DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Trigon wrote:

By the way, I found the Kingmaking thread which pushed me over 1000 
coins. Thanks, I guess, but I'm really not sure why it was done. I can't 
find much commentary about it in the Reportor's summaries or the mailing 
lists themselves.


Oh, because I was expecting coins to be repealed soon and thought "well,
I've got 500-ish coins, Trigon's got 500-ish coins, may as well do this
rather than risk a prisoner's dilemma over it". I missed that you were a
zombie until shortly afterward, which then turned it into "welp I just
made the next auction more interesting", until that /also/ failed.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 4/26/2020 8:26 AM, ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 22:30 -0400, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 16:55, ais523 wrote:
>>> Experience from BlogNomic is that many players apparently value
>>> causing a win to happen, even if it's some other player that
>>> actually gets the win.
>>>
>> Winning triggers an era change in BN, though, which may be motivation
>> enough for some.
> 
> This phenomenon's been observed even in cases when it's clear that an
> era change is inevitable regardless, though. (For example, if two
> players are each close to winning, there will typically be several
> players willing to accept requests from one or the other of the players
> to influence which of them wins, even with no obvious compensation.)
> 

Well if it's an ongoing game with rounds, if you're losing one round you
might as well have someone owe you a favor (even if just subconsciously)
on a future round.  (iterated play being what, in a game theory sense,
breaks through prisoners' dilemmas in favor of cooperation).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 22:30 -0400, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 16:55, ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > Experience from BlogNomic is that many players apparently value
> > causing a win to happen, even if it's some other player that
> > actually gets the win.
> > 
> Winning triggers an era change in BN, though, which may be motivation
> enough for some.

This phenomenon's been observed even in cases when it's clear that an
era change is inevitable regardless, though. (For example, if two
players are each close to winning, there will typically be several
players willing to accept requests from one or the other of the players
to influence which of them wins, even with no obvious compensation.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 16:55, ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 14:53 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-business
> wrote:
> > The following is a Notice of Honour:
> >
> > +1 PSS for reporting for Treasuror.
> > -1 twg for leaving without resigning (I guess).
> >
> > By the way, I found the Kingmaking thread which pushed me over 1000
> > coins. Thanks, I guess, but I'm really not sure why it was done. I
> > can't find much commentary about it in the Reportor's summaries or
> > the mailing  lists themselves.
>
> Experience from BlogNomic is that many players apparently value causing
> a win to happen, even if it's some other player that actually gets the
> win.
>
> (I'm more mercenary than that; I'm often quite happy to allow a win to
> happen, but normally prefer to get something in return. That said, I
> typically won't stop a win if its effects on the Speakership, etc., are
> to my benefit, even if I don't receive a bribe directly.)
>

Winning triggers an era change in BN, though, which may be motivation
enough for some.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 14:53 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-business
wrote:
> The following is a Notice of Honour:
> 
> +1 PSS for reporting for Treasuror.
> -1 twg for leaving without resigning (I guess).
> 
> By the way, I found the Kingmaking thread which pushed me over 1000 
> coins. Thanks, I guess, but I'm really not sure why it was done. I
> can't find much commentary about it in the Reportor's summaries or
> the mailing  lists themselves.

Experience from BlogNomic is that many players apparently value causing
a win to happen, even if it's some other player that actually gets the
win.

(I'm more mercenary than that; I'm often quite happy to allow a win to
happen, but normally prefer to get something in return. That said, I
typically won't stop a win if its effects on the Speakership, etc., are
to my benefit, even if I don't receive a bribe directly.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion]

So it is, thank you - I marked all the zombie auction stuff as "uncertain, 
revisit later" and never did. Revision forthcoming.

-twg

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, February 14, 2020 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business 
 wrote:

> Also missing my transfer from o:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-February/042174.html
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:16 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org wrote:
>
> > On 2/14/20 1:31 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-official wrote:
> >
> > > 1048Jason
> > >
> >
> > CoE: I believe this is missing my transfer from Rance at 0.
> > --
> > Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion]

Jason wrote:
> CoE: this leaves out he Payday coins.

Sorry. I even remembered it, just confused it with the broken things.
Roll on Friday morning.

