Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@assessor) pppppowerup
On 6/8/2021 9:39 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, 2021-06-08 at 09:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> I had a feeling you'd bring this one up when I saw you register and saw >> that your computer delivery was faster than mine :) ! > My CFJ earlier was actually primarily intended as a test of my delivery > times to -bus. I decided to disguise it as something other than an > email timing test, because I think that if I'd made it obvious that I > were planning a timing scam, someone would have figured it out and > might have pulled off the counterscam. I've definitely done that in previous timing races. FWIW, this time I made the conscious decision to push it to where it would likely arrive late. This was not to gain the advantage of "no reaction time", but on the off chance that Aris et al. decided to distribute a final proposal that I wouldn't otherwise be able to respond to, I wanted my extra strength to have the greatest chance of being spent after that proposal's voting period started. > I think the best choice (which might require a rule change) would > probably be along the line of "an email is sent at the point in time at > which the person sending the email completed the process of telling > computers to send it, except if they introduced an artificial delay > into the process". Instead of forcing timing-scamsters into having to > find a tradeoff between ensuring the email arrives on time and ensuring > people can't react to it if it arrives too early, it makes sense to > just say "as long as you aren't trying to rig things, just make sure > you send it before the deadline and don't worry about when it arrives". I agree that this is the only "equal and fair" option I can think of. Though we might have to introduce tiebreakers - if we are permitted to go as close to the wire as we like, CRON jobs can make it exact, so we might expect a few more ties to happen. I can't remember any cases that ever had ties - would messages that were tied down to the second be placed in the right order in the archives based on milliseconds? Or based on one of the receipt timestamps (which would be something of a compromise - if you're expecting a tie you go back to timing your messages and if you're slow gamble on being 1 second early). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@assessor) pppppowerup
On Tue, 2021-06-08 at 09:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> I had a feeling you'd bring this one up when I saw you register and saw
> that your computer delivery was faster than mine :) !
My CFJ earlier was actually primarily intended as a test of my delivery
times to -bus. I decided to disguise it as something other than an
email timing test, because I think that if I'd made it obvious that I
were planning a timing scam, someone would have figured it out and
might have pulled off the counterscam.
> Someone actually noticed my slow delivery times last week in discord and
> mentioned it - obviously this is a self-interested statement, but I think
> current precedent, or game custom at least, is that the date-stamp of
> hitting the send button is the prima facie time of sending. But I'm not
> sure there's been a focused CFJ on that since you were a player.
>
> Not just for fairness, which is of course one big issue, but also because
> it's a big burden for officers to hunt for other buried timestamps.
>
> If there's evidence of purposeful delay, that might be punishable by No
> Faking ("the datestamp is a lie") and a one-off judgement that evidence
> suggests a different timestamp is closer to the actual true sending time.
> But also, it's in the socially unacceptable category along with
> sockpuppets? (No Faking idea isn't truly tested because no one's ever
> been accused of it - it's in the sockpuppet category because we can't
> really combat it because it's hard to detect, so let's make sure it's
> understood to be a big social taboo).
The Date: stamp on an email is forgeable, and I've actually forged it
in the past (but to something so obviously incorrect that it probably
wouldn't count as Faking). Actually, in the olden days when I used to
"hand-deliver" my emails, I had to write it out by hand every time, and
it's sometimes hard to know what to put there.
I think the best choice (which might require a rule change) would
probably be along the line of "an email is sent at the point in time at
which the person sending the email completed the process of telling
computers to send it, except if they introduced an artificial delay
into the process". Instead of forcing timing-scamsters into having to
find a tradeoff between ensuring the email arrives on time and ensuring
people can't react to it if it arrives too early, it makes sense to
just say "as long as you aren't trying to rig things, just make sure
you send it before the deadline and don't worry about when it arrives".
