Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:28 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But there's no reason R1728 shouldn't support > with-support-without-objection generally. (Goethe, was it intended > to?) > > Proposal: Allow multiple methods (AI=2) > Amend Rule 1728 by replacing "method" in item b) with "methods." That's probably not sufficient. I suggest adding "Without N Objections and With M Support" as a fourth method, adjusting the parts that refer to N to also refer to M, and adding a new satisfaction clause to R2124. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, comex wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I publish official report X, which if ratified would make me dictator. >> I intend to (ratify X without objection), with support. >> I cause Player B, on whose behalf I can act, to support this. >> Having obtained the necessary support, I hereby perform the action >> "ratify X without objection" as permitted by R1728. > > The Rules do not explicitly authorize you to (ratify X without > objection) with support. > > But there's no reason R1728 shouldn't support > with-support-without-objection generally. (Goethe, was it intended > to?) R1728? I think we used it that way a couple times "way back when (before repeals?) and I like it myself. I haven't personally been tracking various tinkerings with the Rule so I don't know what was intended, don't see the harm in enabling in within R1728 (root's right in that it's ambiguous so a R1728-fix wouldn't hurt). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >> I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't >> looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method >> schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R1728 doesn't >> apply to it. Since R1728 is the only rule that describes how to >> perform an action dependently, the action would probably be >> unperformable. > > Okay, let's take it from the point of view of one of these methods. > The Without Objection part of Without Objection AND with Support > would ask: > > 1. Is the initiator authorized to perform the action? > 2. Yes, but only with Support. > 3. Therefore if e has support, e satisfies (a) for determining >if e's authorized to do it without objection; > 4. Therefore e can do it (with support) without objection. > > And the nesting works the other way too, of course. That's not the way I was interpreting it. If you mean it to be nested like that, you should make the nesting explicit, especially since you're using R1728 in a way it wasn't meant to be used. Also, I'm not convinced that R1728 doesn't simply allow the inner layer to be bypassed. For example, if the nesting were "CAN (ratify ... without objection) with support", I could envision the following interpretation: I publish official report X, which if ratified would make me dictator. I intend to (ratify X without objection), with support. I cause Player B, on whose behalf I can act, to support this. Having obtained the necessary support, I hereby perform the action "ratify X without objection" as permitted by R1728. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 11:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > > I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't > > looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method > > schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R1728 doesn't > > apply to it. Since R1728 is the only rule that describes how to > > perform an action dependently, the action would probably be > > unperformable. > > Okay, let's take it from the point of view of one of these methods. > The Without Objection part of Without Objection AND with Support > would ask: > > 1. Is the initiator authorized to perform the action? > 2. Yes, but only with Support. > 3. Therefore if e has support, e satisfies (a) for determining > if e's authorized to do it without objection; > 4. Therefore e can do it (with support) without objection. > > And the nesting works the other way too, of course. > How would this affect time limits? "Without 2 objections, with 2 support, I intend to beh" would mean that you would have to intend to (beh with 2 support) without 2 objections. After the objection time limit had expired, you could perform the action with 2 support, and the support could have been given earlier, if you'd given 2 separate intents. So that works as expected, but looks a little strange: "Without 2 objections, I intend to with 2 support beh" "With 2 support, I intend to beh" (objections/support happen here) "Without 2 objections, with 2 support, I beh" The other way round also works but has different intents. The double-intent required here also looks very strange. