DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [Scorekeepor] Contestmaster awards
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 10:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Gratuitous response: > > The text of Rule 2234 is "performed duties related to the contest in a timely > manner". There are two ways to read this. The first (which ais523 argues > for) is that "if the contest currently mandates no duties, then the > contestmaster performs them by doing nothing." What I argue for is the > interpretation "If no or negligible duties have been performed, then the > contestmaster has not in fact performed duties, as performing an empty set of > duties is the same as not performing duties, even if that empty set is in > keeping with the contract text". > > Why do I argue that "neglibible" duties as being the same (or suitably close) > to no duties for these purposes? Negligible with respect to what? > > Contests are contracts, which have a set of anticipated duties contained > within the text. Based on these anticipated duties, players grant contest > status to contracts. If the contest becomes inactive relative to these > anticipated duties, the contract is not proceeding as envisioned, and > duties are not being performed "as anticipated by the contest" in the sense > of Equity. The text of Rule 2234 is "performed duties related to the > contest in a timely manner", and if those duties are suitably negligible > relative to what the contest "envisioned" duties to be (when, for example, > it became a contest or its text was last changed w/o 3 objections), the > anticipated duties are not being performed, and the scorekeepor is > correct and within eir duties and abilities to make this call. I have actually considered bringing an equity case against Enigma because its contestants aren't submitting puzzles (thus giving me work to do!) As far as I can tell, the contract in question mostly envisions regular submissions of puzzles by contestants, but that hasn't been happening recently. (The only reason I haven't is that I know there will be puzzles soon, almost certainly there'll be one authored by me in next week's puzzle list.) It's also worth pointing out that the "SHALL do so as explicitly described in its contract" in rule 2233 is a duty shared by all contestmasters; just nobody's been doing well enough (in Enigma's case, by submitting puzzles) to deserve points. -- ais523 Contestmaster, Enigma
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [Scorekeepor] Contestmaster awards
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 16:13 -0400, comex wrote: > In my opinion, if it had said "all duties", ais523's argument would be > valid; as it is, I think the best interpretation (considering that 'in > a timely manner' is located at the end and vaguely defined) is that > the contestmaster is merely required to perform some duties related to > the contest-- not necessarily all, but e gets no points if e performed > no duties even if no duties are required of em. What about the admittedly vacuous duty of publishing a null string every week? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: [Scorekeepor] Contestmaster awards
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 15:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 16:13 -0400, comex wrote: > >> In my opinion, if it had said "all duties", ais523's argument would be > >> valid; as it is, I think the best interpretation (considering that 'in > >> a timely manner' is located at the end and vaguely defined) is that > >> the contestmaster is merely required to perform some duties related to > >> the contest-- not necessarily all, but e gets no points if e performed > >> no duties even if no duties are required of em. > > > > What about the admittedly vacuous duty of publishing a null string every > > week? > > Can you prove that you published the null string for the contest as opposed > to for other purposes? ;) > The rule doesn't require me to /intentionally/ perform my duties... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New contest
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 08:04 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > I agree to these terms. NttPF. (In other words, you sent to a-d, rather than a-b, by mistake; don't worry, everyone does it.) Note that there is judicial precedent that unlike other actions, it's often possible to agree to a contract in a discussion forum. You can't agree to a /public/ contract like that, though (at least not with immediate effect). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New contest
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 11:44 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > > Even with multiple contestants capable of gaming it? I considered > > withdrawing my agreement and re-posting with a AAA-style "contestants > > SHALL NOT submit spam proposals / cases", but let's see how it plays > > out as is. > > How about "contestants SHALL NOT mess with PerlNomic to have it > distribute exactly how many proposals they predicted?" Wouldn't work, you'd have non-contestants bribed to mess with it. (I recall ehird spamming CFJs to influence the AAA whilst believing emself not a party to it.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New contest
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 15:49 +, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 11:44 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > > > Even with multiple contestants capable of gaming it? I considered > > > withdrawing my agreement and re-posting with a AAA-style "contestants > > > SHALL NOT submit spam proposals / cases", but let's see how it plays > > > out as is. > > > > How about "contestants SHALL NOT mess with PerlNomic to have it > > distribute exactly how many proposals they predicted?" > > Wouldn't work, you'd have non-contestants bribed to mess with it. (I > recall ehird spamming CFJs to influence the AAA whilst believing emself > not a party to it.) > Also, I have a much better idea. Get the PNP to join the contest and make a guess that's the amount it's distributing, immediately before the distribution (maybe in the same message?) The CotC could pull of a similar trick if e wasn't the contestmaster. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New contest
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 09:58 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > > Also, I have a much better idea. Get the PNP to join the contest and > > make a guess that's the amount it's distributing, immediately before the > > distribution (maybe in the same message?) > > Anyone tries any funny stuff gets slapped with an equity case, hard. Hmm... manipulating the count struck me as being the entire intent of the contest. At least, it looked that way to me. Maybe the contract should make the intent of how the contest should work clearer, to save much grief down the line? -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: New contest