-twg

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion]

G. wrote:
> CoE on coin balances:  missing blackjack payments?

Oh yes. Somehow it didn't register with me that those were actual game
actions. :P

Revision forthcoming.

-twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 1/11/2020 8:08 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote:

Speaking of which, did the proposal that authorized D. Margaux's victory
actually do that? The rules at the moment don't seem to allow victory by
proposal, nor are victories self-ratifying any more.


FWIW we did ratify the Scroll a couple months back, so the Champion titles
are fixed even if the victory isn't. (tho this is why Herald's report isn't
self-ratifying, wouldn't be the first time we've gone back a year or two
and the last ratification before that was like 2014 I think).

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 21:30, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:26 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >  > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> >  >
> >  >> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but
> >  >> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the
> >  >> following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000 Coins, I pay a
> fee
> >  >> of 1000 Coins to win the game. }.
> >  >>
> >  >
> >  > Possibly too late now, but I think this really shouldn't be
> (possibly) 18
> >  > wins. I feel quite strongly on this point, since I believe that's more
> >  > wins than I've had, and I've had to work hard to have the most
> instances
> >  > of Champion.
> >
> > Er, did you notice that the Scroll has this now:
> >  Spaaace  [...] Jason Cobb (x1000)
> > and this:
> > Proposal [...] D. Margaux(x501)
>
> TBH, I'd be for consolidating those and then giving another patent
> title that signified that one had found a way to get an infinite
> number of wins (I've suggested Infinite Jestor in the past, and
> presumably the Herald could mark it Infinite Jestor by Spaaace or the
> like).
>
> -Aris
>

Infinite wins are boring. They're trivial to achieve in most loophole scams
that get you wins. For instance, Jason Cobb could easily have chosen an
arbitrarily large number of coins to accumulate, and even chosen to
interleave declarations of victory in the event that there had been a reset
condition. Any proposal force-through can trivially result in an arbitrary
number, as can any dictatorship. Even the current condition for Apathy
allows it to be achieved an arbitrary number of times.

Speaking of which, did the proposal that authorized D. Margaux's victory
actually do that? The rules at the moment don't seem to allow victory by
proposal, nor are victories self-ratifying any more.

Alexis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:26 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
>
> On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>  > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>  >
>  >> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but
>  >> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the
>  >> following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000 Coins, I pay a fee
>  >> of 1000 Coins to win the game. }.
>  >>
>  >
>  > Possibly too late now, but I think this really shouldn't be (possibly) 18
>  > wins. I feel quite strongly on this point, since I believe that's more
>  > wins than I've had, and I've had to work hard to have the most instances
>  > of Champion.
>
> Er, did you notice that the Scroll has this now:
>  Spaaace  [...] Jason Cobb (x1000)
> and this:
> Proposal [...] D. Margaux(x501)

TBH, I'd be for consolidating those and then giving another patent
title that signified that one had found a way to get an infinite
number of wins (I've suggested Infinite Jestor in the past, and
presumably the Herald could mark it Infinite Jestor by Spaaace or the
like).

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 14:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>  > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>  >
>  >> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but
>  >> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the
>  >> following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000 Coins, I pay a
> fee
>  >> of 1000 Coins to win the game. }.
>  >>
>  >
>  > Possibly too late now, but I think this really shouldn't be (possibly)
> 18
>  > wins. I feel quite strongly on this point, since I believe that's more
>  > wins than I've had, and I've had to work hard to have the most instances
>  > of Champion.
>
> Er, did you notice that the Scroll has this now:
>  Spaaace  [...] Jason Cobb (x1000)
> and this:
> Proposal [...] D. Margaux(x501)
>
>
No D:<

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
>> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but
>> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the
>> following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000 Coins, I pay a fee
>> of 1000 Coins to win the game. }.
>>
>
> Possibly too late now, but I think this really shouldn't be (possibly) 18
> wins. I feel quite strongly on this point, since I believe that's more
> wins than I've had, and I've had to work hard to have the most instances
> of Champion.

