind of under the impression that forming an agency inherently
granted consent to perform actions on your behalf. But maybe that's just me.

Re: DIS: Interaction between CFJ 1709 and R869

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Jun 13, 2017 12:32 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:



On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> We have: [CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all
those
> who play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they
> have the rule-defined status of "player".]
>
> And then in R869: "The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by
any agreement
> without that person's willful consent." and "The Rules CANNOT compel
non-players to act(...)"
>
> So, if you're a person who is "playing" the game (for example,
puppeteering someone via
> their agency), but who isn't a Player and you don't give a damn about the
rules, are you
> bound to the rules as per CJ1709 or are you not as per R869?

The reasoning in CFJ 1709 was highly specific to the contracts and rights
rules
language that is now completely gone.

Not to say something similar might not hold today, but the argument would
have to be
re-made specific to Agency and other current rules-language.

An example question:  R869 doesn't forbid compelling non-players to NOT
act.  So a
non-player *might* be able to violate a SHALL NOT.

That language in R869 was added in 2013/2014, when we removed our "Bill of
Rights"
version of R101.  This substantially changed the landscape of these sorts
of broad
protections/rights, and we haven't really litigated these issues since then.


Forgive me if I'm wrong but: since agencies cause the President of the
agency to perform the action, the person doesn't perform the action but
rather the President. So person acting through an agency might compel a
player to perform a SHALL NOT, but that action would be impossible,
prevented, and punished via No Fakers, right?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>>
>
> [No distinction between quoted and unquoted parts, whatsoever, in either
> version]
>
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language
>> on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no
>> apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT
>> EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or
>> argument to adjudicate.
>>
>
> Someone nuke gmail headquarters, please.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



I did write that message on mobile--happily willing to blame my phone
assuming this email looks correct.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[grok (caleb vines)]

On May 30, 2017 7:39 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:


On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:21 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I like the idea of a public defender, but their salary should be paid by
> the callers.


Agreed. We should have fees for cases (although Agora can pay if someone
can't), which should go to the Arbitor, Judge, and whatever other judicial
roles we come up with.

-Aris

>
Granular Paydays gives Agora offices a report rate. If the rule for a
public defender (or arbitor, whatever nomenclature is preferred) just state
that the public defender's presentation of arguments on a CFJ is a report,
e'll get paid per diem.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[grok (caleb vines)]

On May 30, 2017 7:07 PM, "Aris Merchant" <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>
wrote:


On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie" <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>>
>> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
>> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>>
>> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
>> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
>> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
>> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
>> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
>> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
>> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
>> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>>
>
> NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
> system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.
>
> That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
> other judgements) to make happen.
>
> I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
> on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
> super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
> em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
> comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
> want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
> there - so let's not do that.
>
> I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
> do, not what the officers SHALL do.
>
> Personally I believe in:
> Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
> 'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
> eating a sandwich`")
>
> Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge)
> - but the recusal must come with reasoning.
>
> And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.
>
>
> A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder
> language on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ
> has no apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED
> WITHOUT EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough
> evidence or argument to adjudicate.
>
> Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a
> public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more
> robust.
>
>
> -grok
>

I like this public defender idea, and would be happy to stand for the role.
Finally an interesting position without exessive paperwork! I also like the
idea of mandatory tags for certain emails. I think we would want tags for
proposals, pends, and votes. I'll have more thoughts on that later.

-Aris

>
Glad someone else likes it. I'm just of the opinion that if the caller is
required to bring evidence, someone must be required to do the due
diligence of checking their work (slash bias). Otherwise there's a really
big burden on judging that would make it tough for lots of players,
especially new players who might find the CFJ database daunting (read: me
two weeks ago).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[grok (caleb vines)]

On May 30, 2017 6:25 PM, "Quazie"  wrote:

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'll let ais523 comment on whether the 2-day bit is a bother at all.
>
> (final?) followup:  I still disagree with the wide/narrow judging idea
> (both on the principle and as a 'too much work for officer' grounds).
>
> We purposefully built a lot of flexibility into the Arbitor's
> assignment method (saying "reasonably equal opportunities to judge"
> rather than mandating rotations, randomness, or anything else).
> omd and I actually had a contested election a couple years back with
> contrasting assignment policies.  "Favoring" as used now is wholly
> Arbitor's discretion.  Point being:  this is the kind of thing an
> Arbitor should be able to form adaptive policies for or make an
> election matter, rather than mandating a switching system.
>

NOTE: I gently miss the standing court where you could manipulate the
system into ensuring you got a favorable judge.