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 19:49 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > I agree to this contract. > (or is that how you say when you want to join the contest?) Yep, that's correct. It isn't a contest yet, just an ordinary contract atm; however, it's clearly intended to become a contest, and there's an intent to make it into one at the moment. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New contest
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 20:11 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > 2009/3/11 Alex Smith : > > On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 19:49 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > >> I agree to this contract. > >> (or is that how you say when you want to join the contest?) > > Yep, that's correct. It isn't a contest yet, just an ordinary contract > > atm; however, it's clearly intended to become a contest, and there's an > > intent to make it into one at the moment. > Does the flipping of contestmaster to someone imply that it's at the > same time made a contest? Should I support if I want that to happen? > Since it's just "without 3 objections" one thinks it would be enough > to not object. Flipping of a contestmaster from 'none' automatically makes something a contest. And although supporting an action without objection is possible, it has no effect. (So people normally just implicitly support such actions by not objecting.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Lest I forget
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 23:29 +, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 15:50 +0000, Alex Smith wrote: > > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Einos > > (http://einos-nomic.blogspot.com/) a protectorate. > > I confirm, as Ambassador, that Einos meets the conditions to be a > Protectorate. > > With Agoran consent (at least 2 support and no objections), I make Einos > a protectorate. > > The Recognition of Einos platonically flips to Protected. > Incidentally, can anyone else here figure out how to comment on Einos? I've tried several times now, but failed. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Lest I forget
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 15:12 +, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2009/3/12 Alexander Smith : > > ehird wrote (with top-posting corrected): > > Blame the iPhone's lack of adequate text box movement. > > >> On 2009-03-11, Alex Smith wrote: > >> > Incidentally, can anyone else here figure out how to comment on Einos? > >> > I've tried several times now, but failed. > >> Enable JS. > > > > I did, it still didn't work. > > What browser? You are selecting something in "Comment As:", right? Firefox 3 (with NoScript installed but set not to block anything), and I am selecting something on comment as. The problem seems to be that the CAPTCHA is permanently stuck on Loading..., so I can't solve it. (I tried typing "Loading..." into the captcha box, but it didn't help.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment on Case 2403
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 23:02 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >> Since it seems
> >> unreasonable to add an obligation retroactively due to changing
> >> circumstances, it seems equally unreasonable to remove one.
> >>
> >> I judge case 2403 to be TRUE.
> >
> > I'm not sure about this one at all. For example, let's say I'm required
> > to award a player something that only applies to players, but e deregisters
> > first (before the time limit even). Does that mean I'm still obligated to
> > do so?
> >
> > -G.
>
> I personally think no. The difference between the two is that in the
> 2403, if the obligation exists, then it is possible to fulfill by virtue
> of "CAN and SHALL", regardless of external circumstances (specifically,
> whether or not Wooble is presently a contestmaster), whereas in your
> example the action is illegal regardless of the obligation's existence.
>
> However, it is important to note that in the case of an obligation due
> to contract, the impossibility of performance does not remove the
> obligation. This may very well be the case. However, it may also be the
> case that the precedence of rules cause the obligation not to apply.
>
> I CFJ the following statement:
> {
> If a rule requires a player to perform an action without making it
> possible for em to do so, and there is a rule forbidding em from doing
> so, e can take no action that is not in violation of a rule.
> }
It's probably worth pointing out that this is likely what EXCUSED (now
absorbed into NOT GUILTY) was about. In my understanding the rules, if
you SHALL but CANNOT do something, you've broken the rules but can't
legally be punished for it.
--
ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly Notary fugly bletch
On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 14:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > > G1 > > G2 > > G3 > > I terminate the above 3 pledges (assuming they're the ones that are mine, > which I believe can be terminated by my announcement). -Goethe Yep, that succeeds. -- ais523 Notary
DIS: Re: BUS: Elections!
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 03:15 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > > Anarchist: ehird, Yally, Tiger > denounce the Anarchist Is it even possible to denounce in an election where the choices aren't FOR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SHOULD really sucks.
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 07:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > > > > If the proposal entitled "Fix recursive SHOULD" was adopted at the same > > time as this proposal, it is of no effect. > > This is an interesting, orthogonal note. Assuming the referent of "it" > is the "Fix recursive SHOULD" proposal, is it possible for a proposal > to so inhibit another (both of the same power)? > > That last paragraph of R106 would seem to allow one adopted power-3 > proposal to prevent another from taking effect, but does the timing > work out? (E.g. this one takes effect either before or after the other, > so it's either too late or too early). Certainly, causing one proposal to /undo/ another works, if they're of the same power, assuming that power situation is symmetrical at the time. That would probably be a better way to specify it in this case. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: SHOULD really sucks.
On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 00:53 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> After having carefully considered the consequences of doing so,
> including the fact that it opens up Agora to multiple easy wins; that it
> reveals a serious flaw in the rules; and that it allows me to win, for
> the duration of this message I will fail to interpret the first
> paragraph of rule 2110 as recommended by section (2) of rule 754.
Well, that has you legally covered for breaking a SHOULD, I think.