Er, did you notice that the Scroll has this now:
Spaaace  [...] Jason Cobb (x1000)
and this:
   Proposal [...] D. Margaux(x501)

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but
> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the
> following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000 Coins, I pay a fee
> of 1000 Coins to win the game. }.
>

Possibly too late now, but I think this really shouldn't be (possibly) 18
wins. I feel quite strongly on this point, since I believe that's more wins
than I've had, and I've had to work hard to have the most instances of
Champion.

Alexis

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[James Cook]

On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 at 23:39, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:25 PM, James Cook  
> wrote:
> >   10Jacob Arduino
>
> CoE: Jacob Arduino has no coins because e is no longer a player.

Thanks. I'll publish a revision soon.

> I intend without objection to declare apathy, specifying all players.

I object.

-- 
- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[James Cook]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 04:40, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> On 8/26/19 10:38 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > 
> >Forbes 500
> > 
> >
> > Date of this report: 2019-08-27
> > Date of last report: 2019-08-19
>
>
> Not really an accuracy issue, but 27 August is not in this week, so I'm
> not sure that this fulfills your requirement for a weekly report.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

Agreed. I discovered the error in last week's report while working on
this week's still-unpublished report.

-- 
- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Rebecca]

On behalf of tar I transfer 20 coins to R. Lee

On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 2:24 PM James Cook  wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca  wrote:
> > I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself
>
> Does this work?
>
> R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is
> performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the action is
> being taken on behalf of that person."
>
> Specifically, you didn't say the action is being taken on behalf of
> someone. It's sort of implied, because it's very common to act on
> behalf of one's zombie to take eir assets, but I'm not sure that's
> enough to meet the requirement.
>
> --
> - Falsifian
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[James Cook]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca  wrote:
> I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself

Does this work?

R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is
performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the action is
being taken on behalf of that person."

Specifically, you didn't say the action is being taken on behalf of
someone. It's sort of implied, because it's very common to act on
behalf of one's zombie to take eir assets, but I'm not sure that's
enough to meet the requirement.

--
- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[James Cook]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:48, Rance Bedwell  wrote:
> If you want me to, I will attempt to withdraw the COE.

That might make things more interesting, since I don't see a way for
you to do it. I might still be able to deny it under Rule 2201; I'm
not sure. I don't think it's causing much harm.

I'm wondering if I should withdraw my CFJ if we're all in agreement
about it. On the one hand, it would save the work of a judge; on the
other, if it's really so trivial, it shouldn't take much work to
judge. I'll leave it out there unless people think I should withdraw.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Rance Bedwell]

 You have persuaded me at least.  Also, in this case I chose to send the second 
email.  But if the duplicate email resulted from a technical glitch with no 
conscious decision involved, it certainly wouldn't seem right or a common sense 
interpretation to penalize the person.  
In addition to the arguments you already made, I would put forward that for a 
duplicate email announcing an action the second one no longer meets the 
"unambiguously and clearly specified" requirement of Rule 478 if the intent to 
perform it twice is not explicit.
If you want me to, I will attempt to withdraw the COE.
-Rance

On Wednesday, May 29, 2019, 11:01:24 PM CDT, James Cook 
 wrote:  
 
 On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:34, Rance Bedwell  wrote:
>  I make a COE for this Treasuror's report.  I posted two public messages 
>announcing that I paid 2 coins to Agora.  If I had been wise I would have made 
>the second one conditional upon the + not succeeding.  I was not wise, so I 
>think I should only have 56 coins.

CFJ: Rance paid 2 Coins to Agora twice on 2019-05-20. Arguments to follow.

I respond to Rance's above CoE by citing the CFJ

Arguments:
I believe this is FALSE.

Rance's second email said "I apologize if this message comes through
as a duplicate.", which makes it clear that the first part of that
email is a retransmission of the same message, not a new, independent
message. I think CFJs 1451 [0] and 1452 [1] are relevant here: in each
of those cases, a player sent a single message across multiple emails.
The only difference here is that the emails are redundent (repeating
the same content) rather than splitting the content across multiple
messages.

Nothing in Rule 478 says that every email constitutes a message. The
fora are a way to send public messages, but I believe we should use
common sense (R217) in determining what messages the players sent.