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't > looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method > schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R1728 doesn't > apply to it. Since R1728 is the only rule that describes how to > perform an action dependently, the action would probably be > unperformable. Okay, let's take it from the point of view of one of these methods. The Without Objection part of Without Objection AND with Support would ask: 1. Is the initiator authorized to perform the action? 2. Yes, but only with Support. 3. Therefore if e has support, e satisfies (a) for determining if e's authorized to do it without objection; 4. Therefore e can do it (with support) without objection. And the nesting works the other way too, of course. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >> This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The >> paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I >> think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for >> performing the same dependent action, not that an otherwise undefined >> composite of multiple methods is allowed as a single method. > > I don't see why a compound of two listed methods isn't a clear > extension of a double requirement. -G. I agree that it's perfectly clear what's intended. But R1728 isn't looking for extension, it's looking for one of those three method schemata, period, and if the method doesn't match, then R1728 doesn't apply to it. Since R1728 is the only rule that describes how to perform an action dependently, the action would probably be unperformable. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The > paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I > think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for > performing the same dependent action, not that an otherwise undefined > composite of multiple methods is allowed as a single method. I don't see why a compound of two listed methods isn't a clear extension of a double requirement. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The > paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I > think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for > performing the same dependent action, not that an otherwise undefined > composite of multiple methods is allowed as a single method. In any case, Agoran Consent probably works well for anything that we'd want to make with support and no objections.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >>> 5798 D 1 3.0 Goethe Toughen Ratifiation >> AGAINST. "Without objection and with support" is not a defined method >> of dependent actions. > > 'Without objection' is defined. > 'with support' is defined. > 'and' is defined. > > So why doesn't this work? (not bothered, just convince me it doesn't > and I'll re-propose). -G. This compound method isn't one of the methods listed in R1728(a). The paragraph does say "at least one of the following methods", but I think that just means that the rules can define multiple methods for performing the same dependent action, not that an otherwise undefined composite of multiple methods is allowed as a single method. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 5799 D 1 2.0 comex Fix Rule 1789 >> AGAINST. Didn't we already adopt this? > > Its voting period was extended due to lack of quorum. I vote FOR. What I meant is that according to the FLR, R1789 was already set to power 2 by proposal 5780. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >> 5798 D 1 3.0 Goethe Toughen Ratifiation > AGAINST. "Without objection and with support" is not a defined method > of dependent actions. 'Without objection' is defined. 'with support' is defined. 'and' is defined. So why doesn't this work? (not bothered, just convince me it doesn't and I'll re-propose). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
BobTHJ wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 23:35, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> BobTHJ wrote:
>>> I vote LLAMA(SELL(2VP - PRESENT)) on the above proposals.
>> Both LLAMA() and SELL() implicitly define a conditional vote. On the
>> democratic proposals, one of these is invalid, but it's unclear which
>> one. Thus, by Rule 478's requirement to be unambiguous, I interpret
>> the entire action as ineffective.
>>
>>
> I'm not sure what is so difficult hereit seems pretty easy to
> resolve this to me. A Sell Ticket to cast a LLAMA conditional vote?
Vice versa.
> I agree to the following pledge (titled SLAMA):
> {
> A vote of SLAMA(X - Y) is shorthand for posting a Sell Ticket with a
> cost of X and casting a LLAMA conditional vote of the filler's
> choosing, or alternately casting a LLAMA conditional vote of Y if the
> ticket is not filled.
>
> BobTHJ may modify or terminate this pledge by announcement.
> }
>
> I retract any previous votes on the above proposals and vote SLAMA(2VP
> - PRESENT) on all those proposals.
