Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset - Apr 2020

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 5/16/20 11:20 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
>> CFJ 3783 (called 07 Dec 2019): It is not possible to wan an election
>>after it has ended.
> Typo: wan
>
> - Falsifian


*sigh* Typing is hard.

This will be fixed in the next report.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset - Apr 2020

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

> CFJ 3783 (called 07 Dec 2019): It is not possible to wan an election
>after it has ended.

Typo: wan

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset - December

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 12/29/19 10:30 PM, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
>
>> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
> You forgot to strip trailing spaces, so these again have that 
> format=flowed problem.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.


Gah, apparently email is hard. I've (hopefully) just disabled the flowed
header in Thunderbird, so I'll resend.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset - December

[Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:


THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET


You forgot to strip trailing spaces, so these again have that 
format=flowed problem.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019

[Kerim Aydin]

If this case isn't withdrawn, it might be worth adding to your
arguments the specific rules-hook: re-enactment in R105 describes
things that can be done to "repealed rules",  so they are a category
of entity that have rules-explicit legal significance.

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 9:29 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> Also, even with the correct Rule number, I think the answer is
> guaranteed to be TRUE, since the repeal of a Rule does not cause it to
> cease to exist, it just causes it to cease to be a rule, its power to be
> set to 0, and to relieve the Rulekeepor of the responsibility to
> maintain it. As a further argument, if it has Power 0, then it must be
> an entity, since the Rules define Power only for entities.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/15/19 11:13 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > Ooh! Then I favour this CFJ!
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 7/15/19 10:36 PM, James Cook wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Rebecca  wrote:
> >>> CFJ: Rule 2157 exists.
> >> It's 2517.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019

[Jason Cobb]

Also, even with the correct Rule number, I think the answer is 
guaranteed to be TRUE, since the repeal of a Rule does not cause it to 
cease to exist, it just causes it to cease to be a rule, its power to be 
set to 0, and to relieve the Rulekeepor of the responsibility to 
maintain it. As a further argument, if it has Power 0, then it must be 
an entity, since the Rules define Power only for entities.


Jason Cobb

On 7/15/19 11:13 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

Ooh! Then I favour this CFJ!

Jason Cobb

On 7/15/19 10:36 PM, James Cook wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Rebecca  wrote:

CFJ: Rule 2157 exists.

It's 2517.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019

[Jason Cobb]

Ooh! Then I favour this CFJ!

Jason Cobb

On 7/15/19 10:36 PM, James Cook wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Rebecca  wrote:

CFJ: Rule 2157 exists.

It's 2517.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019

[James Cook]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Rebecca  wrote:
> CFJ: Rule 2157 exists.

It's 2517.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Sun, 2019-07-14 at 20:23 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I have investigated the history of the rule. Rule 2517 was repealed by 
> Proposal 8054 on 23 June 2018. Since that is the case, it should have 
> been removed from the ruleset; however, it was not. Since then, it has 
> been discussed once or twice despite not actually being in effect, 
> notably in the Dollar Auction discussion when someone attempted to 
> describe an inextricable conditional. However, the SLR was recently 
> ratified and, since the SLR included this rule, it was re-enacted. I 
> don't know what is required here, so for now the annotation will reflect 
> the situation described above.

The SLR just contains the ratified version of the rule (because
ratification makes the SLR match the ratified version).

That causes an amendment to the Ruleset. The FLR thus needs to list the
amendment in question, i.e. "Re-enacted by ratification" together with
the date. (This has happened before, IIRC it's been an accident every
time.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019

[Reuben Staley]

I have investigated the history of the rule. Rule 2517 was repealed by 
Proposal 8054 on 23 June 2018. Since that is the case, it should have 
been removed from the ruleset; however, it was not. Since then, it has 
been discussed once or twice despite not actually being in effect, 
notably in the Dollar Auction discussion when someone attempted to 
describe an inextricable conditional. However, the SLR was recently 
ratified and, since the SLR included this rule, it was re-enacted. I 
don't know what is required here, so for now the annotation will reflect 
the situation described above.


On 7/14/19 12:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and
then repealed, without being re-enacted, so there might be something off
there.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:58 PM Reuben Staley 
wrote:


No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying.

--
Trigon

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb  wrote:


Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
friend.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley 
wrote:


THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET

These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/

Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019
Date of this ruleset: 14 Jul 2019

Date of last SLR ratification: 8 May 2019

Number of rules currently enacted: 130

Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 1950 "Decisions with Adoption
Indices" amended by Proposal 8200 "Sane AI Defaulting" (Aris), 10 Jul
2019

Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597
Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8200
Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2598






Table of Contents:

The Game of Agora
 * Rule  101: The Game of Agora
 * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic
Players
 * Rule  869: How to Join and Leave Agora
 * Rule  478: Fora
 * Rule 2139: The Registrar
 * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus
General Definitions
 * Rule 2152: Mother, May I?
 * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers
 * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions
 * Rule 1023: Agoran Time
 * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods
 * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action
 * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction
 * Rule 2518: Determinacy
 * Rule 2505: Random Choices
 * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability
Entities
 * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities
 * Rule 2162: Switches
 * Rule 1688: Power
 * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability
Proposals
 * Rule 2350: Proposals
 * Rule 1607: Distribution
 * Rule 2137: The Assessor
 * Rule  106: Adopting Proposals
 * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto
Rules & Regulations
 * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules
 * Rule  217: Interpreting the Rules
 * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules
 * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply
 * Rule  105: Rule Changes
 * Rule 2493: Regulations
 * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade
 * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor
 * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets
 * Rule 2221: Cleanliness
 * Rule 2429: Bleach
Voting
 * Rule  693: Agoran Decisions
 * Rule  107: Initiating Agoran Decisions
 * Rule 2528: Voting Methods
 * Rule  683: Voting on Agoran Decisions
 * Rule  208: Resolving Agoran Decisions
 * Rule  955: Determining the Will of Agora
 * Rule  879: Quorum
 * Rule 2422: Voting Strength
 * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes
 * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period
 * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices
 * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges
Offices & Reporting
 * Rule 1006: Offices
 * Rule 2154: Election Procedure
 * Rule 2573: Impeachment
 * Rule 2160: Deputisation
 * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel
 * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities
 * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties
 * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News
Documents
 * Rule 1551: Ratification
 * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection
 * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification
Justice
 * Rule 2556: Penalties
 * Rule 2555: Blots
 * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice
 * Rule 2479: Official Justice
 * Rule 2557: Removing Blots
 * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability
Calls for Judgement
 * Rule  991: Calls for Judgement
 * Rule  591: Delivering Judgements
 * Rule  911: Motions and Moots
 * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess
 * Rule 2492: Recusal
 * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee
Obligations & Contracts
 * Rule 2471: No Faking
 * Rule 2450: Pledges
 * Rule 2466: Acting on Behalf
 * Rule 2519: Consent
 * Rule 1742: Contracts
Assets
 * Rule 2166: Assets
 * Rule 2576: Ownership
 * Rule 2577: Asset Actions
 * Rule 2578: Currencies
 * Rule 2579: Fee-based Actions
Economics
 * Rule 2456: The Treasuror
 * Rule 2483: Economics
 * Rule 2496: Rewards
 * 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019

[Reuben Staley]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, even if it was for a
self-serving purpose. I will investigate the history of this rule and
report back.