[0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1451
[1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1452  

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Ørjan Johansen]

I vaguely seem to recall that there is precedent that payments for 
something fail entirely if it's impossible for them to achieve that 
something.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Thu, 30 May 2019, James Cook wrote:


On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:34, Rance Bedwell  wrote:

 I make a COE for this Treasuror's report.  I posted two public messages 
announcing that I paid 2 coins to Agora.  If I had been wise I would have made 
the second one conditional upon the first not succeeding.  I was not wise, so I 
think I should only have 56 coins.


CFJ: Rance paid 2 Coins to Agora twice on 2019-05-20. Arguments to follow.

I respond to Rance's above CoE by citing the CFJ

Arguments:
I believe this is FALSE.

Rance's second email said "I apologize if this message comes through
as a duplicate.", which makes it clear that the first part of that
email is a retransmission of the same message, not a new, independent
message. I think CFJs 1451 [0] and 1452 [1] are relevant here: in each
of those cases, a player sent a single message across multiple emails.
The only difference here is that the emails are redundent (repeating
the same content) rather than splitting the content across multiple
messages.

Nothing in Rule 478 says that every email constitutes a message. The
fora are a way to send public messages, but I believe we should use
common sense (R217) in determining what messages the players sent.

[0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1451
[1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1452

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Kerim Aydin]

On 3/5/2019 6:14 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ.

(I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to 
change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block 
self-ratification, instead of having to go through this rigmarole. Wonder 
what happened to that.)


Maybe let a CoE include a connected CFJ, in which case a response might not 
be mandatory.


It's already there, no CoE nor any recordkeepor response required(R2201):
  A doubt is an explicit public challenge via
  [...]
  1. An inquiry case
(I would have had to explicitly identify the Report's error in the CFJ,
which I didn't do - sorry about that!)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ.

(I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to 
change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block 
self-ratification, instead of having to go through this rigmarole. 
Wonder what happened to that.)


Maybe let a CoE include a connected CFJ, in which case a response 
might not be mandatory.


Without such an explicit connection, such a clause could make a report 
accidentally not self-ratify because of a CFJ that wasn't even intended 
(or stated) to be relevant to it, which seems to me like a bad idea.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

Oh don't worry about me, it's the only vaguely controversial thing that's 
happened so far this week so it's pretty easy to keep track of in my head. If 
it was actually too confusing I'd be docking karma from you myself. :P

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:06 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> Yeah, to be clear this seems like a fairly simple legislative fix.
> However, pursuant to the hash system not working for Spaceships (I
> think), I'd worked on a draft of "how to act by hashes" and came up
> against questions of retroactivity and evidence. So I'm used the
> ambiguity of "stating" in this rule to see if we need to change some
> of the action and announcement timing concepts, after CFJ 3714 implied
> that something like this would work. It's really a boring bug in
> itself, the most that can be done with it AFAICT is to deny oneself
> some earnings and annoy the Treasuror...
>
> Notice of Honour
> -1 G. (for testing this in a way that puts burden on the Treasuror)
> +1 twg (for having to be the Treasuror)
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:57 PM Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
>
> > Seems like the solution here is to define (in a rule) “by announcement, 
> > stating…” as requiring the “stating” bit to be part of the public message.
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > > CFJ, barring twg: G. has earned 5 coins for the Herald's Report of 
> > > 17-Feb-2019.
> > > I plan to provide proof to the judge of the CFJ that a statement
> > > containing the required earnings information hashes to the
> > > previously-published hash.
> > > CFJ 3714 implied fairly strongly that it is not required to state the
> > > coins earned "to someone else". It was "stated" in a written form,
> > > and the hash of the written form is the proof that I did so at that
> > > particular time. CFJ 3714 strongly suggested that "stating it" in
> > > Discussion would work, with the only question being the burden of
> > > proof that the statement was, in fact, made in some form (since
> > > Discussion is visible to others, that satisfies the burden of proof).
> > > I don't see how, if Discussion would work (as CFJ 3714 specifically
> > > allows), "stating it" to a hash generator with proof that statement
> > > was made at that time is any different.
> > > I don't think any application would be retroactive, I think it would
> > > be "evidence previously unavailable is now revealed". But because I'm
> > > interested in that retroactivity question, I haven't provided the
> > > original statement text at this point in time.
> > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:09 AM D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > > > > Yes, I don't see how this is any different from "stating it to 
> > > > > yourself". Your publication of the hash (if it even is a hash - I see 
> > > > > no evidence that it's not just a random string of hexadecimal digits) 
> > > > > didn't meaningfully communicate anything to anyone else.
> > > >
> > > > Now, the truly interesting question is what happens if G. does give us 
> > > > the ability to decrypt and it contains the required information. I 
> > > > think that would not be a retroactive announcement (but maybe it 
> > > > would...). I do think it meets the lower bar for a “statement” under 
> > > > CFJ 3714, and therefore would work.
> > > > We should probably come up with a legislative fix, because this seems 
> > > > like a bug that can be scammed somehow.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Gaelan Steele]

