Re: Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
>Please tone down the language a wee bit, we like to pretend to be >genteel. (I'm not saying nichdel wasn't overly snarky emself; this is a >de-escalation request all around). Yeah I re-read my thing and found it to be more intense than it should be lol. Sorry about that.
Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: > But yeah. Don't fucking toss me an ad hominem. I'll gladly re-process > the ideas and re-present it again. Please tone down the language a wee bit, we like to pretend to be genteel. (I'm not saying nichdel wasn't overly snarky emself; this is a de-escalation request all around).
Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
>This response makes me think you didn't read or comprehend my response. This is a really intense claim, but I'll restate my response again, but breaking down your exact reply instead of making certain assumptions which I thought were obvious from dialogue. I believe this is the "practical" versus "platonic" approach again, or what "unwritten things" are "obvious"/"axiomatic" or not. (Axiomatic lightly in a lingo sense that it doesn't need to be explained, it's obvious or just "should be so, anything else would be ridiculous/bad/improper") "Why don't you have those axioms, you're crazy!" versus "How can those things be axioms, that's crazy!" The 'withdraw' extrapolation from ballots isn't obvious or "axiomatic" to me. I don't believe there is a good reason to assume it as such. There really isn't a solution to that, if that's the issue. I think you thought that I "didn't understand it" because I'm not assuming your axioms, but then again, I didn't state that I was continuing to argue from my point of view instead of explicitly going "ayo, this is an axiom problem" like I'm doing now. But yeah. Don't fucking toss me an ad hominem. I'll gladly re-process the ideas and re-present it again. Onto it: ---[YOU]--- Note the definition of regulated, from R2125: "An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor." ---[/YOU]--- There is no limitation, permission or enabling (unless 'unregulated' actions are allowed by the Rules, in which case, they're regulated, because they're allowed, and all actions in the universe are regulated as per my other proof, but I'm assuming that isn't true for the sake of argument) of withdrawing *objections*. It just explains that such a phenomenon, if it happens, has a certain effect. ---[YOU]--- The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly regulated. ---[/YOU]--- Yes, and withdrawing ballots isn't the same thing as withdrawing proposals. And withdrawing *objections*, which was what my scam attempt was about, has no explicit conditions for success or failure. Ballots certainly do. Proposals certainly do. Objections, don't. ---[YOU]--- For this, there's no explicit definition. However, the rules still imply it's a thing players can do, and mention a situation where, if it was performed, it would have an effect. ---[/YOU]--- I think THIS is our CENTRAL disagreement and make it seem why each of us looks bonkers to the other. You believe that these unwritten implications exist, I don't believe they do. They're not obvious to me, nor do I see any reason for them to be obvious or "axiomatic". And you can disagree with that and we're back at the cards for cards, decentralized justice problem again but with a different flavor. We just disagree on these "axioms". >And your recent behavior makes me think you don't attempt to comprehend the >rules before acting. I do, but since I can't (and won't) be the final judge for my attempts, and I'm not psychic to know what the would-be judgement from others would be, so I just try stuff as an actual necessary part of reaching that comprehension. I have a good idea, sure, but I won't know for real until I actually try it. Nobody will get to fully understand the rules alone, and if that's what you're implying, I believe that's wrong, due to what I've said above. Or you mean that you'd prefer for it to be posted in Discussion rather than formal areas in which case, I can just shrug. It was free and non-spammy. I had nothing to lose, so I did it.
Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
Ok, here's the longer deal on unregulated actions. The rules neither take from, nor add to, your ability to perform unregulated actions. For this, CFJs 2149 and 2150 are instructive. From those two cases: "Celebrating" is unregulated. Can you celebrate something by announcement? Sure! By common definition, to celebrate something is to acknowledge something good as part of an enjoyable activity, you can certainly do that over email in a game forum. "Landing on the moon" is also unregulated. Can you land on the moon by announcement? Well, you can say you did, but unless you send me video, I'd say you CANNOT. It's just not something people can do, no matter how much you just said you did. So, what about support/object? Well, if I were in a meeting, and the facilitator says "who supports this idea?" I could say something, or raise my hand, and the facilitator would count me as a supporter. So I CAN generally do that, in common terms, in any conversation or in response to any intent, opinion, or idea. So, if someone asks me here, over email, if I support something, I can send a message saying I do, and in common terms, I'm a supporter. The Rules specify this must be done publicly to have a game impact (so sitting at my desk raising my hand wouldn't count), but that's a minor condition to a common thing I can do naturally, without regulation. What about withdrawing support? If I listen to arguments in a meeting (say, with my hand raised as a supporter), I can put my hand down and say "I don't support this anymore." Normal, natural. By common definition, I CAN withdraw my support. In an email context, I can send in something that says "I don't support this opinion any more" and people would accept that I'm not a supporter. So I don't need rules to be able to do that. Can I withdraw someone else's support? Well, no! If I tried to pull my neighbor's hand down, security would be called, and even if I succeeded, it would be under duress, and no one would count that as my neighbor actually withdrawing support. In common terms, I CANNOT withdraw someone else's support or objection. So in *that* case, I CANNOT do it naturally (in an unregulated way), any more than I could land on the moon, and since the rules don't otherwise permit (regulate) it, so I can't do it in the game by announcement. Now, of course, the Rules *could* permit counterfactuals. If the rules explicitly said, "a person CAN land on the moon by announcement.", then if someone announces it, we create the Legal Fiction that it happened. In other words, whomever is the recordkeepor of Moon Landings notes it down, and it's part of the Agoran gamestate (but no longer attached to reality, of course). This is what happened with the recent ballot issue that gave ais523 eir Junta. But for unregulated actions, you're stuck with reality - and in reality, withdrawing someone else's objections is just NOT something that people generally accept as possible, for any common uses of those terms. The only remaining issues I think are: (1) in the rules, the "and not withdrawn" is a bit detached from the phrase "publicly", so there's a bit of a chance a person could object publicly, and withdraw (eir own!) objection privately. I think it's a slight ambiguity in the text that would be resolved in favor of it being public only. (2) who tracks people who support and object (on behalf of themselves)? I'm not sure that really causes an "issue", but I've thought of at least one situation where it may lead to some interesting results... I'll save that one for a bit.
Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
This response makes me think you didn't read or comprehend my response. And your recent behavior makes me think you don't attempt to comprehend the rules before acting. On May 29, 2017 10:35, "CuddleBeam" wrote: > >The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly > mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly regulated. > > I disagree. > > An action is regulated if: > * (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance > - There is no limitation, permission or enabling (unless 'unregulated' > actions are allowed by the Rules, in which case, they're regulated, because > they're allowed, and all actions in the universe are regulated as per my > other proof, but I'm assuming that isn't true for the sake of argument) > > * (2) describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or > fail > - There actually is no description about how a withdrawal of *objections* > would succeed or not. Withdrawal of objections =/= withdrawal of ballots. > Or it is, in which case, I should be able to expolate other terms out of > their context and scam like that. > > * (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for > which some player is required to be a recordkeepor." > - This is the odd one, because it seems that I'm not required to track > until I need to actually publish, so it seems to me that withdrawals before > that event are unregulated, and after it, are regulated. >
Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
>The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly regulated. I disagree. An action is regulated if: * (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance - There is no limitation, permission or enabling (unless 'unregulated' actions are allowed by the Rules, in which case, they're regulated, because they're allowed, and all actions in the universe are regulated as per my other proof, but I'm assuming that isn't true for the sake of argument) * (2) describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail - There actually is no description about how a withdrawal of *objections* would succeed or not. Withdrawal of objections =/= withdrawal of ballots. Or it is, in which case, I should be able to expolate other terms out of their context and scam like that. * (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor." - This is the odd one, because it seems that I'm not required to track until I need to actually publish, so it seems to me that withdrawals before that event are unregulated, and after it, are regulated.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
On 05/29/2017 07:04 AM, CuddleBeam wrote: > No one seems to understand what unregulated means. All it means is > that the rules can't say that an action is impossible or prohibited. > It doesn't magically make it possible, or convince the rules to care > about it. All the unregulated/regulated distinction is intended to do > is to prevent the rules from being interpreted so as to stop a player > doing something ordinary, for instance walking down the street. It > doesn't mean that you can suddenly do game actions that you couldn't > before. See also CFJ 2151. So... Nobody can actually withdraw anything? Because its unregulated, and there is no mechanical way to actually do the action of 'withdraw'? Note the definition of regulated, from R2125: "An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor." The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly regulated. For this, there's no explicit definition. However, the rules still imply it's a thing players can do, and mention a situation where, if it was performed, it would have an effect. Combining that with the fact that this form of 'withdrawing' is semantically similar to the other two explicitly defined, and I think most people would accept that withdrawing consent is regulated. And if people do disagree here, it's a reasonable thing to CFJ.
Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
>Although I do think grok's "If I am still an objector, but my objection >has been withdrawn [by someone else], can I withdraw my objection?" is >a valid question. We don't even have a mechanic to *withdraw* in the first place. If you can pull out of the ether that you can "withdraw", I believe its reasonable to pull out of the ether too that you can "withdraw withdrawn" things. Or withdraw my withdrawal. Then withdraw the objection (because its no longer withdrawn). >As far as I can tell, nothing prevents people withdrawing other >people's objections, but doing so doesn't do anything (apart from >possibly triggering the 24 hour lockout); objections only cease to be >counted if they're withdrawn by the objector. Gah, I was so close lol. Just one eensy teensy conjugation away. >Um... You usually have to prove you can do a thing that seems obvious >wrong or people will ignore it. Yes, I will do so next time. > No one seems to understand what unregulated means. All it means is > that the rules can't say that an action is impossible or prohibited. > It doesn't magically make it possible, or convince the rules to care > about it. All the unregulated/regulated distinction is intended to do > is to prevent the rules from being interpreted so as to stop a player > doing something ordinary, for instance walking down the street. It > doesn't mean that you can suddenly do game actions that you couldn't > before. See also CFJ 2151. So... Nobody can actually withdraw anything? Because its unregulated, and there is no mechanical way to actually do the action of 'withdraw'?
Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
@Aris: Thank you for putting into words what I had been thinking while reading over those of CuddleBeam's messages. 天火狐 On 28 May 2017 at 21:51, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:39 PM, CuddleBeam > wrote: > > Arguably, you can paint your objection blue too. Or dress it as Superman. > > > > Unregulated actions are weird. > > No one seems to understand what unregulated means. All it means is > that the rules can't say that an action is impossible or prohibited. > It doesn't magically make it possible, or convince the rules to care > about it. All the unregulated/regulated distinction is intended to do > is to prevent the rules from being interpreted so as to stop a player > doing something ordinary, for instance walking down the street. It > doesn't mean that you can suddenly do game actions that you couldn't > before. See also CFJ 2151. > > -Aris >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
On Mon, 29 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 02:34 +, Quazie wrote: > > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 18:17 CuddleBeam > > wrote: > > > > > > > I withdraw grok's objection. > > > > > > Um... You usually have to prove you can do a thing that seems > > obvious wrong or people will ignore it. > > As far as I can tell, nothing prevents people withdrawing other > people's objections, but doing so doesn't do anything (apart from > possibly triggering the 24 hour lockout); objections only cease to be > counted if they're withdrawn by the objector. Although I do think grok's "If I am still an objector, but my objection has been withdrawn [by someone else], can I withdraw my objection?" is a valid question.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 02:34 +, Quazie wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 18:17 CuddleBeam > wrote: > > > > > I withdraw grok's objection. > > > > Um... You usually have to prove you can do a thing that seems > obvious wrong or people will ignore it. As far as I can tell, nothing prevents people withdrawing other people's objections, but doing so doesn't do anything (apart from possibly triggering the 24 hour lockout); objections only cease to be counted if they're withdrawn by the objector. -- ais523
Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:39 PM, CuddleBeam wrote: > Arguably, you can paint your objection blue too. Or dress it as Superman. > > Unregulated actions are weird. No one seems to understand what unregulated means. All it means is that the rules can't say that an action is impossible or prohibited. It doesn't magically make it possible, or convince the rules to care about it. All the unregulated/regulated distinction is intended to do is to prevent the rules from being interpreted so as to stop a player doing something ordinary, for instance walking down the street. It doesn't mean that you can suddenly do game actions that you couldn't before. See also CFJ 2151. -Aris
Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: > >Interesting question: If am still an objector, but my objection has been > >withdrawn, can I withdraw my my objection? > Arguably, you can paint your objection blue too. Or dress it as Superman. > > Unregulated actions are weird. It does concern me that no one is "required" to track objections, even if the argument doesn't hold up, it's a place where clarity would be nice. I suppose one could make the case that a dependent action, if successful, requires a recordkeepor to modify a record; therefore the action of supporting/objecting "would modify a record" in the aggregate. Actually, I think the way it reads, what is tracked is the minimal amount of support/objections to change the outcome. It's an interesting possibility.
Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
On Sun, 28 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > Interesting question: If am still an objector, but my objection > has been withdrawn, can I withdraw my my objection? FOO!
Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
On Sun, 28 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 29 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote: Note that only withdrawals by the Objector emself count. Greetings, Ørjan. snap! I feel so redundant. Also, still waiting for you to snap and use the term ISIDTID. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> Cool. I think I'll just tell anyway. I'm not too overly interested in the
> subterfuge of it all. I just care mostly about confirming that it *would*
> work,
> that's good enough trophy for me.
> "Withdrawing" isn't a regulated action apparently (note that I, as the
> initiator, am not required to track any Objections until I actually intend to
> complete
> it, when I need to publish the list, I believe). Or it is, and since there is
> no explicit way to do it, nobody can actually withdraw, ever.
>
> So I can just do the unregulated action of "I withdraw your objection" (would
> my proof of "all actions are regulation actions or not actions" not work)
>
>From R2124:
A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for
an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to
a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
(and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent
to perform the action.
The ("and not withdrawn") as a verb is clearly tied to the Objector. In
other words, if ANOTHER player "withdraws" your objections (whatever that
means), you're still an Objector because YOU haven't withdrawn your
objections.
And it's #Objectors versus #Supporters, not #Objections versus #Supports,
that counts for the determination in R2124.
Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
On May 28, 2017 8:30 PM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> Cool. I think I'll just tell anyway. I'm not too overly interested in the
subterfuge of it all. I just care mostly about confirming that it *would*
work,
> that's good enough trophy for me.
> "Withdrawing" isn't a regulated action apparently (note that I, as the
initiator, am not required to track any Objections until I actually intend
to complete
> it, when I need to publish the list, I believe). Or it is, and since
there is no explicit way to do it, nobody can actually withdraw, ever.
>
> So I can just do the unregulated action of "I withdraw your objection"
(would my proof of "all actions are regulation actions or not actions" not
work)
>
>From R2124:
A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for
an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to
a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
(and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent
to perform the action.
The ("and not withdrawn") as a verb is clearly tied to the Objector. In
other words, if ANOTHER player "withdraws" your objections (whatever that
means), you're still an Objector because YOU haven't withdrawn your
objections.
And it's #Objectors versus #Supporters, not #Objections versus #Supports,
that counts for the determination in R2124.
Interesting question: If am still an objector, but my objection has been
withdrawn, can I withdraw my my objection?
Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
>From rule 2124: > An Objector to > a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted > (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent > to perform the action. Ah, dangit, that verb conjugation. So subtle. I guess it would've worked if it was "(and such an objection has not been withdrawn)", instead.
Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
On Mon, 29 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > Note that only withdrawals by the Objector emself count. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. snap!
Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: So I can just do the unregulated action of "I withdraw your objection" (would my proof of "all actions are regulation actions or not actions" not work) From rule 2124: An Objector to a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to perform the action. Note that only withdrawals by the Objector emself count. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
Cool. I think I'll just tell anyway. I'm not too overly interested in the subterfuge of it all. I just care mostly about confirming that it *would* work, that's good enough trophy for me. "Withdrawing" isn't a regulated action apparently (note that I, as the initiator, am not required to track any Objections until I actually intend to complete it, when I need to publish the list, I believe). Or it is, and since there is no explicit way to do it, nobody can actually withdraw, ever. So I can just do the unregulated action of "I withdraw your objection" (would my proof of "all actions are regulation actions or not actions" not work)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
Agoran Consent requires a minimum of 4 days. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On May 28, 2017, at 9:00 PM, CuddleBeam wrote: > > How fast do proposals get passed, by average?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer
How fast do proposals get passed, by average?