--
Trigon

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:02 Jason Cobb  wrote:

> Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
> then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and
> then repealed, without being re-enacted, so there might be something off
> there.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:58 PM Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
>
> > No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying.
> >
> > --
> > Trigon
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb  wrote:
> >
> > > Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
> > > friend.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
> > > >
> > > > These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
> > > >
> > > > Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019
> > > > Date of this ruleset: 14 Jul 2019
> > > >
> > > > Date of last SLR ratification: 8 May 2019
> > > >
> > > > Number of rules currently enacted: 130
> > > >
> > > > Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 1950 "Decisions with
> Adoption
> > > > Indices" amended by Proposal 8200 "Sane AI Defaulting" (Aris), 10 Jul
> > > > 2019
> > > >
> > > > Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597
> > > > Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8200
> > > > Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2598
> > > >
> > > >
> > 
> > > >
> > > > Table of Contents:
> > > >
> > > > The Game of Agora
> > > > * Rule  101: The Game of Agora
> > > > * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic
> > > > Players
> > > > * Rule  869: How to Join and Leave Agora
> > > > * Rule  478: Fora
> > > > * Rule 2139: The Registrar
> > > > * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus
> > > > General Definitions
> > > > * Rule 2152: Mother, May I?
> > > > * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers
> > > > * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions
> > > > * Rule 1023: Agoran Time
> > > > * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods
> > > > * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action
> > > > * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction
> > > > * Rule 2518: Determinacy
> > > > * Rule 2505: Random Choices
> > > > * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability
> > > > Entities
> > > > * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities
> > > > * Rule 2162: Switches
> > > > * Rule 1688: Power
> > > > * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability
> > > > Proposals
> > > > * Rule 2350: Proposals
> > > > * Rule 1607: Distribution
> > > > * Rule 2137: The Assessor
> > > > * Rule  106: Adopting Proposals
> > > > * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto
> > > > Rules & Regulations
> > > > * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules
> > > > * Rule  217: Interpreting the Rules
> > > > * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules
> > > > * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply
> > > > * Rule  105: Rule Changes
> > > > * Rule 2493: Regulations
> > > > * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade
> > > > * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor
> > > > * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets
> > > > * Rule 2221: Cleanliness
> > > > * Rule 2429: Bleach
> > > > Voting
> > > > * Rule  693: Agoran Decisions
> > > > * Rule  107: Initiating Agoran Decisions
> > > > * Rule 2528: Voting Methods
> > > > * Rule  683: Voting on Agoran Decisions
> > > > * Rule  208: Resolving Agoran Decisions
> > > > * Rule  955: Determining the Will of Agora
> > > > * Rule  879: Quorum
> > > > * Rule 2422: Voting Strength
> > > > * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes
> > > > * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period
> > > > * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices
> > > > * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges
> > > > Offices & Reporting
> > > > * Rule 1006: Offices
> > > > * Rule 2154: Election Procedure
> > > > * Rule 2573: Impeachment
> > > > * Rule 2160: Deputisation
> > > > * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel
> > > > * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities
> > > > * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties
> > > > * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News
> > > > Documents
> > > > * Rule 1551: Ratification
> > > > * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection
> > > > * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification
> > > > Justice
> > > > * Rule 2556: Penalties
> > > > * Rule 2555: Blots
> > > > * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice
> > > > * Rule 2479: Official Justice
> > > > * Rule 2557: Removing Blots
> > > > * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability
> > > > Calls for Judgement
> > > > * Rule  991: Calls for Judgement
> > > > * Rule  591: Delivering Judgements
> > > > * Rule  911: Motions and Moots
> > > > * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess
> > > > * Rule 2492: Recusal
> > > > * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee
> > > > Obligations & 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019

[Jason Cobb]

Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and
then repealed, without being re-enacted, so there might be something off
there.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:58 PM Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> > Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
> > friend.
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
> > >
> > > These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
> > >
> > > Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019
> > > Date of this ruleset: 14 Jul 2019
> > >
> > > Date of last SLR ratification: 8 May 2019
> > >
> > > Number of rules currently enacted: 130
> > >
> > > Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 1950 "Decisions with Adoption
> > > Indices" amended by Proposal 8200 "Sane AI Defaulting" (Aris), 10 Jul
> > > 2019
> > >
> > > Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597
> > > Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8200
> > > Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2598
> > >
> > >
> 
> > >
> > > Table of Contents:
> > >
> > > The Game of Agora
> > > * Rule  101: The Game of Agora
> > > * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic
> > > Players
> > > * Rule  869: How to Join and Leave Agora
> > > * Rule  478: Fora
> > > * Rule 2139: The Registrar
> > > * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus
> > > General Definitions
> > > * Rule 2152: Mother, May I?
> > > * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers
> > > * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions
> > > * Rule 1023: Agoran Time
> > > * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods
> > > * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action
> > > * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction
> > > * Rule 2518: Determinacy
> > > * Rule 2505: Random Choices
> > > * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability
> > > Entities
> > > * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities
> > > * Rule 2162: Switches
> > > * Rule 1688: Power
> > > * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability
> > > Proposals
> > > * Rule 2350: Proposals
> > > * Rule 1607: Distribution
> > > * Rule 2137: The Assessor
> > > * Rule  106: Adopting Proposals
> > > * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto
> > > Rules & Regulations
> > > * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules
> > > * Rule  217: Interpreting the Rules
> > > * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules
> > > * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply
> > > * Rule  105: Rule Changes
> > > * Rule 2493: Regulations
> > > * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade
> > > * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor
> > > * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets
> > > * Rule 2221: Cleanliness
> > > * Rule 2429: Bleach
> > > Voting
> > > * Rule  693: Agoran Decisions
> > > * Rule  107: Initiating Agoran Decisions
> > > * Rule 2528: Voting Methods
> > > * Rule  683: Voting on Agoran Decisions
> > > * Rule  208: Resolving Agoran Decisions
> > > * Rule  955: Determining the Will of Agora
> > > * Rule  879: Quorum
> > > * Rule 2422: Voting Strength
> > > * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes
> > > * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period
> > > * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices
> > > * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges
> > > Offices & Reporting
> > > * Rule 1006: Offices
> > > * Rule 2154: Election Procedure
> > > * Rule 2573: Impeachment
> > > * Rule 2160: Deputisation
> > > * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel
> > > * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities
> > > * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties
> > > * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News
> > > Documents
> > > * Rule 1551: Ratification
> > > * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection
> > > * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification
> > > Justice
> > > * Rule 2556: Penalties
> > > * Rule 2555: Blots
> > > * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice
> > > * Rule 2479: Official Justice
> > > * Rule 2557: Removing Blots
> > > * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability
> > > Calls for Judgement
> > > * Rule  991: Calls for Judgement
> > > * Rule  591: Delivering Judgements
> > > * Rule  911: Motions and Moots
> > > * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess
> > > * Rule 2492: Recusal
> > > * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee
> > > Obligations & Contracts
> > > * Rule 2471: No Faking
> > > * Rule 2450: Pledges
> > > * Rule 2466: Acting on Behalf
> > > * Rule 2519: Consent
> > > * Rule 1742: Contracts
> > > Assets
> > > * Rule 2166: Assets
> > > * Rule 2576: Ownership
> > > * Rule 2577: Asset Actions
> > > * Rule 2578: Currencies
> > > * Rule 2579: Fee-based Actions
> > > Economics
> > > * Rule 2456: The Treasuror
> > > * Rule 2483: Economics
> > > * 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019

[Aris Merchant]

They are not. Nothing in the SLR or FLR is self-ratifying. Customarily, we
ratify the SLR from time to time by proposal in order to ensure we
accurately understand the ruleset. This is done by explicit proposal so
that people have an opportunity to check it and prevent scams. However, the
FLR is never ratified, because doing so would unnecessarily ratify the
history of how the ruleset got the way it is, potentially creating a mess
if something is wrong.

