Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I support. (Seriously, looks fine, showed up as a reply)

> On Apr 9, 2021, at 4:22 PM, Trigon via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 4/9/21 11:11 PM, reuben.sta...@gmail.com wrote:
>> sorry but i need to do more email testing
> 
> It *looks* like it worked on my end but I would like to know if this shows up 
> as a reply to a previous testing message. Object to this message if it looks 
> incorrect on your end. This will help me with future experiments.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Trigon
> 
> ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST
> 
> I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
> I LOVE SPAGHETTI
> transfer Jason one coin
> nch was here
> I hereby
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Trigon via agora-discussion]

On 4/9/21 11:11 PM, reuben.sta...@gmail.com wrote:

sorry but i need to do more email testing



It *looks* like it worked on my end but I would like to know if this 
shows up as a reply to a previous testing message. Object to this 
message if it looks incorrect on your end. This will help me with future 
experiments.


Thanks!

--
Trigon

 ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST

I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Trigon via agora-discussion]

sorry but i need to do more email testing

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 4/3/21 5:35 AM, Trigon via agora-discussion wrote:

this is a test message, please ignore.



This was a test of my command-line SMTP client that I set up on my 
raspberry pi as a response to a proto there that would have strongly 
encouraged me to set up an automated mail sender.


Don't rely on anything more coming of this.

--
Trigon

 ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST

I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: (no subject)

[Trigon via agora-discussion]

this is a test message, please ignore.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 6:22 PM Collin Tir via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> forgot to say this in my joining message but call me "Jumble".

Just as a quick note, you should give your messages a title,
describing the contents in some way (the exception is replies, which
automatically have the existing title of the thread)

-Aris

DIS: (no subject)

[Collin Tir via agora-discussion]

forgot to say this in my joining message but call me "Jumble".

DIS: (no subject)

[Collin Tir via agora-discussion]

I join Agora Nomic.

















I intend to declare apathy without objection, with myself.

DIS: (no subject)

[Collin Tir via agora-discussion]

DIS: (no subject)

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

nix pointed out that the trick that allows you to cash your own
promise is a weird and counter-intuitive hack. This would allow people
to reclaim their own promises from the library more cleanly, and make
it the default behavior, while still allowing people to override it.

-Aris
---
Title: I Want My Promise Back!
Adoption index: 2.2
Author: Aris
Co-authors: nix


Amend Rule 2618, "Promises", by inserting, after the text:

  The Library is an entity and CAN own promises. Any player CAN take
  a specified promise from the Library by announcement, provided e
  cashes the promise in the same message.

the text:

  The creator of a promise CAN take or revoke it from the Library by
  announcement, unless the promise's text unambiguously designates
  it as irrevocable.

Re: DIS: Re: Subject: BUS: [Proposal] Minion Plan

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 13:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
wrote:
> what author?  only players can create proposals.  (going by the
> "Registrar's assumption" on greg's personhood unless a cfj finds
> otherwise).

Now I'm wondering if it's possible for a non-person to ever take an
action by announcement.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: Subject: BUS: [Proposal] Minion Plan

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 7/21/2020 1:21 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 13:13 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:11 PM ais523 wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 16:03 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business
>>> wrote:
 On 7/21/20 3:56 PM, Greg P. Thomas II via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal.
>
> -
>
> Title: Minion Plan
> Author: Thomas
> AI: 2
> Strategy: If the goal of this proposal is to make
> the other player pay more than 1
>
> -
>
> Amend Rule 2481 by replacing the text "each

 I intend, without objection, to cause this proposal to become
 pended.
>>>
>>> I don't think this creates a proposal. The text of the proposal
>>> isn't unambiguously specified.
>>
>> My interpretation is that everything after the AI line and before the
>> divider line is the text.
> 
> However, that's labeled as the strategy, not the text. Meanwhile, the
> thing after the second divider line looks a lot more like proposal text
> than the strategy does (but, by normal quoting styles, wouldn't be part
> of the proposal).
> 
> I don't think the author's intention is clear in this case, which is
> why I think it's too ambiguous to have worked.
> 

what author?  only players can create proposals.  (going by the
"Registrar's assumption" on greg's personhood unless a cfj finds otherwise).

Re: DIS: Re: Subject: BUS: [Proposal] Minion Plan

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 13:13 -0700, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:11 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 16:03 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business
> > wrote:
> > > On 7/21/20 3:56 PM, Greg P. Thomas II via agora-business wrote:
> > > > I submit the following proposal.
> > > > 
> > > > -
> > > > 
> > > > Title: Minion Plan
> > > > Author: Thomas
> > > > AI: 2
> > > > Strategy: If the goal of this proposal is to make
> > > > the other player pay more than 1
> > > > 
> > > > -
> > > > 
> > > > Amend Rule 2481 by replacing the text "each
> > > 
> > > I intend, without objection, to cause this proposal to become
> > > pended.
> > 
> > I don't think this creates a proposal. The text of the proposal
> > isn't unambiguously specified.
> 
> My interpretation is that everything after the AI line and before the
> divider line is the text.