One additional complication is that we think of sending an email as
something that happens at a point of time, whereas in practice, the
start of the email is received before the end of the email is. There's
the theoretical possibility to artificially slow down the rate at which
the email is received, allowing the end of an email to be written
substantially later than the start of the email arrived. (I think many
servers will date-stamp with the point in time at which the email
started to arrive, meaning that an email can contain text that reacts
to things that happened considerably before it arrived.)
The other additional complication is what happens when there's a very
long delay, on the order of days (especially when it isn't the fault of
the email sender); this has been known to happen at Agora in the past.
You wouldn't want someone to be able to make and resolve an RWO intent
before anyone else saw that the intent existed. (CFJ 2058 covers this
case, but it's unclear from the judgement what the precedent actually
is; it appears that we're using some sort of equity test and the
message's arrival time may be different for different purposes.)
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@assessor) pppppowerup
On 6/8/2021 9:01 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-06-08, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
>> I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength.
>> I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength.
>> I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength.
>> I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength.
>> I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength.
>
> From the email headers (irrelevant sections replaced by [...]):
>> Received: from mxout25.s.uw.edu [...] by vps.qoid.us [...]
>> Tue, 08 Jun 2021 15:48:02 +
>> Received: from mail-pl1-f200.google.com [...]
>> by mxout25.s.uw.edu [...] Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:45:07 -0700
>
> Can anyone remember the precedent on whether a delay at this point in
> the chain of email relays delays the time at which the message is
> considered to have been sent? This affects whether or not G. had any
> Extra Votes on em to spend, because the delay pushed it past the
> economic reset.
>
> (FWIW, I think equitably, this expenditure ought to count as having
> been done in time, because the delay was likely unexpected, and outside
> G.'s control. I can't remember what the actual precedent says, though,
> and there are some issues with "would other players have had an
> opportunity to react to this?".)
>
I had a feeling you'd bring this one up when I saw you register and saw
that your computer delivery was faster than mine :) ! (If people haven't
seen this, scroll to the bottom of the by-month list of Agora-Business
archives to the June 1993 records, or check it out here:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/1993-June/014163.html
).
Someone actually noticed my slow delivery times last week in discord and
mentioned it - obviously this is a self-interested statement, but I think
current precedent, or game custom at least, is that the date-stamp of
hitting the send button is the prima facie time of sending. But I'm not
sure there's been a focused CFJ on that since you were a player.
Not just for fairness, which is of course one big issue, but also because
it's a big burden for officers to hunt for other buried timestamps.
If there's evidence of purposeful delay, that might be punishable by No
Faking ("the datestamp is a lie") and a one-off judgement that evidence
suggests a different timestamp is closer to the actual true sending time.
But also, it's in the socially unacceptable category along with
sockpuppets? (No Faking idea isn't truly tested because no one's ever
been accused of it - it's in the sockpuppet category because we can't
really combat it because it's hard to detect, so let's make sure it's
understood to be a big social taboo).
-G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@assessor) pppppowerup
On Tue, 2021-06-08, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. >From the email headers (irrelevant sections replaced by [...]): > Received: from mxout25.s.uw.edu [...] by vps.qoid.us [...] > Tue, 08 Jun 2021 15:48:02 + > Received: from mail-pl1-f200.google.com [...] > by mxout25.s.uw.edu [...] Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:45:07 -0700 Can anyone remember the precedent on whether a delay at this point in the chain of email relays delays the time at which the message is considered to have been sent? This affects whether or not G. had any Extra Votes on em to spend, because the delay pushed it past the economic reset. (FWIW, I think equitably, this expenditure ought to count as having been done in time, because the delay was likely unexpected, and outside G.'s control. I can't remember what the actual precedent says, though, and there are some issues with "would other players have had an opportunity to react to this?".) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: (@assessor) pppppowerup
On Tue, 2021-06-08 at 08:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. Given all the strength-buying that's going on at the moment (and given that I can't vote on the current distributions): if anyone's interested in buying Voting Cards, I'd be interested in selling mine, assuming we can negotiate a mutually agreeable price. -- ais523