-Aris

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 1:57 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:

> Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
> friend.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
>
> > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
> >
> > These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
> >
> > Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019
> > Date of this ruleset: 14 Jul 2019
> >
> > Date of last SLR ratification: 8 May 2019
> >
> > Number of rules currently enacted: 130
> >
> > Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 1950 "Decisions with Adoption
> > Indices" amended by Proposal 8200 "Sane AI Defaulting" (Aris), 10 Jul
> > 2019
> >
> > Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597
> > Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8200
> > Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2598
> >
> > 
> >
> > Table of Contents:
> >
> > The Game of Agora
> > * Rule  101: The Game of Agora
> > * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic
> > Players
> > * Rule  869: How to Join and Leave Agora
> > * Rule  478: Fora
> > * Rule 2139: The Registrar
> > * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus
> > General Definitions
> > * Rule 2152: Mother, May I?
> > * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers
> > * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions
> > * Rule 1023: Agoran Time
> > * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods
> > * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action
> > * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction
> > * Rule 2518: Determinacy
> > * Rule 2505: Random Choices
> > * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability
> > Entities
> > * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities
> > * Rule 2162: Switches
> > * Rule 1688: Power
> > * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability
> > Proposals
> > * Rule 2350: Proposals
> > * Rule 1607: Distribution
> > * Rule 2137: The Assessor
> > * Rule  106: Adopting Proposals
> > * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto
> > Rules & Regulations
> > * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules
> > * Rule  217: Interpreting the Rules
> > * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules
> > * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply
> > * Rule  105: Rule Changes
> > * Rule 2493: Regulations
> > * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade
> > * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor
> > * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets
> > * Rule 2221: Cleanliness
> > * Rule 2429: Bleach
> > Voting
> > * Rule  693: Agoran Decisions
> > * Rule  107: Initiating Agoran Decisions
> > * Rule 2528: Voting Methods
> > * Rule  683: Voting on Agoran Decisions
> > * Rule  208: Resolving Agoran Decisions
> > * Rule  955: Determining the Will of Agora
> > * Rule  879: Quorum
> > * Rule 2422: Voting Strength
> > * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes
> > * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period
> > * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices
> > * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges
> > Offices & Reporting
> > * Rule 1006: Offices
> > * Rule 2154: Election Procedure
> > * Rule 2573: Impeachment
> > * Rule 2160: Deputisation
> > * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel
> > * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities
> > * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties
> > * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News
> > Documents
> > * Rule 1551: Ratification
> > * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection
> > * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification
> > Justice
> > * Rule 2556: Penalties
> > * Rule 2555: Blots
> > * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice
> > * Rule 2479: Official Justice
> > * Rule 2557: Removing Blots
> > * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability
> > Calls for Judgement
> > * Rule  991: Calls for Judgement
> > * Rule  591: Delivering Judgements
> > * Rule  911: Motions and Moots
> > * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess
> > * Rule 2492: Recusal
> > * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee
> > Obligations & Contracts
> > * Rule 2471: No Faking
> > * Rule 2450: Pledges
> > * Rule 2466: Acting on Behalf
> > * Rule 2519: Consent
> > * Rule 1742: Contracts
> > Assets
> > * Rule 2166: Assets
> > * Rule 2576: Ownership
> > * Rule 2577: Asset Actions
> > * Rule 2578: Currencies
> > * Rule 2579: Fee-based Actions
> > Economics
> > * Rule 2456: The Treasuror
> > * Rule 2483: Economics
> > * Rule 2496: Rewards
> > * Rule 2559: Paydays
> > * Rule 2499: Welcome Packages
> > * Rule 2585: Birthday Gifts
> > Auctions
> 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019

[Reuben Staley]

No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying.

--
Trigon

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb  wrote:

> Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
> friend.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
>
> > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
> >
> > These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
> >
> > Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019
> > Date of this ruleset: 14 Jul 2019
> >
> > Date of last SLR ratification: 8 May 2019
> >
> > Number of rules currently enacted: 130
> >
> > Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 1950 "Decisions with Adoption
> > Indices" amended by Proposal 8200 "Sane AI Defaulting" (Aris), 10 Jul
> > 2019
> >
> > Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597
> > Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8200
> > Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2598
> >
> > 
> >
> > Table of Contents:
> >
> > The Game of Agora
> > * Rule  101: The Game of Agora
> > * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic
> > Players
> > * Rule  869: How to Join and Leave Agora
> > * Rule  478: Fora
> > * Rule 2139: The Registrar
> > * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus
> > General Definitions
> > * Rule 2152: Mother, May I?
> > * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers
> > * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions
> > * Rule 1023: Agoran Time
> > * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods
> > * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action
> > * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction
> > * Rule 2518: Determinacy
> > * Rule 2505: Random Choices
> > * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability
> > Entities
> > * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities
> > * Rule 2162: Switches
> > * Rule 1688: Power
> > * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability
> > Proposals
> > * Rule 2350: Proposals
> > * Rule 1607: Distribution
> > * Rule 2137: The Assessor
> > * Rule  106: Adopting Proposals
> > * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto
> > Rules & Regulations
> > * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules
> > * Rule  217: Interpreting the Rules
> > * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules
> > * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply
> > * Rule  105: Rule Changes
> > * Rule 2493: Regulations
> > * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade
> > * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor
> > * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets
> > * Rule 2221: Cleanliness
> > * Rule 2429: Bleach
> > Voting
> > * Rule  693: Agoran Decisions
> > * Rule  107: Initiating Agoran Decisions
> > * Rule 2528: Voting Methods
> > * Rule  683: Voting on Agoran Decisions
> > * Rule  208: Resolving Agoran Decisions
> > * Rule  955: Determining the Will of Agora
> > * Rule  879: Quorum
> > * Rule 2422: Voting Strength
> > * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes
> > * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period
> > * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices
> > * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges
> > Offices & Reporting
> > * Rule 1006: Offices
> > * Rule 2154: Election Procedure
> > * Rule 2573: Impeachment
> > * Rule 2160: Deputisation
> > * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel
> > * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities
> > * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties
> > * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News
> > Documents
> > * Rule 1551: Ratification
> > * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection
> > * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification
> > Justice
> > * Rule 2556: Penalties
> > * Rule 2555: Blots
> > * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice
> > * Rule 2479: Official Justice
> > * Rule 2557: Removing Blots
> > * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability
> > Calls for Judgement
> > * Rule  991: Calls for Judgement
> > * Rule  591: Delivering Judgements
> > * Rule  911: Motions and Moots
> > * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess
> > * Rule 2492: Recusal
> > * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee
> > Obligations & Contracts
> > * Rule 2471: No Faking
> > * Rule 2450: Pledges
> > * Rule 2466: Acting on Behalf
> > * Rule 2519: Consent
> > * Rule 1742: Contracts
> > Assets
> > * Rule 2166: Assets
> > * Rule 2576: Ownership
> > * Rule 2577: Asset Actions
> > * Rule 2578: Currencies
> > * Rule 2579: Fee-based Actions
> > Economics
> > * Rule 2456: The Treasuror
> > * Rule 2483: Economics
> > * Rule 2496: Rewards
> > * Rule 2559: Paydays
> > * Rule 2499: Welcome Packages
> > * Rule 2585: Birthday Gifts
> > Auctions
> > * Rule 2545: Auctions
> > * Rule 2549: Auction Initiation
> > * Rule 2550: Bidding
> > * Rule 2551: Auction End
> > * Rule 2552: Auction Termination
> > * Rule 2584: Free Auctions
> > The Undead
> > * Rule 2532: Zombies
> > * Rule 2574: Zombie Life Cycle
> > * Rule 1885: Zombie Auctions
> > Spaaace!
> > * Rule 2588: Sectors
> > * Rule 2589: Galaxy Maintenance
> > 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019