However, that's labeled as the strategy, not the text. Meanwhile, the
thing after the second divider line looks a lot more like proposal text
than the strategy does (but, by normal quoting styles, wouldn't be part
of the proposal).

I don't think the author's intention is clear in this case, which is
why I think it's too ambiguous to have worked.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: Subject: BUS: [Proposal] Minion Plan

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:11 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 16:03 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > On 7/21/20 3:56 PM, Greg P. Thomas II via agora-business wrote:
> > > I submit the following proposal.
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> > > Title: Minion Plan
> > > Author: Thomas
> > > AI: 2
> > > Strategy: If the goal of this proposal is to make
> > > the other player pay more than 1
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2481 by replacing the text "each
> >
> >
> > I intend, without objection, to cause this proposal to become pended.
>
> I don't think this creates a proposal. The text of the proposal isn't
> unambiguously specified.


My interpretation is that everything after the AI line and before the
divider line is the text.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: Subject: BUS: [Proposal] Minion Plan

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 7/21/20 4:10 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 16:03 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> On 7/21/20 3:56 PM, Greg P. Thomas II via agora-business wrote:
>>> I submit the following proposal.
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> Title: Minion Plan
>>> Author: Thomas
>>> AI: 2
>>> Strategy: If the goal of this proposal is to make
>>> the other player pay more than 1
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 2481 by replacing the text "each
>>
>> I intend, without objection, to cause this proposal to become pended.
> I don't think this creates a proposal. The text of the proposal isn't
> unambiguously specified.
>

Awww

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: Subject: BUS: [Proposal] Minion Plan

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 2020-07-21 at 16:03 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 7/21/20 3:56 PM, Greg P. Thomas II via agora-business wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal.
> > 
> > -
> > 
> > Title: Minion Plan
> > Author: Thomas
> > AI: 2
> > Strategy: If the goal of this proposal is to make
> > the other player pay more than 1
> > 
> > -
> > 
> > Amend Rule 2481 by replacing the text "each
> 
> 
> I intend, without objection, to cause this proposal to become pended.

I don't think this creates a proposal. The text of the proposal isn't
unambiguously specified.

-- 
ais523

DIS: (no subject)

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries

For the week 2020-01-20..26:


# Victory

* G. wins the game by paying a fee of 1000 coins, and tells the story
  of eir coins. Thread: "bored of liquidity, need to invest"


# Voting

* The H. Assessor resolves Proposals 8280-8286. Proposals 8281 and 8283
  are adopted. The first is an attempt by Gaelan to outsmart Rule 1030
  and grant emself a patent title with a power-0.1 rule. The second, by
  Alexis, is a change to the rule text about earning a Red ribbon.

  * Alexis CoEs the resolution message, on the basis that it does not
record several of eir votes as endorsements. Jason denies the CoE
on the grounds that this is what e normally does and others haven't
complained.

* Voting begins on Proposals 8287-8307. This is a long list of
  proposals, some of which would make significant changes:

* Delete some possibly-obsolete text: remove the quarterly decay of
  blots, and remove a provision about a no-longer defined proposal
  switch called "Imminence".

* Either amend or repeal Glitter (Rule 2602).

* Increase the maximum voting strength.

* A long-in-the-making organization of the rules into "ministries".

  * Falsifian identifies a possible bug and submits a proposal in
an attempt to fix it.

* Remove the possibility for a CFJ to count as a doubt that blocks
  self-ratification (everyone seems to use the other method, claims
  of error, anyway).

* A proposal called "CFJ Bait" which raises many questions about
  what it would do.

* Amend Rule 217 so that "authorial intent" is to be considered
  when interpreting the rules.

  * Many people object to this.

* Make officers responsible for granting rewards and glitter rather
  than having each player claim eir rewards. For example, the
  Arbitor would reward judges rather than the judges announcing
  their own rewards.

  * Also, a follow-up to this that would define a notion called "in
an officially timely fashion".

* Remove the notion of a "convergence", and instead relax the
  standard to which the Rulekeepor is held for eir historical
  annotations.

* Some proposals that give officers expanded powers, intended to be
  used when there's confusion about the rules or gamestate. The
  proposals would give officers the power to:

  * Issue documents called memoranda, presumably to be used
when there is confusion about the rules or gamestate.

* G. raises concerns about the details of how the proposal
  would work. One concern is how and whether they would
  interact with the existing CFJ numbering and archive.

  * Issue "adjustments" without three objections, which take effect
in a manner similar to proposals.