Seems like the solution here is to define (in a rule) “by announcement, 
stating…” as requiring the “stating” bit to be part of the public message.

Gaelan

> On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> CFJ, barring twg:  G. has earned 5 coins for the Herald's Report of 
> 17-Feb-2019.
> 
> I plan to provide proof to the judge of the CFJ that a statement
> containing the required earnings information hashes to the
> previously-published hash.
> 
> CFJ 3714 implied fairly strongly that it is not required to state the
> coins earned "to someone else".  It was "stated" in a written form,
> and the hash of the written form is the proof that I did so at that
> particular time.  CFJ 3714 strongly suggested that "stating it" in
> Discussion would work, with the only question being the burden of
> proof that the statement was, in fact, made in some form (since
> Discussion is visible to others, that satisfies the burden of proof).
> I don't see how, if Discussion would work (as CFJ 3714 specifically
> allows), "stating it" to a hash generator with proof that statement
> was made at that time is any different.
> 
> I don't think any application would be retroactive, I think it would
> be "evidence previously unavailable is now revealed".  But because I'm
> interested in that retroactivity question, I haven't provided the
> original statement text at this point in time.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:09 AM D. Margaux  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yes, I don't see how this is any different from "stating it to yourself". 
>>> Your publication of the hash (if it even is a hash - I see no evidence that 
>>> it's not just a random string of hexadecimal digits) didn't meaningfully 
>>> communicate anything to anyone else.
>> 
>> Now, the truly interesting question is what happens if G. does give us the 
>> ability to decrypt and it contains the required information. I think that 
>> would not be a retroactive announcement (but maybe it would...).  I do think 
>> it meets the lower bar for a “statement” under CFJ 3714, and therefore would 
>> work.
>> 
>> We should probably come up with a legislative fix, because this seems like a 
>> bug that can be scammed somehow.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[D. Margaux]

> On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> Yes, I don't see how this is any different from "stating it to yourself". 
> Your publication of the hash (if it even is a hash - I see no evidence that 
> it's not just a random string of hexadecimal digits) didn't meaningfully 
> communicate anything to anyone else.

Now, the truly interesting question is what happens if G. does give us the 
ability to decrypt and it contains the required information. I think that would 
not be a retroactive announcement (but maybe it would...).  I do think it meets 
the lower bar for a “statement” under CFJ 3714, and therefore would work. 

We should probably come up with a legislative fix, because this seems like a 
bug that can be scammed somehow. 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[D. Margaux]

In that message, you didn’t state a number of coins; you stated a hash. Stating 
a hash is different from stating that-which-was-hashed, I think, at least when 
the hash cannot readily be decrypted by those to whom the statement is 
directed.  

If you said the hash out loud to yourself, or “stated” the underlying text to 
the computer performing the hashing algorithm, then I think that yields a 
DISMISS for the same reasons as 3714, at least until you give us information 
sufficient to decrypt. 