[Jason Cobb]

Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
friend.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley  wrote:

> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
>
> These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
>
> Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019
> Date of this ruleset: 14 Jul 2019
>
> Date of last SLR ratification: 8 May 2019
>
> Number of rules currently enacted: 130
>
> Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 1950 "Decisions with Adoption
> Indices" amended by Proposal 8200 "Sane AI Defaulting" (Aris), 10 Jul
> 2019
>
> Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597
> Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8200
> Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2598
>
> 
>
> Table of Contents:
>
> The Game of Agora
> * Rule  101: The Game of Agora
> * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic
> Players
> * Rule  869: How to Join and Leave Agora
> * Rule  478: Fora
> * Rule 2139: The Registrar
> * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus
> General Definitions
> * Rule 2152: Mother, May I?
> * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers
> * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions
> * Rule 1023: Agoran Time
> * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods
> * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action
> * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction
> * Rule 2518: Determinacy
> * Rule 2505: Random Choices
> * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability
> Entities
> * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities
> * Rule 2162: Switches
> * Rule 1688: Power
> * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability
> Proposals
> * Rule 2350: Proposals
> * Rule 1607: Distribution
> * Rule 2137: The Assessor
> * Rule  106: Adopting Proposals
> * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto
> Rules & Regulations
> * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules
> * Rule  217: Interpreting the Rules
> * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules
> * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply
> * Rule  105: Rule Changes
> * Rule 2493: Regulations
> * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade
> * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor
> * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets
> * Rule 2221: Cleanliness
> * Rule 2429: Bleach
> Voting
> * Rule  693: Agoran Decisions
> * Rule  107: Initiating Agoran Decisions
> * Rule 2528: Voting Methods
> * Rule  683: Voting on Agoran Decisions
> * Rule  208: Resolving Agoran Decisions
> * Rule  955: Determining the Will of Agora
> * Rule  879: Quorum
> * Rule 2422: Voting Strength
> * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes
> * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period
> * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices
> * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges
> Offices & Reporting
> * Rule 1006: Offices
> * Rule 2154: Election Procedure
> * Rule 2573: Impeachment
> * Rule 2160: Deputisation
> * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel
> * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities
> * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties
> * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News
> Documents
> * Rule 1551: Ratification
> * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection
> * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification
> Justice
> * Rule 2556: Penalties
> * Rule 2555: Blots
> * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice
> * Rule 2479: Official Justice
> * Rule 2557: Removing Blots
> * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability
> Calls for Judgement
> * Rule  991: Calls for Judgement
> * Rule  591: Delivering Judgements
> * Rule  911: Motions and Moots
> * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess
> * Rule 2492: Recusal
> * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee
> Obligations & Contracts
> * Rule 2471: No Faking
> * Rule 2450: Pledges
> * Rule 2466: Acting on Behalf
> * Rule 2519: Consent
> * Rule 1742: Contracts
> Assets
> * Rule 2166: Assets
> * Rule 2576: Ownership
> * Rule 2577: Asset Actions
> * Rule 2578: Currencies
> * Rule 2579: Fee-based Actions
> Economics
> * Rule 2456: The Treasuror
> * Rule 2483: Economics
> * Rule 2496: Rewards
> * Rule 2559: Paydays
> * Rule 2499: Welcome Packages
> * Rule 2585: Birthday Gifts
> Auctions
> * Rule 2545: Auctions
> * Rule 2549: Auction Initiation
> * Rule 2550: Bidding
> * Rule 2551: Auction End
> * Rule 2552: Auction Termination
> * Rule 2584: Free Auctions
> The Undead
> * Rule 2532: Zombies
> * Rule 2574: Zombie Life Cycle
> * Rule 1885: Zombie Auctions
> Spaaace!
> * Rule 2588: Sectors
> * Rule 2589: Galaxy Maintenance
> * Rule 2590: The Astronomor
> * Rule 2591: Spaceships
> * Rule 2592: Spaceship Energy
> * Rule 2593: Space Battles
> * Rule 2594: Fame
> Victory & Karma
> * Rule 2449: Winning the Game
> * Rule 2465: Victory by Apathy
> * Rule 2510: Such is Karma
> * Rule 2511: Karmic Balance
> * Rule 2553: Win by Paradox
> Awards
> * Rule 2438: Ribbons
> * 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: May 2019

[James Cook]

The history for R2138 is missing Proposal 8176. That probably means the
version number is wrong too.

On Fri., May 17, 2019, 20:54 Reuben Staley,  wrote:

> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
>
> These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
>
> Date of last official ruleset of this type: 17 Apr 2019
> Date of this ruleset: 17 May 2019
>
> Number of rules currently enacted: 142
>
> Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 2139 'The Registrar' amended by
> Proposal 8176 'Zombies take care of this now', 13 May 2019
>
> Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597
> Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8176
> Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2597
>
> 
>
> Table of Contents:
>
> The Game of Agora
> * Rule  101: The Game of Agora
> * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic
> * Rule 2596: The Ritual
> Players
> * Rule  869: How to Join and Leave Agora
> * Rule  478: Fora
> * Rule 2139: The Registrar
> * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus
> General Definitions
> * Rule 2152: Mother, May I?
> * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers
> * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions
> * Rule 1023: Agoran Time
> * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods
> * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action
> * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction
> * Rule 2518: Determinacy
> * Rule 2505: Random Choices
> * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability
> Entities
> * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities
> * Rule 2162: Switches
> * Rule 1688: Power
> * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability
> Proposals
> * Rule 2350: Proposals
> * Rule 1607: Distribution
> * Rule 2137: The Assessor
> * Rule  106: Adopting Proposals
> * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto
> Rules & Regulations
> * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules
> * Rule  217: Interpreting the Rules
> * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules
> * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply
> * Rule  105: Rule Changes
> * Rule 2493: Regulations
> * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade
> * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor
> * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets
> * Rule 2221: Cleanliness
> * Rule 2429: Bleach
> Voting
> * Rule  693: Agoran Decisions
> * Rule  107: Initiating Agoran Decisions
> * Rule 2528: Voting Methods
> * Rule  683: Voting on Agoran Decisions
> * Rule  208: Resolving Agoran Decisions
> * Rule  955: Determining the Will of Agora
> * Rule  879: Quorum
> * Rule 2422: Voting Strength
> * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes
> * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period
> * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices
> * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges
> Offices & Reporting
> * Rule 1006: Offices
> * Rule 2154: Election Procedure
> * Rule 2573: Impeachment
> * Rule 2160: Deputisation
> * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel
> * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities
> * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties
> * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News
> Documents
> * Rule 1551: Ratification
> * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection
> * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification
> Justice
> * Rule 2556: Penalties
> * Rule 2555: Blots
> * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice
> * Rule 2479: Official Justice
> * Rule 2557: Removing Blots
> * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability
> Calls for Judgement
> * Rule  991: Calls for Judgement
> * Rule  591: Delivering Judgements
> * Rule  911: Motions and Moots
> * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess
> * Rule 2492: Recusal
> * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee
> Obligations & Contracts
> * Rule 2471: No Faking
> * Rule 2450: Pledges
> * Rule 2466: Acting on Behalf
> * Rule 2519: Consent
> * Rule 1742: Contracts
> Assets
> * Rule 2166: Assets
> * Rule 2576: Ownership
> * Rule 2577: Asset Actions
> * Rule 2578: Currencies
> * Rule 2579: Fee-based Actions
> Economics
> * Rule 2456: The Treasuror
> * Rule 2483: Economics
> * Rule 2496: Rewards
> * Rule 2559: Paydays
> * Rule 2499: Welcome Packages
> * Rule 2585: Birthday Gifts
> Auctions
> * Rule 2545: Auctions
> * Rule 2549: Auction Initiation
> * Rule 2550: Bidding
> * Rule 2551: Auction End
> * Rule 2552: Auction Termination
> * Rule 2584: Free Auctions
> The Undead
> * Rule 2532: Zombies
> * Rule 2574: Zombie Life Cycle
> * Rule 1885: Zombie Auctions
> Spaaace!
> * Rule 2588: Sectors
> * Rule 2589: Galaxy Maintenance
> * Rule 2590: The Astronomor
> * Rule 2591: Spaceships
> * Rule 2592: Spaceship Energy
> * Rule 2593: Space Battles
> * Rule 2594: Fame
> Politics
> * Rule 2533: Political Parties
> * Rule 2534: Clork
> * Rule 2535: Echelon Forms
> * Rule 2536: Taken Under Advisement
> * Rule 2537: Balloons
> * Rule 2538: Party Favours
> * Rule 2539: Retirement
> * 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET

I CoE this ruleset, on the basis that it includes Rule 2942, "Scam
Reward". That rule was repealed:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28705.html
. I would suggest checking for any other problems.

-Aris

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Owen Jacobson]

On May 23, 2017, at 6:57 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 12:59 -0600, Sprocklem S wrote:
>> Proposal: Ruleset Ratification
>> {{{
>> Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following
>> paragraph at the end:
>> 
>> The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting the substantive
>> aspects of the rules, as defined in Rule 2141, are self-ratifying. The
>> Rulekeepor SHALL NOT knowingly publish an SLR or FLR where the
>> self-ratifying portion is incorrect.
>> }}}
>> 
>> [I don't think making the whole thing self-ratifying would cause any
>> problems, but there's a lot in the FLR, so I limited it to just
>> rule-specific stuff.]
> 
> I'm *strongly* opposed to this. Rulekeepors sometimes make
> (unintentional) errors, and sometimes these errors are things that
> could seriously break the game. Having rules changes limited to methods
> with much more oversight (e.g. making full-Ruleset ratifications rare,
> with many players looking over the purported ruleset for loopholes and
> omissions) is much safer for Agora's ongoing existence.
> 
> Note also that we never ratify the FLR, only the SLR. This means that
> if a rule *was* misstated, we can then place an "amended by
> ratification" in the FLR to explain what happened to it, thus making
> the rule history an accurate reflection of reality. If we ratified the
> FLR, we'd also be ratifying an incorrect history of how the rule got to
> where it did.

I won’t go so far as to suggest making it a rule, for a variety of reasons, but 
it might be worth our while to build a tradition of ratifying the FLR during 
Read The Ruleset Week.

This year’s RTRW went unmarked and uncelebrated, as no players were 
meaningfully active during February.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On May 23, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Aris Merchant 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a
>> rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self
>> ratify unless the rules say they do, so I don't think there was any
>> real risk.
>
> Then I need to fix the rule defining the Surveyor’s report, at minimum. I 
> might as well review all of the reporting rules and make sure the offices 
> that should ratify actually do.
>
> I had been assuming that all reports self-ratify, but, of course, you’re 
> right. This means I may have incorrectly rejected some claims of error 
> recently…
>
> -o
>
Rule 2162 states that rules regarding switches self-ratify by default.
The Surveyor’s report is set up such that it falls within this rule.

-Aris

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 23, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a
> rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self
> ratify unless the rules say they do, so I don't think there was any
> real risk.

Then I need to fix the rule defining the Surveyor’s report, at minimum. I might 
as well review all of the reporting rules and make sure the offices that should 
ratify actually do.

I had been assuming that all reports self-ratify, but, of course, you’re right. 
This means I may have incorrectly rejected some claims of error recently…

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 22, 2017, at 9:53 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> Regardless if the Pink Slip is valid, I get the feeling that a Red Card of 
> some sort ought to be coming forthwith given the level of ire incited, but my 
> gauge on that front may be inaccurate. Personally, I think Gaelan should not 
> be trusted with the office of Rulekeepor, and should be removed from it in 
> addition to being barred from other report-generating offices, but it is my 
> understanding that Rulekeepor is an intensive duty that Agora cannot go 
> without, and there is no other candidate who wishes to take the mantle, 
> including myself.
> 
> 天火狐

Fortunately, “ire” is not the deciding factor. A red card is appropriate:

> for serious and deliberate violations of the rules

and

> for a person who appears to be part of an attempt in bad faith to swarm Agora 
> and outpower the regular players in voting strength.

Neither appears to be the case, here. We can discard the “swarm” case entirely, 
for reasons I hope are obvious, and deal only with the “serious and deliberate 
violations of the rules” case.

R. 2152 (“Mother, May I?”) and r. 2125 (“Regulation Regulations”) together 
spell out what actions are considered to violate the rules. In the latter:

> The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.

So no actions other than those proscribed can possibly merit a Red Card. In the 
former:

> CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the described 
> action are unsuccessful.
> 
> MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing the described 
> action violates the rule in question.
> 
> NEED NOT, OPTIONAL: Failing to perform the described action does not violate 
> the rules.
> 
> SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the described action, 
> the full implications of performing it should be understood and carefully 
> weighed.
> 
> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
> 
> MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the rules.
> 
> MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the described action 
> violates the rule in question.
> 
> SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform the described 
> action, the full implications of failing to perform it should (in the 
> ordinary-language sense) be understood and carefully weighed.

So only actions that contravene a MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, or 
PROHIBITED clause, or an inaction contrary to a MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, or 
MANDATORY clause can violate the rules. NEED NOT, OPTIONAL, and MAY clauses can 
moderate that, but that still limits our search space.

I believe that Gaelan did not violate any such clause in the rules.

The closest clause I can find is in r. 2143 (“Official Reports and Duties”), 
where the clause

> A person SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or misleading while 
> performing an official duty, or within a document purporting to be part of 
> any person or office's weekly or monthly report.

appears. However, nothing was inaccurate or misleading about the intention 
buried in the FLR: it accurately and completely described an action Gaelan 
intended to take. It was made inappropriately difficult to find, but it was not 
false and it’s very hard to interpret the intention other than in the plainest 
way.

Separately, Gaelan has alleged that I deserve a Card for violating the rules. I 
think e’s got a cogent argument. From r. 2426 (“Cards”):

> A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless:
> * the reason is appropriate for the type of Card being issued;

This is a SHALL NOT, so violating it is a violation of the rules. If I 
inappropriately gave Gaelan a Pink Slip, then I deserve a card appropriate to 
breaking the rules. I hope that I’ve presented a defence that my actions were 
not “serious and deliberate,” and that that card should be a Yellow Card, but I 
cannot avoid the accusation entirely until the CFJ is settled.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Gaelan Steele]

Was my intent discovered? My recollection was that I gave myself away; someone 
killed all attempts at victory by apathy in response to the Herald’s attempt. 
That killed mine as well, presumably by accident, so I responded with a “darn 
it all.” I’m unsure of any discovery before I mentioned it.