* There is some concern about this power being too dangerous.
  Based on twg's concerns, the author, Aris, votes against the
  proposal.

  * Issue "patches", which are regulations which have some power to
override the rules.

* There are some concerns about the details of how the proposal
  would work. One concern is about a provision that obsolete
  patches CAN be repealed: whether a patch is "obsolete" may be
  a vague consideration.

* Make the Rulekeepor responsible for tracking regulations as part
  of eir regular reports.

  * G. raises concerns about the clarity of the new rule text, and
about whether it makes sense for regulations to be tracked in
the Rulekeepor's weekly report (Short Logical Ruleset).

* Replace the petition process for patent titles with a more
  general one.

* A long-in-the-making re-working of the rules for contracts (and
  pledges). It includes the introduction of a new officer called
  the Notary who tracks contracts and pledges, and as Notary
  installs Gaelan, who has volunteered.

* Replace gendered degree names with gender-neutral versions.

* An attempt by Gaelan to deregister two less-active players, and
  in response to that, a proposal by one of those players (D.
  Margaux) to deregister Gaelan.


# Culture

* twg submits a thesis titled "Letter to an Anti-Scamster: On the
  Importance of Loopholes in Agoran Culture" in the form of a detailed
  message declining Aris's request that e promise eir proposals contain
  no scams, and detailed reasoning about why e feels that "warranties
  against scams and loopholes should not be given on a blanket basis".
  Thread: "Warranty"

  * There is a side discussion about what should qualify for a J.N.
degree.

  * G. awards twg a new patent title, "Orator", based on twg's thesis,
after announcing eir intent and receiving support. Thread:
"[Herald] Hear, hear!"

  * After taking over as Herald, Alexis solicits discussion on which
degrees are appropriate for 

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Aris Merchant]

Seems about right, based on other people's translations. The nice
thing about the Bible is that plenty of people have translated it. I
wouldn't know myself, as I'm only a first year Latin student, and your
Latin is almost certainly better than mine.

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I don't think it does. Would you say my translation seems about right? I am
> a bit out of practice.
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> It's from the Vulgate. Acts 3:15,  and as far as I can tell it has nothing
>> to do with anything. Am I missing something?
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:06 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Rough translation, after fixing some misdeclension: You all have killed
>>> the true creator of life, who god has brought to life from the dead to which
>>> we are witnesses.
>>>
>>> 
>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>>
>>> 2017-04-18 22:25 GMT-04:00 James Beirne :

 auctorem vero vitae interfecistis quem deus suscitavit a mortuis cuius
 nos testes sumus
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I don't think it does. Would you say my translation seems about right? I am
a bit out of practice.

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's from the Vulgate. Acts 3:15,  and as far as I can tell it has nothing
> to do with anything. Am I missing something?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:06 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
>> Rough translation, after fixing some misdeclension: You all have killed
>> the true creator of life, who god has brought to life from the dead to
>> which we are witnesses.
>>
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>
>> 2017-04-18 22:25 GMT-04:00 James Beirne > >:
>>
>>> auctorem vero vitae interfecistis quem deus suscitavit a mortuis cuius
>>> nos testes sumus
>>>
>>
>>

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Aris Merchant]

It's from the Vulgate. Acts 3:15,  and as far as I can tell it has nothing
to do with anything. Am I missing something?

-Aris

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 3:06 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Rough translation, after fixing some misdeclension: You all have killed
> the true creator of life, who god has brought to life from the dead to
> which we are witnesses.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> 2017-04-18 22:25 GMT-04:00 James Beirne :
>
>> auctorem vero vitae interfecistis quem deus suscitavit a mortuis cuius
>> nos testes sumus
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Rough translation, after fixing some misdeclension: You all have killed the
true creator of life, who god has brought to life from the dead to which we
are witnesses.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

2017-04-18 22:25 GMT-04:00 James Beirne :

> auctorem vero vitae interfecistis quem deus suscitavit a mortuis cuius nos
> testes sumus
>

DIS: (no subject)

[James Beirne]

auctorem vero vitae interfecistis quem deus suscitavit a mortuis cuius nos
testes sumus

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Luis Ressel]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:44:31 -0400
omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
  The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals (with
  preliminary IDs):
 
 Though it's of course the Promotor's prerogative to choose when to
 distribute, I'm curious why you didn't distribute all of them.
 

I didn't distribute them because two of them were a day old and the
third mere hours -- I thought it might be better to give everyone some
time to review the rule changes and spot problems; in the case of
Single line feed, I was giving Henri an opportunity to retract it (I
missed your Silver Quill proposal had been from Tuesday, I should
probably have distributed it). Didn't you do the same with Wordplay
when you deputised last week?

Of course, I'll distribute the pending proposals during the weekend.