That required a pretty dedicated CotC, and a low quantity of CFJs (and
other judgements) to make happen.

I fully agree to G.'s points though - We can't make judging any more work
on ais at all right now - e's doing us a service, and, right now, it's
super important.  E should be the one to dictate what work we're putting on
em, not us.  If the judiciary calms down, or we get lucky enough that G.
comes back and wants eir post (or really anyone truly decides that they
want the post) then we can add more switches and whistles, but we aren't
there - so let's not do that.

I think we do need some judicial reform, but reform as to what Judges CAN
do, not what the officers SHALL do.

Personally I believe in:
Dismissals due to 'IGNORANCE' (Not any arguments/evidence), and
'INCOMPETENCE' (No game relevancy: e.g. "I CFJ on `Quazie is currently
eating a sandwich`")

Judge Recusals (with the potential to give the case to a non-barred judge)
- but the recusal must come with reasoning.

And lots of the other things G. mentioned earlier in this thread.


A minor suggestion from an observer: you could use slightly kinder language
on those dismissal ideas. Like DISMISSED WITHOUT STANDING if a CFJ has no
apparent or impending impact on the game state, and DISMISSED WITHOUT
EVIDENCE if the caller or another player do not provide enough evidence or
argument to adjudicate.

Although if there was a dismissal due to lack of evidence, I would think a
public defender role (or office) would probably make CFJs a little more
robust.


-grok

Re: DIS: Regarding the dergistrations

[grok (caleb vines)]

I'm fairly certain my deregistration statement clearly outlines that the
fruitless philosophical CFJ attempts in spite of obvious rules that answers
them are my biggest gripe. I don't mind some philosophical discussion of
the rules, but when the ruleset or prior CFJs obviously answer the question
I get frustrated. It's not worth my time to run in circles over those
discussions when they have answers already.

No amount of legislating will change it, and I have no intent to
re-register after 30 days unless the pattern of behavior continues.

On May 29, 2017 4:19 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Are there any key behaviours you can identify that were problematic?
>
> Are there any solutions you would like to see Agora implement?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 2017, at 5:17 PM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > If you have any questions about my deregistration that aren't answered
> in my deregistration statement, I'd be happy to answer them.
> >
> > On May 29, 2017 4:08 PM, "Aris Merchant" <thoughtsoflifeandlight17@
> gmail.com> wrote:
> > We have a serious deregistration problem. Two of our experienced
> players, and one of our new players have deregistered. I'd like to open
> this up as a central thread about what we've done wrong. I'd appreciate if
> the former players would consider joining in the discussion, so that we
> might work together to improve Agora. Right now things are getting kind of
> unsustainable.
> >
> > -Aris
>
>

Re: DIS: Regarding the dergistrations

[grok (caleb vines)]

If you have any questions about my deregistration that aren't answered in
my deregistration statement, I'd be happy to answer them.

On May 29, 2017 4:08 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:

> We have a serious deregistration problem. Two of our experienced players,
> and one of our new players have deregistered. I'd like to open this up as a
> central thread about what we've done wrong. I'd appreciate if the former
> players would consider joining in the discussion, so that we might work
> together to improve Agora. Right now things are getting kind of
> unsustainable.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[grok (caleb vines)]

I don't think this situation required permanent record.