Gaelan
> On May 23, 2017, at 7:53 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On May 22, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> 
>> I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid.
>> 
>> Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses 
>> of official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless the 
>> reason indicates the specific office or offices whose power was abused.”
>> 
>> The only reason being Rulekeepor aided me in this attempt at victory is that 
>> I had an excuse to publish a huge message; the ability to publish huge 
>> amounts of text is not a power given to the Rulekeepor by the rules. I could 
>> have, for example, hidden the attempt to win by Apathy in a written-out 
>> version of my Agency scam. There was no abuse of a specific power exclusive 
>> to the Rulekeepor.
> 
> The power so misused is, in fact, the power to publish that specific report.
> 
> First, long documents that are not reports are regularly scrutinized in 
> detail for exactly this sort of hidden gotcha. Long non-report documents are 
> exceptions, and they make people take notice. It had to be a long document 
> whose presence would be unsurprising, and the only such documents that happen 
> with any regularity are reports. Those pass with much less scrutiny, under 
> most circumstances. (Perhaps we should be more skeptical of reports, but 
> that’s a separate discussion.)
> 
> Second, a short report would have shown up your attempt fairly easily. So 
> would a less prose-heavy report. There aren’t many long, prose-structured 
> reports in the game[0], and the FLR is longer than any other report by a very 
> large factor. Both its length and its prose-heavy structure are uniquely 
> suited to hiding mid-report actions and announcements.
> 
> Third, only the Rulekeepor can publish that report without arousing 
> suspicion. Had any other player published the Full Logical Ruleset to a 
> public forum, it would not be a report. Furthermore, it would be an action so 
> obviously suspicious that I doubt you would have believed you could pull it 
> off.
> 
> Because your attempt likely could not have worked even as well as it did with 
> any other report, I believe that you were specifically abusing the 
> Rulekeepor’s power to publish the Full Logical Ruleset.
> 
> Now, you’re not on trial, and this (intentionally) wasn’t part of my 
> investigation. I’m very interested in the outcome of the CFJ on this subject, 
> because I can absolutely see your point of view, as well. I’ll happily 
> acknowledge that my argument is weakened by the fact that your intent was 
> discovered the same day that you published it. By Agoran standards, that’s 
> already quite fast; you could well argue that you simply used a report you 
> had the ability to publish, and that there isn’t anything special about that 
> report or that office.
> 
> -o
> 
> [0] The Secretary’s monthly report, the Superintendent’s report, and, soon, 
> the Surveyor’s report are the only other prose-heavy reports I can think of.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Owen Jacobson]

> On May 22, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid.
> 
> Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses of 
> official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless the 
> reason indicates the specific office or offices whose power was abused.”
> 
> The only reason being Rulekeepor aided me in this attempt at victory is that 
> I had an excuse to publish a huge message; the ability to publish huge 
> amounts of text is not a power given to the Rulekeepor by the rules. I could 
> have, for example, hidden the attempt to win by Apathy in a written-out 
> version of my Agency scam. There was no abuse of a specific power exclusive 
> to the Rulekeepor.

The power so misused is, in fact, the power to publish that specific report.

First, long documents that are not reports are regularly scrutinized in detail 
for exactly this sort of hidden gotcha. Long non-report documents are 
exceptions, and they make people take notice. It had to be a long document 
whose presence would be unsurprising, and the only such documents that happen 
with any regularity are reports. Those pass with much less scrutiny, under most 
circumstances. (Perhaps we should be more skeptical of reports, but that’s a 
separate discussion.)

Second, a short report would have shown up your attempt fairly easily. So would 
a less prose-heavy report. There aren’t many long, prose-structured reports in 
the game[0], and the FLR is longer than any other report by a very large 
factor. Both its length and its prose-heavy structure are uniquely suited to 
hiding mid-report actions and announcements.

Third, only the Rulekeepor can publish that report without arousing suspicion. 
Had any other player published the Full Logical Ruleset to a public forum, it 
would not be a report. Furthermore, it would be an action so obviously 
suspicious that I doubt you would have believed you could pull it off.

Because your attempt likely could not have worked even as well as it did with 
any other report, I believe that you were specifically abusing the Rulekeepor’s 
power to publish the Full Logical Ruleset.

Now, you’re not on trial, and this (intentionally) wasn’t part of my 
investigation. I’m very interested in the outcome of the CFJ on this subject, 
because I can absolutely see your point of view, as well. I’ll happily 
acknowledge that my argument is weakened by the fact that your intent was 
discovered the same day that you published it. By Agoran standards, that’s 
already quite fast; you could well argue that you simply used a report you had 
the ability to publish, and that there isn’t anything special about that report 
or that office.

-o

[0] The Secretary’s monthly report, the Superintendent’s report, and, soon, the 
Surveyor’s report are the only other prose-heavy reports I can think of.


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Quazie]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:57 PM Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 12:59 -0600, Sprocklem S wrote:
> > Proposal: Ruleset Ratification
> > {{{
> > Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following
> > paragraph at the end:
> >
> > The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting the substantive
> > aspects of the rules, as defined in Rule 2141, are self-ratifying. The
> > Rulekeepor SHALL NOT knowingly publish an SLR or FLR where the
> > self-ratifying portion is incorrect.
> > }}}
> >
> > [I don't think making the whole thing self-ratifying would cause any
> > problems, but there's a lot in the FLR, so I limited it to just
> > rule-specific stuff.]
>
> I'm *strongly* opposed to this. Rulekeepors sometimes make
> (unintentional) errors, and sometimes these errors are things that
> could seriously break the game. Having rules changes limited to methods
> with much more oversight (e.g. making full-Ruleset ratifications rare,
> with many players looking over the purported ruleset for loopholes and
> omissions) is much safer for Agora's ongoing existence.
>
> Note also that we never ratify the FLR, only the SLR. This means that
> if a rule *was* misstated, we can then place an "amended by
> ratification" in the FLR to explain what happened to it, thus making
> the rule history an accurate reflection of reality. If we ratified the
> FLR, we'd also be ratifying an incorrect history of how the rule got to
> where it did.
>
> --
> ais523
>

I'd go so far as to make a rule stating that the FLR CANNOT be ratified,
for reasons noted above.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 12:59 -0600, Sprocklem S wrote:
> Proposal: Ruleset Ratification
> {{{
> Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following
> paragraph at the end:
> 
> The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting the substantive
> aspects of the rules, as defined in Rule 2141, are self-ratifying. The
> Rulekeepor SHALL NOT knowingly publish an SLR or FLR where the
> self-ratifying portion is incorrect.
> }}}
> 
> [I don't think making the whole thing self-ratifying would cause any
> problems, but there's a lot in the FLR, so I limited it to just
> rule-specific stuff.]

I'm *strongly* opposed to this. Rulekeepors sometimes make
(unintentional) errors, and sometimes these errors are things that
could seriously break the game. Having rules changes limited to methods
with much more oversight (e.g. making full-Ruleset ratifications rare,
with many players looking over the purported ruleset for loopholes and
omissions) is much safer for Agora's ongoing existence.

Note also that we never ratify the FLR, only the SLR. This means that
if a rule *was* misstated, we can then place an "amended by
ratification" in the FLR to explain what happened to it, thus making
the rule history an accurate reflection of reality. If we ratified the
FLR, we'd also be ratifying an incorrect history of how the rule got to
where it did.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Sprocklem S]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> Why not just make it explicitly not ratifying, but a SHALL NOT to falsify
> it.

The intent is that if some error finds its way in accidentally and it's
not caught, it should be ratified, so that the latest ruleset always
remains consistent with the rules.