-- 
Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de
GPG fpr: F08D 2AF6 655E 25DE 52BC  E53D 08F5 7F90 3029 B5BD


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

DIS: (no subject)

[omd]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
 The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals (with
 preliminary IDs):

Though it's of course the Promotor's prerogative to choose when to
distribute, I'm curious why you didn't distribute all of them.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
 Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?

A trend/tradition of the second half of Agora's life actually.
The phrase '[x] is a player' has 80+ hits in the CFJ statement
database.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[omd]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
 Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?

 A trend/tradition of the second half of Agora's life actually.
 The phrase '[x] is a player' has 80+ hits in the CFJ statement
 database.

And the Class-3 Crime of Hazing since one of your own proposals last year :)

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
  On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
  Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?
 
  A trend/tradition of the second half of Agora's life actually.
  The phrase '[x] is a player' has 80+ hits in the CFJ statement
  database.
 
 And the Class-3 Crime of Hazing since one of your own proposals last year :)

I totally forgot that.

Don't think CFJ about a registration attempt to discussion list is frivolous 
though :P

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Steven Gardner]

On 9 July 2013 04:16, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:

Don't think CFJ about a registration attempt to discussion list is
 frivolous though :P


According to the OED, 'frivolous' has a special legal sense meaning
'manifestly insufficient or futile'. Since it is well established in law
and precedent -- really, about as well established as anything can be in
Agora -- that messages sent to agora-discussion are ineffective, it seems
to me that further CFJs on the topic are superfluous, and indeed, futile.

-- 
Steve Gardner
Research Grants Development
Faculty of Business and Economics
Monash University, Caulfield campus
Rm: S8.04  |  ph: (613) 9905 2486
e: steven.gard...@monash.edu
*** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate
Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). ***

Two facts about lists:
(1) one can never remember the last item on any list;
(2) I can't remember what the other one is.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Steven Gardner]

Let me stress that I'm talking hypothetically. Roujo never actually called
for Judgement (wrong forum, hehe), and so did not actually commit the
Crime. But I am interested to know what the Courts would consider a
frivolous CFJ in the sense of the last paragraph of R869.

On 9 July 2013 09:26, Steven Gardner steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:

 On 9 July 2013 04:16, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:

 Don't think CFJ about a registration attempt to discussion list is
 frivolous though :P


 According to the OED, 'frivolous' has a special legal sense meaning
 'manifestly insufficient or futile'. Since it is well established in law
 and precedent -- really, about as well established as anything can be in
 Agora -- that messages sent to agora-discussion are ineffective, it seems
 to me that further CFJs on the topic are superfluous, and indeed, futile.

 --
 Steve Gardner
 Research Grants Development
 Faculty of Business and Economics
 Monash University, Caulfield campus
 Rm: S8.04  |  ph: (613) 9905 2486
 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu
 *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on
 alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). ***

 Two facts about lists:
 (1) one can never remember the last item on any list;
 (2) I can't remember what the other one is.




-- 
Steve Gardner
Research Grants Development
Faculty of Business and Economics
Monash University, Caulfield campus
Rm: S8.04  |  ph: (613) 9905 2486
e: steven.gard...@monash.edu
*** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate
Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). ***

Two facts about lists:
(1) one can never remember the last item on any list;
(2) I can't remember what the other one is.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
 Let me stress that I'm talking hypothetically. Roujo never actually called 
 for Judgement (wrong forum, hehe), and so
 did not actually commit the Crime. But I am interested to know what the 
 Courts would consider a frivolous CFJ in the
 sense of the last paragraph of R869.

Some context may or may not help at all!

The registration rule is currently purposefully a little squishy, to
be welcoming, trying to say that it doesn't matter what exact form 
a new player uses, as long as intent to register is pretty clear.
Given that squishiness, for a while (maybe still) two things were going 
on:

1.  Some new players (or former players re-registering) would purposefully
try to register in a borderline or clever way that made it worth a CFJ
on whether or not they succeeded - this was also testing what constituted
'consent' for R101(iii);

2.  Since this happened a lot, an in-joke that developed was whenever an 
innocent newbie registered, no matter how clearly, someone would call a 
CFJ on whether it succeeded, making the newbie ask what e did wrong.  
Calling this Hazing was more or less meant to put a stop to this sort of 
thing.  Basically because the joke was getting a little stale.

But it's never been prosecuted, maybe it's useless.  Or maybe it's a 
deterrent.  No precedent really.

You're right that the recent attempt to discussion wasn't at all CFJ-
worthy - I was still half-asleep this morning when I thought it might be 
worth a CFJ.  I'd call a test case to set a precedent for frivolousness,
but if it were done to be a test case it might no longer be frivolous...
(is that like the Uninteresting Number paradox?)