On May 29, 2017 3:53 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I would have recommended that you submitted a Writ of FAGE.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 2017, at 12:58 PM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I was really excited to play legislative-based, classic nomic style
> Agora. That's not what I'm getting. All this psuedo-philosophy of the rules
> stuff is really frustrating to me, especially since it's all getting
> dismissed or ruled false anyways.
> >
> > I spent a long time reading the rules in depth before I started, and
> really wanted to do it up right. Apparently that isn't a requirement or
> expectation, so I have no interest in playing.
> >
> > And it's a shame, because I was really, REALLY excited to join a nomic
> with so much history and prestige. But it just doesn't feel like a nomic to
> me right now.
> >
> > I'll keep an eye on the lists to see if it gets better in a month, but
> I'm not getting my hopes up.
> >
> >
> > I deregister​ as a player.
> >
> >
> > -grok
>
>

Re: DIS: A Solution to the Issue of Philosophy

[grok (caleb vines)]

As long as the discussions of philosophy have implications on the game
state, this will never be a functional solution.

Also, if my deregistration statement didn't make it clear, the problem is
not philosophy on face.

On May 29, 2017 4:03 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Given the recent problems regarding philosophical discussion:
>
> How would people feel about making a new mailing list for these
> discussions to take place and maybe the Herald could post weekly summaries
> to official? This would allow people to avoid the discussion without being
> completely out of the loop.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[grok (caleb vines)]

Believe me, you were never part of the problem. I didn't mind opining over
philosophy in Agora as long as it's backed with an understanding of the
rules and CFJ precedent--something you always made sure to include in your
more abstract posts. I'm more frustrated with the blase "I say I did so I
did" approaches towards abstract applications of the rules, especially in
cases where the rules plainly state how that case could be handled.

It's just frustrating that I thought I was doing things right as a new
player--asking lots of questions before I did things and really studying
the rules before registration--when clearly just jumping in and asserting
that I did things is fine too. It makes me feel like my work is for
nothing, and I tend not to stay in spaces where I don't feel appreciated.

It's just not worth my time and energy to post an argument about every
single psuedo-philosophy argument presented on Agora, and if I don't I run
the risk of losing. Just not a game I'm interested in playing.

And for what it's worth, I always appreciated your historical approach on
Agora. It was always appreciated.


-grok

On May 29, 2017 12:10 PM, "Kerim Aydin" <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> Sorry if I was over-historicating myself.
>
> On one hand, long digressions on philosophy have always been a part
> of Agora, that's not going away.  The recent talk about academics,
> essays and theses, and new players asking lots of questions, kicked it
> up a notch so maybe I started doing that too much , I'll dial it back
> myself.
>
> On the other hand, that's always been part of Agora, but it has to be
> balanced by plenty of working game play (functioning economy and so
> forth) so the long digressions are a minor side show.  So people can
> blip over the philosophy they find boring and "just play".
>
> But the "just play" bits seem to have lots of arcane agency-ing that
> I've lost track of myself.  And the recent scams set poor cultural
> precedents on scamming, perhaps (same thing happened a couple years
> back with Fool's scam - it was a burst of activity that then killed
> things because everyone got bored while it was sorted).
>
> And of course, with this high volume, it's hard to wade through at all
> no matter what's going on.
>
> FWIW, the contributions I noted from you in your short tenure seemed
> quite worthwhile!  Hope you might stay tuned to see if it settles
> down to more regular gameplay in a month or so...
>
> On Mon, 29 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> > I was really excited to play legislative-based, classic nomic style
> Agora. That's not what I'm getting. All this psuedo-philosophy of the rules
> > stuff is really frustrating to me, especially since it's all getting
> dismissed or ruled false anyways.
> > I spent a long time reading the rules in depth before I started, and
> really wanted to do it up right. Apparently that isn't a requirement or
> > expectation, so I have no interest in playing.
> >
> > And it's a shame, because I was really, REALLY excited to join a nomic
> with so much history and prestige. But it just doesn't feel like a nomic
> > to me right now.
> >
> > I'll keep an eye on the lists to see if it gets better in a month, but
> I'm not getting my hopes up.
> >
> >
> > I deregister​ as a player.
> >
> >
> > -grok
> >
>

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[grok (caleb vines)]

On May 28, 2017 8:30 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:



On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:

> Cool. I think I'll just tell anyway. I'm not too overly interested in the
subterfuge of it all. I just care mostly about confirming that it *would*
work,
> that's good enough trophy for me.
> "Withdrawing" isn't a regulated action apparently (note that I, as the
initiator, am not required to track any Objections until I actually intend
to complete
> it, when I need to publish the list, I believe). Or it is, and since
there is no explicit way to do it, nobody can actually withdraw, ever.
>
> So I can just do the unregulated action of "I withdraw your objection"
(would my proof of "all actions are regulation actions or not actions" not
work)
>

>From R2124:

   A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
   publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for
   an announcement of intent to perform the action.   An Objector to
   a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
   (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent
   to perform the action.