> On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> CoE on coin balances:  As per the CFJ 3714 judgement, proof that I stated
> the number of coins earned for my last-but-one Herald's Report (in a timely
> manner for the reward) is found here:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/040091.html
> 
> [Note:  I'm not trying to be annoying about the quanging thing here -
> I've been trying to write a general action-by-hash rule for a bit and want
> to know if rules need changing wrt standards of evidence and revealing
> info and whatnot].
> 
> 
>> On 3/5/2019 6:50 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>> COIN BALANCES
>> 
>> This section self-ratifies.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Cuddle Beam]

I was starting to be concerned tbh lol.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:32 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
> On 2/18/2019 12:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> > dada...
>
> (that dada thing was meant to be silly, not angry - i realized afterwards
> that it sounded kinda shouty like what the dadaists did - sorry).
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Cuddle Beam]

Kinky.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:33 PM D. Margaux  wrote:

> I point my toes at G. and cuddle beam for Faking.
>
> > On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > maah uyntz asee as myself and sunt Dictatorship, also, the game is now
> > Ossified and nobody can perform any game actions, having R1698 been
> broken
> > and whatnot.
> >
> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:10 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada
> >>
> >>> On 2/18/2019 11:58 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran
> >>> dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard
> >>> English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic
> acceptability,
> >>> beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying
> >>> something and expecting someone to go look it up, without providing a
> >>> specific definition. Quang worked because all or most of the players
> >>> “already” knew.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
>  On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>  This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's
> interpretation
> >> of
>  the Rewards Rule.  If "quang" is allowed to reference a random
> cultural
>  definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly
>  contained
>  in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would fail
> >> when
>  we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed.
> 
>  In case your CoE denial succeded:
> 
>  CoE:  The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an
> appropriately-claimed
>  reward for my most recent Herald's Report.
> 
> 
> > On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > You mean this?
> >
> > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> >> wrote:
> >> On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Herald’s Weekly report
> >>> Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018
> >>> Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019
> >>
> >> I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced
>  report.
> >
> > I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that
> >> it
>  works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
> >
> > For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision
> to
>  the below-referenced report.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report
> >> (crossed in the mail?)
> >>
> >>> On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
> >>> Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
> >
> >
> 
> >>
> >>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Kerim Aydin]

> On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>> I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it
>> works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
>>
>> For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to
>> the below-referenced report.

Here's a a more careful elaboration: in my case, the "what is necessary to
be rewarded" leads directly to the 5 Coin Reward level in the rules for a
weekly report, there's really no alternate reference (it's the only way
we're really using 'Reward' right now), and it's a direct substitution like
"quang".  In your case "publishing a revision", it's unclear what the text
is: it could be anything.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Aris Merchant]

No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran
dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard
English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic acceptability,
beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying
something and expecting someone to go look it up, without providing a
specific definition. Quang worked because all or most of the players
“already” knew.

-Aris

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
> This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's interpretation of
> the Rewards Rule.  If "quang" is allowed to reference a random cultural
> definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly
> contained
> in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would fail when
> we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed.
>
> In case your CoE denial succeded:
>
> CoE:  The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an appropriately-claimed
> reward for my most recent Herald's Report.
>
>
> On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > You mean this?
> >
> > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >> On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Herald’s Weekly report
> >>> Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018
> >>> Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019
> >>
> >> I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced
> report.
> >
> > I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it
> works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
> >
> > For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to
> the below-referenced report.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report
> >> (crossed in the mail?)
> >>
> >> On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >>
> >>> Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
> >>> Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
> >
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Corona]