-G.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Steven Gardner]

Level confusion, Goethe. The Statement Roujo committed the Class-3 Crime
of Hazing. is not frivolous; it alleges that Roujo frivolously CFJed on
the success of a player's attempt to register.

On 9 July 2013 10:10, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:



 On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
  Let me stress that I'm talking hypothetically. Roujo never actually
 called for Judgement (wrong forum, hehe), and so
  did not actually commit the Crime. But I am interested to know what the
 Courts would consider a frivolous CFJ in the
  sense of the last paragraph of R869.

 Some context may or may not help at all!

 The registration rule is currently purposefully a little squishy, to
 be welcoming, trying to say that it doesn't matter what exact form
 a new player uses, as long as intent to register is pretty clear.
 Given that squishiness, for a while (maybe still) two things were going
 on:

 1.  Some new players (or former players re-registering) would purposefully
 try to register in a borderline or clever way that made it worth a CFJ
 on whether or not they succeeded - this was also testing what constituted
 'consent' for R101(iii);

 2.  Since this happened a lot, an in-joke that developed was whenever an
 innocent newbie registered, no matter how clearly, someone would call a
 CFJ on whether it succeeded, making the newbie ask what e did wrong.
 Calling this Hazing was more or less meant to put a stop to this sort of
 thing.  Basically because the joke was getting a little stale.

 But it's never been prosecuted, maybe it's useless.  Or maybe it's a
 deterrent.  No precedent really.

 You're right that the recent attempt to discussion wasn't at all CFJ-
 worthy - I was still half-asleep this morning when I thought it might be
 worth a CFJ.  I'd call a test case to set a precedent for frivolousness,
 but if it were done to be a test case it might no longer be frivolous...
 (is that like the Uninteresting Number paradox?)

 -G.






-- 
Steve Gardner
Research Grants Development
Faculty of Business and Economics
Monash University, Caulfield campus
Rm: S8.04  |  ph: (613) 9905 2486
e: steven.gard...@monash.edu
*** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate
Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). ***

Two facts about lists:
(1) one can never remember the last item on any list;
(2) I can't remember what the other one is.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Steven Gardner wrote:
 Level confusion, Goethe. The Statement Roujo committed the Class-3 Crime of 
 Hazing. is not frivolous; it alleges that Roujo
 frivolously CFJed on the success of a player's attempt to register.

No, I meant if I personally (independent of Roujo) CFJ'd on whether 
the registration was successful, with the expressed purpose (say, in
my arguments) of seeing if it was a frivolous CFJ, would it be a 
frivolous CFJ?

DIS: (no subject)

[Lindar Greenwood]

I register. I support Fool's intent to found the Serious party, and I do so.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Charles Walker]

On 8 Jul 2013 01:15, Lindar Greenwood lindartheb...@gmail.com wrote:

 I register. I support Fool's intent to found the Serious party, and I do
so.

Welcome!

NttPF (Not to the Public Forum): which is agora-business. All in-game
actions must be taken there.

Also, your attempt to do so fails anyway because of the ongoing
Gerontocracy. Probably.

-- Walker

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Jonathan Rouillard]

Welcome! =D

I submit the following CFJ to the Ambassador-at-Large: { Lindar is a player. }

Arguments: While he claimed intent to register, he did not submit it
to the right forum. Something something R101, something something
R2397.

~ Roujo

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Lindar Greenwood
lindartheb...@gmail.com wrote:
 I register. I support Fool's intent to found the Serious party, and I do so.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Steven Gardner]

Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?

On 8 July 2013 10:35, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.comwrote:

 Welcome! =D

 I submit the following CFJ to the Ambassador-at-Large: { Lindar is a
 player. }

 Arguments: While he claimed intent to register, he did not submit it
 to the right forum. Something something R101, something something
 R2397.

 ~ Roujo

 On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Lindar Greenwood
 lindartheb...@gmail.com wrote:
  I register. I support Fool's intent to found the Serious party, and I do
 so.




-- 
Steve Gardner
Research Grants Development
Faculty of Business and Economics
Monash University, Caulfield campus
Rm: S8.04  |  ph: (613) 9905 2486
e: steven.gard...@monash.edu
*** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate
Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). ***

Two facts about lists:
(1) one can never remember the last item on any list;
(2) I can't remember what the other one is.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Jonathan Rouillard]

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Steven Gardner
steven.gard...@monash.edu wrote:
 Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?

Not usually. Class-1 is already a bit much for me.

~ Roujo

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Fool]

On 07/07/2013 8:46 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Steven Gardner
steven.gard...@monash.edu  wrote:

Class-3 Hazing, Roujo?


Not usually. Class-1 is already a bit much for me.