I see no problem with this, and suggest adding it to the Llama
contract (inserting "by a member of the Vote Market" near the start)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure what is so difficult hereit seems pretty easy to > resolve this to me. A Sell Ticket to cast a LLAMA conditional vote? I wouldn't buy that. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
BobTHJ wrote: > On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 13:26, The PerlNomic Partnership > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE >> 5794 O 1 1.0 Murphy Return of the Repeal-o-Matic >> 5795 O 1 1.0 Murphy Stop letting the Mad Scientist double-dip >> 5796 O 1 1.0 Ivan Hope CXXVIIGenocide I >> 5797 D 1 2.0 Taral Office with care >> 5798 D 1 3.0 Goethe Toughen Ratifiation >> 5799 D 1 2.0 comex Fix Rule 1789 >> 5800 O 0 1.0 ais523 Foreign Monsters >> 5801 O 1 1.5 Murphy Left in a Huff >> 5802 D 0 2.0 Murphy Referential point security > > I vote LLAMA(SELL(2VP - PRESENT)) on the above proposals. Both LLAMA() and SELL() implicitly define a conditional vote. On the democratic proposals, one of these is invalid, but it's unclear which one. Thus, by Rule 478's requirement to be unambiguous, I interpret the entire action as ineffective.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:51, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 13:26, The PerlNomic Partnership >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE >>> 5794 O 1 1.0 Murphy Return of the Repeal-o-Matic >>> 5795 O 1 1.0 Murphy Stop letting the Mad Scientist double-dip >>> 5796 O 1 1.0 Ivan Hope CXXVIIGenocide I >>> 5797 D 1 2.0 Taral Office with care >>> 5798 D 1 3.0 Goethe Toughen Ratifiation >>> 5799 D 1 2.0 comex Fix Rule 1789 >>> 5800 O 0 1.0 ais523 Foreign Monsters >>> 5801 O 1 1.5 Murphy Left in a Huff >>> 5802 D 0 2.0 Murphy Referential point security >> >> I vote LLAMA(SELL(2VP - PRESENT)) on the above proposals. > > I believe this fails to post any sell tickets, as it's not a vote of > SELL(anything). (Care to vote more than once on ordinary proposals, by > the way?) > > --Warrigal of Escher > Viewed as a series of nested functions (conditionals) I believe this votes SELL(2VP) for any LLAMA vote or otherwise LLAMA(PRESENT), and due to the SELL part includes a max number of votes on Ordinary proposals. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 13:26, The PerlNomic Partnership > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE >> 5794 O 1 1.0 Murphy Return of the Repeal-o-Matic >> 5795 O 1 1.0 Murphy Stop letting the Mad Scientist double-dip >> 5796 O 1 1.0 Ivan Hope CXXVIIGenocide I >> 5797 D 1 2.0 Taral Office with care >> 5798 D 1 3.0 Goethe Toughen Ratifiation >> 5799 D 1 2.0 comex Fix Rule 1789 >> 5800 O 0 1.0 ais523 Foreign Monsters >> 5801 O 1 1.5 Murphy Left in a Huff >> 5802 D 0 2.0 Murphy Referential point security > > I vote LLAMA(SELL(2VP - PRESENT)) on the above proposals. I believe this fails to post any sell tickets, as it's not a vote of SELL(anything). (Care to vote more than once on ordinary proposals, by the way?) --Warrigal of Escher
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 5797 D 1 2.0 Taral Office with care > FOR, even though I think it's a no-op Not a no-op. Second-class players now must consent regardless of when they were nominated. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5794-5802
On 19/10/2008, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don't know how to vote? Don't waste your voice with PRESENT; vote LLAMA! > No. > I vote as follows: > >> 5794 O 1 1.0 Murphy Return of the Repeal-o-Matic > LLAMA (FOR) > >> 5795 O 1 1.0 Murphy Stop letting the Mad Scientist double-dip > LLAMA (FOR) > >> 5796 O 1 1.0 Ivan Hope CXXVIIGenocide I > LLAMA (FOR) > >> 5797 D 1 2.0 Taral Office with care > LLAMA (FOR), though I'd rather just require consent > >> 5798 D 1 3.0 Goethe Toughen Ratifiation > LLAMA (FOR) > >> 5799 D 1 2.0 comex Fix Rule 1789 > LLAMA (FOR) > >> 5800 O 0 1.0 ais523 Foreign Monsters > LLAMA (FOR) > >> 5801 O 1 1.5 Murphy Left in a Huff > LLAMA (FOR) > >> 5802 D 0 2.0 Murphy Referential point security > LLAMA (FOR) > > By the way, I submit the following RFC: "A vote of LLAMA is the same > as a vote of LLAMA (PRESENT)." > > --Warrigal of Escher >