Oh ok, will fix

~Corona

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> CoE:  Still off I'm afraid.  Zombies should get the May salary (that
> includes
> 3 Incs) but not the initial 5.  (then some people transferred the Incs from
> their zombies to themselves when they transferred 'all assets' after May
> 1).
>
>
> On Sat, 5 May 2018, Corona wrote:
>
> > Accepted. Revision:
> >
> >
> > +---++++---+++--
> --++++
> > |Entity
> > |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs|
> > +---++++---+++--
> --++++
> > |ATMunn |   6|  27|   0|  0|   7|   0|  49|  12|   0|
> > 8|
> > |Aris   |   5|  25|   7|  0|   5|   0|  77|   5|   0|
> > 8|
> > |Corona |  24|  39|  15| 17|   9|  18|  85|  16|   0|
> > 8|
> > |CuddleBeam |  11|  13|   9|  4|   8|   9|  40|   8|   0|
> > 8|
> > |G. |  20|  55|  11|  0|  13|   0| 137|  29|   0|
> > 8|
> > |Gaelan |  14|  23|   2|  6|   2|   0|  37|   8|   0|
> > 8|
> > |Kenyon |  14|  32|   4|  6|  20|   3|  35|   7|   0|
> > 8|
> > |Murphy |   5|  25|   4|  0|   8|   0|  60|   9|   0|
> > 8|
> > |PSS|   0|   5|   0|  0|   0|   0|  10|   2|   0|
> > 0|
> > |Quazie |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |Telnaior   |   5|  25|   3|  0|   5|   0|  55|   9|   0|
> > 0|
> > |Trigon |   3|  20|  11|  2|   4|  12|  28|   5|   0|
> > 8|
> > |VJ Rada|  10|  45|   1|  0|  10|   0|  55|  15|   0|
> > 8|
> > |nichdel|   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |o  |   0|   1|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |omd|   0|  10|   0|  0|   0|   0|  20|   4|   0|
> > 0|
> > |Ouri   |   0|   5|   0|  0|   0|   0|  14|   2|   0|
> > 8|
> > |pokes  |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |天火狐  |   5|  25|   0|  0|   5|   0|  40|   9|   0|
>  0|
> > +---++++---+++--
> --++++
> > |farm at 1,-1   |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |mine at -1,-1  |   3|   0|   0|  2|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |mine at 1,1|   3|   0|   0|  2|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |orchard at -1,1|   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |(Corona’s) mine at 0,2 |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |(Corona’s) refinery at 1,-2|   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |(Corona’s) orchard at 2,1  |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |(ATMunn’s) farm at 1,3 |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |(G.’s) mine at 2,0 |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |Finger Pointing Workaround |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0|   0|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > |Agora  |   0|   0|   0|  0|   0|   0| 179|   0|   0|
> > 0|
> > +---++++---+++--
> --++++
> >
> > The following abbreviations are used in the table above:
> >
> > Ston = stone
> >
> > Appl = apples
> >
> > Lmbr = lumber
> >
> > Cotn = cotton
> >
> > Coin = coins
> >
> > Papr = papers
> >
> > Fabr = fabric
> >
> > Incs = incense
> >
> >
> >
> > PSS = Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >
> >
> >
> > Recent changes (most recent first, times in UTC, non-self-ratifying):
> >
> > [Sat May 5 06:05:57] Corona transferred 4 corn to o
> >
> > [Sat May 5 00:31:09] Trigon pended “be with you” with 1 paper
> >
> > [Fri May 4 21:31:10] o, being acted on behalf of by G., destroyed 5
> apples
> > to move and change a land type
> >
> > [Fri May 4 21:00:40] ATMunn transferred 5 apples to o
> >
> > [Fri May 4 18:10:13] G. moved and changed a land type, destroying 5
> apples
> >
> > [Fri May 4 17:30:58] G. gave o 20 apples and o, being acted on behalf of
> by
> > G., destroyed 19 apples to start a circumnavigation
> >
> > [Fri May 4 16:59:20] G. spent 3 coins and 2 lumber to upgrade eir mine to
> > rank 2
> >
> > [Fri May 4 16:57:01] G. destroyed 5 lumber to build a mine at (2,0)
> >
> > [Fri May 4 15:22:41] Corona, via Quazie, changed land types, destroying 2
> > corn and 1 apple
> >
> > [Fri May 4 15:12:53] Corona transferred 4 coins to Agora if e has th e
> > highest priority in the current land auction (TRUE)
> >
> >
> >
> > [Fri May 4 14:45:54] G. moved around and changed land types, destroying
> 10
> > apples
> >
> > [Fri May 4 13:26:12] ATMunn looted nichdel’s body
> >
> > [Fri May 4 13:17:06] ATMunn moved around and built a farm, destroying 8
> > apples, 3 lumber and 2 stones
> >
> > [Thu May 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 4 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> CoE:  This report misses that 3 incense were added to Paydays before the May 1
> payday (Proposal 8040).

(also, 天火狐 was a zombie when that proposal passed so shouldn't have gotten 
the 5).