Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 17:20 -0400, comex wrote: On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: It's possible to publish an NoV by sending it to a public forum, no matter what lower-power rules think on the matter. Rules 101 and 478, both power-3, give us the right of participation in the fora. And publishing NoVs is certainly a legitimate form of participation (unlike, e.g. lying). Umm... no? Participation is not the same thing as completely uninhibited participation. N.B. CFJ 1768, but by the same argument, even if excessive NoVs don't count as participation, that merely makes the NoVs ILLEGAL, not INVALID. This is probably the most relevant paragraph of that judgement: The purposes of the public fora, as outlined in the quoted reasoning, are not met by lying. Indeed, lies are destructive to their purposes. Information and ideas are poorly disseminated by untrue statements; true ones are always available for this purpose and much more effective. As for game actions, untrue statements generally do not have such effects. CFJ 1768 judged that rules 101 and 478 do not prevent Truthfulness working, because lying isn't a method of participating in the fora. Submitting an NoV, however, definitely is. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: CFJ 1768 judged that rules 101 and 478 do not prevent Truthfulness working, because lying isn't a method of participating in the fora. Submitting an NoV, however, definitely is. Publishing a text of claiming to be an NoV is participating. Whether or not the published text has the legal effect of an NoV is in the domain of the NoV Rules, not R101. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 07:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: CFJ 1768 judged that rules 101 and 478 do not prevent Truthfulness working, because lying isn't a method of participating in the fora. Submitting an NoV, however, definitely is. Publishing a text of claiming to be an NoV is participating. Whether or not the published text has the legal effect of an NoV is in the domain of the NoV Rules, not R101. -Goethe Yes, I'm trying to clarify the legality in that message. The possibility is dependent, as you say, on the NoV rules. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
Goethe wrote: R101 says you can publish text. It doesn't say anything about what the legal effect of doing so can or can't be. For example, you can publish all the text of a Proposal Distribution, but it's not a Proposal Distribution unless you're the Promotor. Similarly, R101 says you can publish the contents of an NoV, that doesn't mean it is one. Therefore you're R101/R478 argument isn't particularly meaningful. This seems like another facet of ISIDTID. Which, come to think of it, should really be addressed explicitly by Rule 478, e.g. A public message claiming that one performs a game-defined action is not generally effective, but must be specifically enabled, e.g. by a rule stating that one CAN perform it by announcement. A public message claiming to be a game-defined entity (e.g. a distribution of proposals) is not generally that entity, but must match the circumstances defined for that entity (e.g. being sent by the Promotor).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 07:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: CFJ 1768 judged that rules 101 and 478 do not prevent Truthfulness working, because lying isn't a method of participating in the fora. Submitting an NoV, however, definitely is. Publishing a text of claiming to be an NoV is participating. Whether or not the published text has the legal effect of an NoV is in the domain of the NoV Rules, not R101. -Goethe Yes, I'm trying to clarify the legality in that message. The possibility is dependent, as you say, on the NoV rules. Gotcha.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: A public message claiming to be a game-defined entity (e.g. a distribution of proposals) is not generally that entity, but must match the circumstances defined for that entity (e.g. being sent by the Promotor). This would be very nice to have. The question right now is, can we infer this in the current ruleset? Right now there are two types of action: 1. The player is authorized to act via a type of publication. 2. Rules define a certain type of Notice as a publication containing certain information. Player acts by posting said Notice. Notice triggers actions. In spite of my earlier example, Proposal Distribution is actually the first (as are most actions) as the rules say that the Promotor distributes a proposal. Interestingly, I don't know what sort of regulations the second type has at all. R2125 covers actions. If the only action is publishing certain information (and any publication of said information is automatically such a Notice) that's covered by R101; other rules may it ILLEGAL but not IMPOSSIBLE. But if we take the view that what's actually happening is that an Entity (the Notice) is being created[*], then the creation is a regulated act, and Rules may make it IMPOSSIBLE to create the entity. I don't see anything in the rules generally to decide between these two interpretations (other than the usual tradition and good of the game). -Goethe *sometimes the creation is explicit; initiating an Agoran decision is a reasonable synonym for creating a decision process. In those cases it's clearly a regulated creation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 08:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 3 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: A public message claiming to be a game-defined entity (e.g. a distribution of proposals) is not generally that entity, but must match the circumstances defined for that entity (e.g. being sent by the Promotor). This would be very nice to have. The question right now is, can we infer this in the current ruleset? Right now there are two types of action: 1. The player is authorized to act via a type of publication. 