The ("and not withdrawn") as a verb is clearly tied to the Objector.  In
other  words, if ANOTHER player "withdraws" your objections (whatever that
means), you're still an Objector because YOU haven't withdrawn your
objections.

And it's #Objectors versus #Supporters, not #Objections versus #Supports,
that counts for the determination in R2124.



Interesting question: If am still an objector, but my objection has been
withdrawn, can I withdraw my my objection?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment on CFJ 3514

[grok (caleb vines)]

Welp I tried :(

Hopefully you appreciate the cookie recipe more than the formatting!


-grok

On May 26, 2017 7:31 PM, "Ørjan Johansen" <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>
> This recipe SHOULD fit in an eighty-character fixed-width line, for all our
>> terminal-based or fixed-width font mail client users.
>>
>
> While I appreciate the intention, (1) this arrived in my mailbox with the
> final parts of many lines already wrapped a bit before the 80th column, (2)
> even if it didn't, my mail reader also wraps incoming mail slightly before
> the width of the terminal window. (Also it is set to a default of 74th
> column on outgoing mail, although there's something about "flowing"
> involved too.)
>
> Recently I seem to be toggling my putty window between full screen and
> width 80, depending on what makes an email message look best / least awful.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Proto: Agoran Research Funding/Grants/Scholarship/other term

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I am already trying to do this some with the Herald and I see no need to
> add a new office, so I would be happy to take this up informally to go
> along with the Herald. As to the funding, we could set this up through
> donations with a pseudo-trust set up with a pledge.
>

Your efforts as Herald are appreciated, but the Herald already does have a
ton of responsibilities and you wear a lot of hats now. Plus that
University Director role would also be well-kept by a long-tenured Player
or person, while the Herald role doesn't necessarily need someone with
years of experience or deep deep CFJ knowledge. I think it would be a great
shift to distribute those responsibilities so we maintain a kind of
"levels" of experience required for certain offices.


On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> On 05/25/2017 02:37 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>
> You could also make a real trust with an organization, which could even
> issue its own stamps as a reward.
>

Beat me to that suggestion. Dang, I wanted to look smart.

If the org could issue stamps, the education system could become an
alternate Economic win condition. And no matter who uses the University
stamps, the theses and degree papers would help consolidate some of the old
and near-lost history of Agora that we've been worried about lately. Seems
like a win-win to me.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:

> If you look at Rule 217:
>Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that
>would (1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to
>resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation
>that the controversy will thereby be resolved;
> This does not state that the "formal process" *has* to be a CFJ.  For
> example, a
> CoE/Response is another formal process.  So it's quite possible for a
> Judge to say
> "don't use the courts, or don't use the courts *yet*, do it this way
> instead.
> As long as the method the judge recommends offers a reasonable expectation
> of
> resolution.
>
> I'm saying this just as an idea - it's not one we've used generally, but
> it's an
> interesting concept from real world courts that we might think about.
>
>
That's kind of how I view the CoE/Response and CFJ systems anyways. I view
CoEs as the initial claim that there is a rule being broken. The ability to
respond allows the defendant to present arguments directly to the accuser,
and both players an have opportunity to "settle" and withdraw eir claim
(the defendant's claim to perform an action, the accuser's claim that the
action is invalid or illegal). If the conflict isn't resolved through CoE,
then the CFJ system serves as a way to assign a mediator to make a unbiased
(or less biased) decision with oversight from the majority of Agorans.

But I'm still learning, so maybe I'm off base. Who knows? Certainly not me.


-grok