~ Roujo


Besides pantyhose are so uncomfortable in the summer.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Tanner Swett]

On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:35 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote:
 Welcome! =D
 
 I submit the following CFJ to the Ambassador-at-Large: { Lindar is a player. }
 
 Arguments: While he claimed intent to register, he did not submit it
 to the right forum. Something something R101, something something
 R2397.

Argudence: there is no right to register.

On Jul 7, 2013, at 8:28 PM, Charles Walker wrote:
 Also, your attempt to do so fails anyway because of the ongoing 
 Gerontocracy. Probably.

Pretty sure the Gerontocracy is irrelevant. The only things that matter 
(pretending Lindar's message was effective) are that Fool announced intent 
within the correct time period, Fool is authorized to perform the action, the 
action depends on support, Lindar has supported the action, and Agora is 
Satisfied with the announced intent.

—Machiavelli

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[omd]

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
 Pretty sure the Gerontocracy is irrelevant. The only things that matter 
 (pretending Lindar's message was effective) are that Fool announced intent 
 within the correct time period, Fool is authorized to perform the action, the 
 action depends on support, Lindar has supported the action, and Agora is 
 Satisfied with the announced intent.

See scshunt's recent CFJ.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013, omd wrote:


On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
Pretty sure the Gerontocracy is irrelevant. The only things that matter 
(pretending Lindar's message was effective) are that Fool announced 
intent within the correct time period, Fool is authorized to perform 
the action, the action depends on support, Lindar has supported the 
action, and Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent.


See scshunt's recent CFJ.


Hm so if I am understanding correctly:
* without Gerontocracy, there would be no time limit before the action 
could be performed, since it only would depend on Support.
* with Gerontocracy, it automatically depends on Objections, and so a time 
limit applies. (Currently 4 days as far as I understand.)
* The provisions in the Gerontocracy rule about right to Object take 
precedence over all other relevant rules, and are worded without any 
consideration of time limits.


Did 4 days pass since the declaration of intent already, and if it did so, 
given the strong precedence claims, does that mean the action can now be 
performed? (Since no Elders have objected yet.) If not, does every 
Dependent action have to wait until the Gerontocracy ends?


Greetings,
Ørjan (not registered, so if anyone else wants to use the above arguments 
for anything, feel free.)

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[omd]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
 Did 4 days pass since the declaration of intent already, and if it did so,
 given the strong precedence claims, does that mean the action can now be
 performed? (Since no Elders have objected yet.)

Yes.  In fact, it could be performed even if Elders objected, and I'm
not sure if the argument that the action depends on objections is
correct.  I just mistakenly thought Machiavelli meant that the
Gerontocracy is irrelevant to time limits in general, and was thus
unaware of that CFJ.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, omd wrote:


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:

Did 4 days pass since the declaration of intent already, and if it did so,
given the strong precedence claims, does that mean the action can now be
performed? (Since no Elders have objected yet.)


Yes.  In fact, it could be performed even if Elders objected, and I'm
not sure if the argument that the action depends on objections is
correct.  I just mistakenly thought Machiavelli meant that the
Gerontocracy is irrelevant to time limits in general, and was thus
unaware of that CFJ.


Um no, if Elders object _before_ the attempt to act, Rule 2357 says that 
Agora is not Satisfied with the intent, and so point (c) of Rule 1728 
would not be complied with.


What I'm unsure of is whether, and how long, it is necessary to wait for 
objections before performing the action.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[omd]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
 Um no, if Elders object _before_ the attempt to act, Rule 2357 says that
 Agora is not Satisfied with the intent, and so point (c) of Rule 1728 would
 not be complied with.

 What I'm unsure of is whether, and how long, it is necessary to wait for
 objections before performing the action.

Apparently I can't read.  My concurrence with your uncertainty stands.

DIS: (no subject)

[The UNDEAD]

I do not register.  I propose repealing rule 327.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[omd]

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, The UNDEAD theagoranund...@gmail.com wrote:
 I do not register.  I propose repealing rule 327.

Well... even though there are supposed to be a few days left, I don't
want to delay this further lest someone else beat me to it :)

I invoke judgement on the statement The legality of The UNDEAD's
attempted proposal cannot be determined with finality.

I submit that either I or my brother sent this message, but I won't
reveal which one.  My brother is not a Voter, so the move is legal iff
I was the one who sent it.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
 I submit that either I or my brother sent this message, but I won't
 reveal which one.  My brother is not a Voter, so the move is legal iff
 I was the one who sent it.

I put 10 doubloons in the coffer to post a Black Hand, specifying omd.

(I apologize for being ~582 weeks late with the coffer report, but there's 
actually enough of the right people playing that this should work;  
UF still exists for discussion).

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Charles Walker]

On 25 Jun 2013 22:18, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
  I submit that either I or my brother sent this message, but I won't
  reveal which one.  My brother is not a Voter, so the move is legal iff
  I was the one who sent it.