-- 
Sprocklem

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Why not just make it explicitly not ratifying, but a SHALL NOT to falsify
it.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Sprocklem S  wrote:

> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a
> > rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self
> > ratify unless the rules say they do, so I don't think there was any
> > real risk.
>
> I'm not sure that holds up. Intentionally altering a ratifiable ruleset
> would constitute a rather grievous rule violation. On the other hand,
> infrequent or non-existent ratification of the ruleset could easily
> cause players to be unaware of the current state of the rules (through
> accidental bookkeeping mistakes, etc.). If the rulekeepor is willing to
> violate the rules anyways, they could publish a (partially) incorrect
> ruleset with the intent to deceive. They could even craft it so that
> they could later introduce a loophole using a proposal of the form:
>
> Replace the text reading "..." with "...".
>
> or similar. It would result in them getting carded, but so would
> knowingly try to publish an incorrect self-ratifying ruleset.
>
> Additionally, a rulekeepor could just add the loophole and then ratify
> it manually, with some excuse ("we haven't ratified it in a while and I
> just want to make certain the rules are consistent" or whatever).
>
> Proposal: Ruleset Ratification
> {{{
> Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following
> paragraph at the end:
>
> The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting the substantive
> aspects of the rules, as defined in Rule 2141, are self-ratifying. The
> Rulekeepor SHALL NOT knowingly publish an SLR or FLR where the
> self-ratifying portion is incorrect.
> }}}
>
> [I don't think making the whole thing self-ratifying would cause any
> problems, but there's a lot in the FLR, so I limited it to just
> rule-specific stuff.]
>
> --
> Sprocklem
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Aris Merchant]

I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a
rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self
ratify unless the rules say they do, so I don't think there was any
real risk.

-Aris

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> If it is like most reports it would be, but I didn't find anything specific.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

If it is like most reports it would be, but I didn't find anything specific.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
> > Then, you failed to publish a report that you intended to be ratified.
> >
> Where exactly do the rules make the rulekeepor's report self
> ratifying? I can't find anything to that effect, but I might be
> missing something.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> Then, you failed to publish a report that you intended to be ratified.
>
Where exactly do the rules make the rulekeepor's report self
ratifying? I can't find anything to that effect, but I might be
missing something.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Aris Merchant]

Agreed. E did something wrong, and should probably be punished, but we
need em as Rulekeepor.

-Aris

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> Removing Gaelan from office, or punishing em enough that e's unwilling to
> continue, is a good way to shoot ourselves in the foot during a time of good
> momentum.
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Nic Evans]

Removing Gaelan from office, or punishing em enough that e's unwilling
to continue, is a good way to shoot ourselves in the foot during a time
of good momentum.


On 05/22/17 20:53, Josh T wrote:
> Regardless if the Pink Slip is valid, I get the feeling that a Red
> Card of some sort ought to be coming forthwith given the level of ire
> incited, but my gauge on that front may be inaccurate. Personally, I
> think Gaelan should not be trusted with the office of Rulekeepor, and
> should be removed from it in addition to being barred from other
> report-generating offices, but it is my understanding that Rulekeepor
> is an intensive duty that Agora cannot go without, and there is no
> other candidate who wishes to take the mantle, including myself. 
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 22 May 2017 at 21:30, Gaelan Steele  > wrote:
>
> I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid.
>
> Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate
> for abuses of official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT
> be issued unless the reason indicates the specific office or
> offices whose power was abused.”
>
> The only reason being Rulekeepor aided me in this attempt at
> victory is that I had an excuse to publish a huge message; the
> ability to publish huge amounts of text is not a power given to
> the Rulekeepor by the rules. I could have, for example, hidden the
> attempt to win by Apathy in a written-out version of my Agency
> scam. There was no abuse of a specific power exclusive to the
> Rulekeepor.
>
> Gaelan
> > On May 21, 2017, at 10:46 PM, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> >
> >
> > On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele  > wrote:
> >
> >> The following section is not a portion of the report:
> >> For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend,
> >> without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.”
> >> I execute The Sentence, substituting [word] for a word
> >> beginning with “ap” that is a synonym for “not caring.”
> >
> > This appears to be an attempt to abuse the office of Rulekeepor
> for personal gain, in the form of initiating a victory by Apathy
> for Gaelan while hiding it within the voluminous reports required
> of eir office. That the attempt may not succeed does not justify
> eir intentions. Accordingly, I issue Gaelan a Pink Slip for abuse
> of the office of Rulekeepor for the crime of Forgery.
> >
> > Gaelan: in spite of this censure, you remain Rulekeepor. I leave
> it to the discretion of Agora as a whole whether you should hold
> that office in light of this serious offence. Within the next
> seven days, any player may, with two support, take over an office
> which you hold. I stand aside, and will not support usurpation,
> but neither will I object. The office of Rulekeepor is essential
> to the functioning of Agora as a Nomic, and by abusing your
> authority to publish reports and compromising the trust players
> place in their content, you have put the integrity of the game at
> risk.
> >
> > -o
> >
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Then, you failed to publish a report that you intended to be ratified.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I still don't buy this. I surrounded the apathy attempt in "this section
> is not part of the report"/"the report resumes below." Regardless of
> whether that worked, I think that makes it pretty clear I did not intend to
> ratify that into the ruleset.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On May 23, 2017, at 3:50 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Gaelan Steele]

I still don't buy this. I surrounded the apathy attempt in "this section is not 
part of the report"/"the report resumes below." Regardless of whether that 
worked, I think that makes it pretty clear I did not intend to ratify that into 
the ruleset. 

Gaelan

> On May 23, 2017, at 3:50 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

You were attempting to add text to the ruleset by ratification for your own
personal gain.


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I CFJ on these statements:
>
> “Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.” [i.e. I got
> a pink slip]
> “o committed a cardable offense in issuing a Pink Slip to Gaelan.”
>
> I bar o from both CFJs.
>
> Arguments:
>
> I don’t believe I committed a crime. o claimed that I committed Forgery;
> there is no crime named “Forgery” in the ruleset, the only match in the SLR
> for “forgery” is the crime of Endorsing Forgery (“Ratification Without
> Objection” 2202/6). There are several problems with this:
>
>
>1. There is no crime named Forgery.
>2. I explicitly noted that the attempt at apathy was separate from the
>report, therefore (assuming that worked) it was not within a ratified
>document.
>3. Reports are self-ratified, not ratified without objection.
>
> Therefore, there is no evidence that I broke the rules. Even so, a Pink
> Slip is not appropriate. 2476/0 “Pink Slips” states that a pink slip is
> appropriate "for abuses of official power for personal gain.  A Pink Slip
> CANNOT be issued unless the reason indicates the specific office or offices
> whose power was abused.” The ability to send long messages to a public
> forum in which one could hide a dependent action is not a power granted to
> the Rulekeepor by the rules; it provides an alibi, but that is not a
> rule-defined power.
>
> I believe it is very clear that the issuance of the Pink Slip was against
> the rules. However, the rules regarding Cards is a mishmash of CAN NOTs and
> SHALL NOTs, and I’m not sure if any of the CAN NOTs were triggered, hence
> the two CFJs.
>
> On May 22, 2017, at 6:30 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
> I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid.
>
> Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses
> of official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless
> the reason indicates the specific office or offices whose power was abused.”
>
> The only reason being Rulekeepor aided me in this attempt at victory is
> that I had an excuse to publish a huge message; the ability to publish huge
> amounts of text is not a power given to the Rulekeepor by the rules. I
> could have, for example, hidden the attempt to win by Apathy in a
> written-out version of my Agency scam. There was no abuse of a specific
> power exclusive to the Rulekeepor.
>
> Gaelan
>
> On May 21, 2017, at 10:46 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>
> On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
> The following section is not a portion of the report:
> For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend,
> without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.”
> I execute The Sentence, substituting [word] for a word
> beginning with “ap” that is a synonym for “not caring.”
>
>
> This appears to be an attempt to abuse the office of Rulekeepor for
> personal gain, in the form of initiating a victory by Apathy for Gaelan
> while hiding it within the voluminous reports required of eir office. That
> the attempt may not succeed does not justify eir intentions. Accordingly, I
> issue Gaelan a Pink Slip for abuse of the office of Rulekeepor for the
> crime of Forgery.
>
> Gaelan: in spite of this censure, you remain Rulekeepor. I leave it to the
> discretion of Agora as a whole whether you should hold that office in light
> of this serious offence. Within the next seven days, any player may, with
> two support, take over an office which you hold. I stand aside, and will
> not support usurpation, but neither will I object. The office of Rulekeepor
> is essential to the functioning of Agora as a Nomic, and by abusing your
> authority to publish reports and compromising the trust players place in
> their content, you have put the integrity of the game at risk.
>
> -o
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Josh T]

Regardless if the Pink Slip is valid, I get the feeling that a Red Card of
some sort ought to be coming forthwith given the level of ire incited, but
my gauge on that front may be inaccurate. Personally, I think Gaelan should
not be trusted with the office of Rulekeepor, and should be removed from it
in addition to being barred from other report-generating offices, but it is
my understanding that Rulekeepor is an intensive duty that Agora cannot go
without, and there is no other candidate who wishes to take the mantle,
including myself.