2. Rules define a certain type of Notice as a publication containing certain information. Player acts by posting said Notice. Notice triggers actions. In spite of my earlier example, Proposal Distribution is actually the first (as are most actions) as the rules say that the Promotor distributes a proposal. Interestingly, I don't know what sort of regulations the second type has at all. R2125 covers actions. If the only action is publishing certain information (and any publication of said information is automatically such a Notice) that's covered by R101; other rules may it ILLEGAL but not IMPOSSIBLE. But if we take the view that what's actually happening is that an Entity (the Notice) is being created[*], then the creation is a regulated act, and Rules may make it IMPOSSIBLE to create the entity. I don't see anything in the rules generally to decide between these two interpretations (other than the usual tradition and good of the game). I think, at the same time, we should fix such confusions such as submitting a partnership as a proposal, to make clear whether that sort of thing works or not. IMO, we should divorce game-defined entities from the actual text of messages; instead of publishing an NoV, for instance, we should cause players to announce that they create an NoV with particular information, and then the NoV comes into existence (which is different from the NoV being published in the first place; with such changes, the NoV would not itself be the message). Doing likewise for contracts, proposals, etc, would probably make matters a lot clearer. /me goes off to ponder whether amending a contract causes the original message in which the contract was announced to retroactively change, although e's pretty much positive it doesn't. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 08:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: If the only action is publishing certain information (and any publication of said information is automatically such a Notice) that's covered by R101; other rules may it ILLEGAL but not IMPOSSIBLE. But if we take the view that what's actually happening is that an Entity (the Notice) is being created[*], then the creation is a regulated act, and Rules may make it IMPOSSIBLE to create the entity. I don't see anything in the rules generally to decide between these two interpretations (other than the usual tradition and good of the game). I think, at the same time, we should fix such confusions such as submitting a partnership as a proposal, to make clear whether that sort of thing works or not. IMO, we should divorce game-defined entities from the actual text of messages; instead of publishing an NoV, for instance, we should cause players to announce that they create an NoV with particular information, and then the NoV comes into existence... Speaking of proposals, I think the closest thing we have to answering the question for NoVs in the current ruleset is the recent controversy on is a Proposal its text, or a container created by the publication of an initial text? The end result of that (now legislatively clarified) was the latter, so there's a precedent that NoVs and the like are created entities and their creation is regulated. (I think; there was so much text written there I can't remember what was a precedent and what was mere discussion). By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether MAY with N Support in general invokes dependent actions thus turning a MAY into a CAN? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
Goethe wrote: By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether MAY with N Support in general invokes dependent actions thus turning a MAY into a CAN? Rule 1728 includes this: A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise permitted by the rules. but it's not explicit whether that type of permission is physical, legal, or both.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 11:01 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: Goethe wrote: By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether MAY with N Support in general invokes dependent actions thus turning a MAY into a CAN? Rule 1728 includes this: A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise permitted by the rules. but it's not explicit whether that type of permission is physical, legal, or both. CAN is always physical; but as otherwise permitted by the rules makes the whole thing even more muddy. As for Goethe's original question, I'm not answering right now because I'm not sure, I'll have to look into the issue more closely. I strongly suspect there's at least one bug in the rule, but am not entirely sure of its effects right now. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sun, 3 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 11:01 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: Goethe wrote: By the way ais523, what do you think of the other question, on whether MAY with N Support in general invokes dependent actions thus turning a MAY into a CAN? Rule 1728 includes this: A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise permitted by the rules. but it's not explicit whether that type of permission is physical, legal, or both. CAN is always physical; but as otherwise permitted by the rules makes the whole thing even more muddy. Ugh. So we have to interpret both permitted and authorized either of which can be synonyms for CAN, MAY, or both. Both terms are scattered around the ruleset a lot, so it might be that no hard ruling can be made, but that it's contextual, like the noncapitalized can, may, etc. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 09:39 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: [Summary: Each active non-scamster gets a bogus Rest, then the scamsters take turns being the sole active Rest-free player for Win by Solitude, then the bogus Rests are destroyed.] Because scams involving the judicial system are often seen as damaging to a nomic, I'd like to explain my opinions on this in more detail. The CFJ system of a nomic is useful, and very important, for establishing what is true about the gamestate. If an inquiry CFJ finds that something is true, people generally play based on that assumption; if it's forced to the wrong result by bribery or by something less sinister, we all end up playing a gamestate other than the actually correct one, which is a disaster all round. As long as the inquiry CFJ system is kept separate from the gamestate, there's no real incentive to scam it, which is useful; having side-effects in a CFJ would mix the issues of discovering what's true, and of gaining an advantage. This might lead to people scamming CFJs for personal gain, leaving the record confused. The criminal CFJ system in Agora has a lot of side effects; its purpose is not so much to determine what happened. (In fact, people have called inquiry cases rather than criminal cases in the past when there's an actual controversy to resolve, other than the usual wrangling over sentencing.) This makes it rather a target for scammers, so its results can't be trusted too much anyway. So what did we do in order to make absolutely sure that this scam didn't adversely affect gamestate? We undid the effects via the appeals court. The verdicts in the appeals are correct, as far as I know; all the effects other than the immediate benefit of the scam (the win) are undone; and the record, when looking at the CFJ, will show OVERRULED to NOT GUILTY, which is correct. Therefore, I hope the effects of this scam are thoroughly isolated from the judicial system, and won't have undue side effects beyond it. I'm also pretty sure they won't mislead anyone as to what the true gamestate is, the way scams like Lindrum World or judicial bribery might. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
2009/5/2 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com: [Summary: Each active non-scamster gets a bogus Rest, then the scamsters take turns being the sole active Rest-free player for Win by Solitude, then the bogus Rests are destroyed.] ais523, comex, and coppro have agreed to a private contract allowing me to act on their behalf as noted in the following 15-step procedure. 1) For each of the following players, ais523 publishes a Notice of Violation alleging that that player violated the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthfulness) by claiming that there are five lights: Arnold Bros (est. 1905) Ben Daniel BobTHJ C-walker Dvorak Herring Manu modulus Nameless Quazie Rodlen root Schrodinger's Cat Sgeo Siege Spitemaster Taral Tiger Tom Wooble Yally Can someone explain why e doesn't need a lot of support to do this? I don't see how the first one is not a valid, un-closed NoV published by the same player earlier that week as per R2230. Though there has to be something as surely somone in that big a scam has to have noticed such a flaw. -- -Tiger
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 22:32 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: Can someone explain why e doesn't need a lot of support to do this? I don't see how the first one is not a valid, un-closed NoV published by the same player earlier that week as per R2230. Though there has to be something as surely somone in that big a scam has to have noticed such a flaw. It's possible to publish an NoV by sending it to a public forum, no matter what lower-power rules think on the matter. Rules 101 and 478, both power-3, give us the right of participation in the fora. And publishing NoVs is certainly a legitimate form of participation (unlike, e.g. lying). -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
I nominate Yally for CotC. I respectfully decline.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: It's possible to publish an NoV by sending it to a public forum, no matter what lower-power rules think on the matter. Rules 101 and 478, both power-3, give us the right of participation in the fora. And publishing NoVs is certainly a legitimate form of participation (unlike, e.g. lying). Umm... no? Participation is not the same thing as completely uninhibited participation. N.B. CFJ 1768, but by the same argument, even if excessive NoVs don't count as participation, that merely makes the NoVs ILLEGAL, not INVALID.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
Aaron Goldfein wrote: I CFJ on the following sentence. ais523, Murphy, and coppro won the game on 02 May, 2009. Gratuitous arguments: at the time, I was an active first-class player with no Rests. Pavitra signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Instant rests considered harmful
On Sat, 2 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 22:32 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: Can someone explain why e doesn't need a lot of support to do this? I don't see how the first one is not a valid, un-closed NoV published by the same player earlier that week as per R2230. Though there has to be something as surely somone in that big a scam has to have noticed such a flaw. It's possible to publish an NoV by sending it to a public forum, no matter what lower-power rules think on the matter. Rules 101 and 478, both power-3, give us the right of participation in the fora. And publishing NoVs is certainly a legitimate form of participation (unlike, e.g. lying). R101 says you can publish text. It doesn't say anything about what the legal effect of doing so can or can't be. For example, you can publish all the text of a Proposal Distribution, but it's not a Proposal Distribution unless you're the Promotor. Similarly, R101 says you can publish the contents of an NoV, that doesn't mean it is one. Therefore you're R101/R478 argument isn't particularly meaningful. The important question is what does MAY with N support do or mean? And I think it means it's IMPOSSIBLE to do the action without the support, because I think R1728 gets in the way as follows: R1728 says: A Player CAN perform a dependent action iff... a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer... and note that authorize here doesn't say what KIND of authorization is meant. authorize (which pre-dates MMI) might mean authorize by way of a CAN, *or* authorize by way of a MAY. Authorize could mean *either* of making it POSSIBLE or making it LEGAL, looking at the dictionary. Therefore MAY...with support is a dependent action just the way CAN...with support is a dependent action, and R1728 takes over and makes it a CAN (with support) and therefore a CANNOT (without support), which means that a text published without such support is not a notice of violation. -Goethe