 I put 10 doubloons in the coffer to post a Black Hand, specifying omd.

 (I apologize for being ~582 weeks late with the coffer report, but there's
 actually enough of the right people playing that this should work;
 UF still exists for discussion).

It's things like this that make people who've been playing for four years
feel like newbs!

I have heard of the UNDEAD a few times before, but may I ask what it is?
-- Walker

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, The UNDEAD theagoranund...@gmail.com wrote:
  I do not register.  I propose repealing rule 327.
 
 Well... even though there are supposed to be a few days left, I don't
 want to delay this further lest someone else beat me to it :)
 
 I invoke judgement on the statement The legality of The UNDEAD's
 attempted proposal cannot be determined with finality.
 
 I submit that either I or my brother sent this message, but I won't
 reveal which one.  My brother is not a Voter, so the move is legal iff
 I was the one who sent it.

Was thinking about this, it's interesting that this win attempt goes
along with our earlier discussion on legal versus mathematical.  In a 
mathematical sense, one could say that it was equally likely or
unlikely that omd sent the message based applying the principle of
indifference to omd's claim.  But in a legal sense, one must establish
where the burden of proof lies.  So far, the default assumption has 
been assume each new email address is from a different person.  Omd 
questions the default assumption, but with testimony that does not 
sufficiently establish a preponderance of evidence.  Therefore, stick
with the default assumption (that the message came from someone other
than omd).

I'd say at least one earlier judgement went along with pragmatic intent
rather than mathematical formalism, but interesting that this is 
basically a game worldview decision for the win.

-G.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
 On 25 Jun 2013 22:18, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
  On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
   I submit that either I or my brother sent this message, but I won't
   reveal which one.  My brother is not a Voter, so the move is legal iff
   I was the one who sent it.
 
  I put 10 doubloons in the coffer to post a Black Hand, specifying omd.
 
  (I apologize for being ~582 weeks late with the coffer report, but there's
  actually enough of the right people playing that this should work;
  UF still exists for discussion).
 
 It's things like this that make people who've been playing for four years 
 feel like newbs!
 
 I have heard of the UNDEAD a few times before, but may I ask what it is?

You can certainly ask, but if the above action was at all successful, I dare
not say.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 15:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
  I have heard of the UNDEAD a few times before, but may I ask what it is?
 
 You can certainly ask, but if the above action was at all successful, I dare
 not say.

Well, given that I have no particular UNDEAD ties, I can talk more
freely than you can, because I don't know anything on the subject that
isn't public knowledge.

Basically, a long time back (before the era when contracts dominated
gameplay, but when contract-like constructs nonetheless existed), a
group of Agorans decided to make an agreement/construct/similar binding
structure with, apparently the purpose of hiding its own details. This
included such tricks as retroactively self-amending itself and replacing
itself with another agreement, leaving the first agreement existing but
useless, if anyone tried to compel its members to determine what it
said. (As far as I know, this doesn't/didn't actually work, but I don't
think it was ever tested.)

Apart from ehird, Agora mostly just left the UNDEAD alone. (G. most
often responded to ehird's probing via making throwaway statements that
hinted at some sort of internal economy, that were also completely
unverifiable. Eir message earlier UTC-today is another example of that.
It seems most likely to me that they're all bluffs, but who knows.)
Perhaps they were disappointed that they didn't get to try more active
scamming to stay secret. Eventually, it almost certainly disappeared as
an Agoran legal construct with the repeal of contracts. Given that G. is
apparently a member (or at least, very convincingly pretending to be one
over the past several years), though, it seems likely that its members
are interpreting it as an informal agreement and still maintaining
secrecy even though the rules of Agora would not punish them for doing
so. (Whether the other members of the UNDEAD would attempt to punish
them for doing so would, of course, be another matter.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Alex Smith wrote:
 On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 15:58 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
  On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Charles Walker wrote:
   I have heard of the UNDEAD a few times before, but may I ask what it is?
  
  You can certainly ask, but if the above action was at all successful, I dare
  not say.
 
 Well, given that I have no particular UNDEAD ties,

It also included a clause that members should regularly deny any UNDEAD
ties.  Or so it is rumored.

 Basically, a long time back (before the era when contracts dominated
 gameplay, but when contract-like constructs nonetheless existed), a
 group of Agorans decided to make an agreement/construct/similar binding
 structure with, apparently the purpose of hiding its own details.

Rumor is that it was a full Nomic, that claimed to be an independent
agreement from Agora (like Lindrum's aforementioned trading exchange).