天火狐

On 22 May 2017 at 21:30, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid.
>
> Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses
> of official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless
> the reason indicates the specific office or offices whose power was abused.”
>
> The only reason being Rulekeepor aided me in this attempt at victory is
> that I had an excuse to publish a huge message; the ability to publish huge
> amounts of text is not a power given to the Rulekeepor by the rules. I
> could have, for example, hidden the attempt to win by Apathy in a
> written-out version of my Agency scam. There was no abuse of a specific
> power exclusive to the Rulekeepor.
>
> Gaelan
> > On May 21, 2017, at 10:46 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >
> >> The following section is not a portion of the report:
> >> For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend,
> >> without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.”
> >> I execute The Sentence, substituting [word] for a word
> >> beginning with “ap” that is a synonym for “not caring.”
> >
> > This appears to be an attempt to abuse the office of Rulekeepor for
> personal gain, in the form of initiating a victory by Apathy for Gaelan
> while hiding it within the voluminous reports required of eir office. That
> the attempt may not succeed does not justify eir intentions. Accordingly, I
> issue Gaelan a Pink Slip for abuse of the office of Rulekeepor for the
> crime of Forgery.
> >
> > Gaelan: in spite of this censure, you remain Rulekeepor. I leave it to
> the discretion of Agora as a whole whether you should hold that office in
> light of this serious offence. Within the next seven days, any player may,
> with two support, take over an office which you hold. I stand aside, and
> will not support usurpation, but neither will I object. The office of
> Rulekeepor is essential to the functioning of Agora as a Nomic, and by
> abusing your authority to publish reports and compromising the trust
> players place in their content, you have put the integrity of the game at
> risk.
> >
> > -o
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Gaelan Steele]

I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid.

Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses of 
official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless the 
reason indicates the specific office or offices whose power was abused.”

The only reason being Rulekeepor aided me in this attempt at victory is that I 
had an excuse to publish a huge message; the ability to publish huge amounts of 
text is not a power given to the Rulekeepor by the rules. I could have, for 
example, hidden the attempt to win by Apathy in a written-out version of my 
Agency scam. There was no abuse of a specific power exclusive to the Rulekeepor.

Gaelan
> On May 21, 2017, at 10:46 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
> On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
>> The following section is not a portion of the report:
>> For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend,
>> without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.”
>> I execute The Sentence, substituting [word] for a word
>> beginning with “ap” that is a synonym for “not caring.”
> 
> This appears to be an attempt to abuse the office of Rulekeepor for personal 
> gain, in the form of initiating a victory by Apathy for Gaelan while hiding 
> it within the voluminous reports required of eir office. That the attempt may 
> not succeed does not justify eir intentions. Accordingly, I issue Gaelan a 
> Pink Slip for abuse of the office of Rulekeepor for the crime of Forgery.
> 
> Gaelan: in spite of this censure, you remain Rulekeepor. I leave it to the 
> discretion of Agora as a whole whether you should hold that office in light 
> of this serious offence. Within the next seven days, any player may, with two 
> support, take over an office which you hold. I stand aside, and will not 
> support usurpation, but neither will I object. The office of Rulekeepor is 
> essential to the functioning of Agora as a Nomic, and by abusing your 
> authority to publish reports and compromising the trust players place in 
> their content, you have put the integrity of the game at risk.
> 
> -o
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Gaelan Steele]

One could lead to the other, at least with our ruleset now. An unknown public 
forum is an excellent place to win by apathy!

I think we need a rule against deliberately hidden announcements. 

Gaelan

> On May 22, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 01:46 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>> 
>>> The following section is not a portion of the report:
>>> For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend,
>>> without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.”
>>> I execute The Sentence, substituting [word] for a word
>>> beginning with “ap” that is a synonym for “not caring.”
>> 
>> This appears to be an attempt to abuse the office of Rulekeepor for
>> personal gain, in the form of initiating a victory by Apathy for
>> Gaelan while hiding it within the voluminous reports required of eir
>> office. That the attempt may not succeed does not justify eir
>> intentions. Accordingly, I issue Gaelan a Pink Slip for abuse of the
>> office of Rulekeepor for the crime of Forgery.
> 
> For what it's worth, I slipped an intent to create a new public forum
> into the Registrar's report once, which lead to some fun gameplay for a
> bit. I can't remember whether we decided to crack down on intents
> buried in the middle of lengthy reports in response to that, but it was
> definitely ruled to have worked at the time.
> 
> Of course, intending to make a new public forum is a rather different
> sort of action than intending to win the game.
> 
> -- 
> ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 01:46 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> > The following section is not a portion of the report:
> > For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend,
> > without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.”
> > I execute The Sentence, substituting [word] for a word
> > beginning with “ap” that is a synonym for “not caring.”
> 
> This appears to be an attempt to abuse the office of Rulekeepor for
> personal gain, in the form of initiating a victory by Apathy for
> Gaelan while hiding it within the voluminous reports required of eir
> office. That the attempt may not succeed does not justify eir
> intentions. Accordingly, I issue Gaelan a Pink Slip for abuse of the
> office of Rulekeepor for the crime of Forgery.

For what it's worth, I slipped an intent to create a new public forum
into the Registrar's report once, which lead to some fun gameplay for a
bit. I can't remember whether we decided to crack down on intents
buried in the middle of lengthy reports in response to that, but it was
definitely ruled to have worked at the time.

Of course, intending to make a new public forum is a rather different
sort of action than intending to win the game.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Luis Ressel]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:27:51 -0700
Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> Rule 106/36 (Power=3)
> Adopting Proposals
> 
> [...]
>
> Amended(36) by Proposal 7778 (scshunt), 14 August 2014

The last cited line contains a typo: s/2014/2015/

The same error also occurs in the histories of several other rules.
Just grep for 7778.

-- 
aranea

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2015-12-22 at 13:17 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET

Assuming the organization gets fixed, you might want to take aranea's
bet about that :-)

Or maybe not, with the wording as it is at the moment it might well
backfire.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015, Luis Ressel wrote:
 On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
 Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 
Rule 2446: The Agoran Newspaper 
  Rule 2437/1 (Power=1) 
 
 First of all, thanks for taking care of this! But could you please try
 and avoid superfluous whitespace such as the trailing spaces in lines
 96, 97 and 1329? It's not too bad, but a bit annoying when diff'ing.

Ah, the perils of hand-editing.  I'll try to keep a lookout.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Luis Ressel]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 18:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:

   Rule 2446: The Agoran Newspaper 
 Rule 2437/1 (Power=1) 

First of all, thanks for taking care of this! But could you please try
and avoid superfluous whitespace such as the trailing spaces in lines
96, 97 and 1329? It's not too bad, but a bit annoying when diff'ing.


--
aranea