It's possible that, at its inception, it was designed as a full-scale
Nomic with win conditions, so that leaders/winners of the UNDEAD nomic 
could compel other members' votes in other nomics, so winning the UNDEAD 
nomic would lead to a strong position in multiple other nomics.  
It's rumored that, from this independent agreement, UNDEAD members then 
sought power in Agora by forming official Agoran contract-like 
constructs (called Groups, simular to current Parties).  This is somewhat 
different, legally, than if the UNDEAD had started out as a Group.

It's also rumored that while a bit of this gameplay lasted for a while,
it served equally well as just a hatching ground for some nice schemes
(whether or not the official UNDEAD mechanisms were used to compel
members' participation in these schemes, scams were hatched).

The fact that it was known to exist, but secretive, generated a surprising 
amount of paranoia in some non-member Agorans.  There were a couple genuine 
witch hunts looking for members, for a short time Agora was genuinely like 
a game of werewolf.  Rumor has it that members earned doubloons by gently 
provoking paranoia and making posts of actions into the Agoran PF (some 
fake, but some were real).  A genuine highlight was non-members genuinely 
offering to shelter members who wanted to break away without facing 
UNDEAD wrath.  It is rumored that at one point close to 50% of active Agora 
were members, at least half never revealed.  The player now known as 
G. was an early reveal, so was able to be more overtly active in public 
interactions.  Rumor also has it that a combination of fake and real 
information is the UNDEAD modus operandi, up to and including this message.

The last fully admitted project that was definitely traced to the UNDEAD 
was the Town Fountain.

 Apart from ehird, Agora mostly just left the UNDEAD alone.

It was the other way around.  So it is rumored.

 Eventually, it almost certainly disappeared as an Agoran legal construct 
 with the repeal of contracts.

It is rumored that the real state of this subnomic was maintained for some 
years past the repeal of Groups and the Fountain.  It was certainly never 
formally dissolved.  As an independent contract, it's certainly arguable 
whether it would (today) meet Zephram's definition of natural contract/
partnership, and if so whether Agora could have any say over it.  It is 
rumored that at least a few members have recently (within the last couple 
months, including people not around at the time of the Fountain) asserted 
in the right places that they are generally abiding by it.

 (Whether the other members of the UNDEAD would attempt to punish
 them for doing so would, of course, be another matter.)

You might think so.  I couldn't possibly comment.

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Fool]

On 25/06/2013 8:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

The fact that it was known to exist, but secretive, generated a surprising
amount of paranoia in some non-member Agorans.  There were a couple genuine
witch hunts looking for members, for a short time Agora was genuinely like
a game of werewolf.


You mean people were persecuted on suspicion of being Undead?

If true, well done. But rumour has it that the publicly revealed members 
of the Undead exaggerate. :)


-Dan

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Fool wrote:
 On 25/06/2013 8:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
  The fact that it was known to exist, but secretive, generated a surprising
  amount of paranoia in some non-member Agorans.  There were a couple genuine
  witch hunts looking for members, for a short time Agora was genuinely like
  a game of werewolf.
 
 You mean people were persecuted on suspicion of being Undead?
 
 If true, well done. But rumour has it that the publicly revealed members of
 the Undead exaggerate. :)

Heh, caught me out on that one.  There was no official Agoran persecution,
I meant it in the sense at lots of finger-pointing (how can I vote for your
innocuous proposal when you might be one of THEM tricking me).  Learned
later that a few non-members had spent a while privately scrutinizing almost 
entirely unrelated and innocent voting patterns trying to pick out members.

But yeah, another exaggeration - Michael was right that it was maybe a third 
undead, a third actively worried/paranoid/against, and a good old third 
standard-independent-minded Agorans who didn't do much more than raise an 
eyebrow or two at the baddish role-playing.

DIS: (no subject)

[Alex Smith]

This is another test.



I'm starting to worry that Yahoo! can't send truly

plain-text messages at all...



-- 

ais523

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Elliott Hird]

2009/7/5 Alex Smith callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk:

Just use gmail.

DIS: (no subject)

[Ankica Zilic]

what to do

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[ihope]

On 26/02/2008, Ankica Zilic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 what to do

Read the rules, become a player, have fun, I suppose. The rules are at
http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/current_slr.txt

--Ivan Hope CXXVII

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[comex]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:45 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Read the rules, become a player, have fun, I suppose. The rules are at
  http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/current_slr.txt
Not the SLR!  Try the FLR, it's tastier.
http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/current_flr.txt

DIS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

Joshua Boehme wrote:
 I'm assuming players fall under the definition of Rule-defined entities.  
 What's interesting is that there are patent titles which still exist under 
 the rules and are assigned to Chuck, so it's possible e is still defined to

 some degree in relation to those.

...meaning e could cause a series of CFJs as soon as e registers. It seems 
very Agoran, somehow...


There a bit of a precedent (or at least some opining on one in the last
paragraph) in CFJ 1520:

http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1520

-G.