> I subsequently interpret that same paragraph as in the English language,
> which is that rule 2110 defines a tortoise as a subset of inquiry cases
> on the possibility or legality of a rule-defined action for which the
> question of veracity is UNDECIDEABLE. I then notice that, given this
> interpretation, the word initatiator has no defined meaning in the
> context. Based on the common use of initiator within the rules, I
> interpret it as the initator of the action, which in this case can refer
> only to the win announcement, as it is the only action mentioned.
I don't believe that this interpretation is possible. The only word
whose definition is under dispute here is "is", as to whether it means
the Agoran "is defined as" in this case, or "is the same as" (the
definition you're using here). Your definition would imply that a
real-life tortoise was a sort of inquiry CfJ; and it therefore violates
rule 991 because a real-life tortoise is not a procedure to settle a
matter of controversy. (Using the same argument twice, and interpreting
rule 991 so that a CfJ describes a real-life judicial case, fails
because real-life judicial cases are unfortunately not a sort of
reptile.) Just because you're complying with rule 754 doesn't
automatically make the definition comply with all the other rules...
> Furthermore, supported by evidence from multiple sources, I note that
> the eggs of Galápagos tortoises hatch between December and March. Since
> the latter weeks of February fall within this range, I claim that, on
> the balance of probabilities, it is, for all intents and purposes,
> certain that a tortoise was born between February 15th and February
> 28th, 2009.
I actually spent about 10 minutes looking up population estimates of
tortoises (what's the chance that none of them laid eggs), but it seems
likely that there is in fact a tortoise between two and four weeks old.
However, unfortunately none of them are intended to resolve Agoran
controversies...
> This is a win announcement, announcing that, for reasons specified
> above, there exists a tortoise that has continuously been a tortoise,
> for a period no greater than four and no less than four weeks, and as a
> result I satisfy the Winning Condition of Paradox.
Fails, you typoed "two" as "four". I believe it would have failed
anyway, though.
> To meet my obligations to the cleanup procedure for the Winning
> Condition of Paradox, I submit the following proposal named {Fix 754},
> Adoption Index 3:
>
>
> Amend rule 754 by replacing the first instance of {SHOULD} with {SHALL}.
>
Oh no, this really doesn't fix the situation. Don't obligate people to
interpret a rule a certain way; instead, make it so that that
interpretation is true. (Incidentally, I've been warning of the dangers
of applying SHOULD to inanimate objects, interpretations, or pretty much
anything but actions, for quite a while now, at least on IRC.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Antivirus 2009
On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 16:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais...@normish.org wrote: > > > As permitted by the rule created by proposal 6130, I cause > > Rule 2223 (Win by Junta) to amend itself to change its text > > to "Any non-player partnership whose basis contains no other > > members but ais523, comex, Goethe, or coppro (but need not > > necessarily contain all those members) can cause this rule > > to amend itself by announcement." > > Fails. Rule 2223 no longer meets the condition described by the rule > created by Proposal 6130. I'm very disappointed that you didn't find a way to escalate that to power 3. What a waste of a good scam! -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Antivirus 2009
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 13:06 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > > I'm very disappointed that you didn't find a way to escalate that to > > power 3. What a waste of a good scam! > > I could have added "rules with lower Power take precedence over rules > with higher Power", but then you would have hit me. > No you couldn't. You didn't have enough power to override rule 1482, which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to change the precedence system unless you amend rule 1482 itself first to remove the protections. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This space left intentionally even more blank
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 16:02 -0700, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:42 PM, comex wrote:
> > I CFJ on the statement: { A rule was amended in the message in which
> > this CFJ was called. }
>
> Ugh. This is why I voted AGAINST.
>
I would have thought that the fact that it was a blatant scam was a
better reason to vote AGAINST...
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6140-6151
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 15:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > [2] Is a proposal distribution considered a Proposal Pool report? The PNP reports the emptiness of the pool in the same message that it distributes proposals. This works as long as there's at least one proposal distribution each week. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6140-6151
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 16:53 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > > Goethe wrote: > > > >> [2] Is a proposal distribution considered a Proposal Pool report? > > > > Proposal distributions have been routinely including the boilerplate > > text "Proposal pool: empty" (which counts) just before the text of > > the proposals being distributed. > > Ah, I see it now. > > >> [5] H. Ambassador, do you announce the completion or how should I check? > > > > http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/Agora has date info at the > > bottom, though the user making changes is often identified only by > > IP numbers. > > H. Ambassador, do you have a (set of) IP addresses I should associate with you > on the last edit date? Or do you prefer to announce it? I nearly always announce the fact to a-o, as part of the Ambassador's Report which is generally published on the same day. -- ais523 Ambassador
DIS: Re: BUS: farming
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 09:19 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I harvest the following CFJ numbers, for 2 WRV each: > 2411 > 2413 > 2414 > 2415 > 2416 > 2417 > 2419 > 2401 > 2403 > 2405 > 2406 > 2407 > 2409 Murphy's CotC website for CFJ 2401 says: > Called by Warrigal 7 Mar 2009 20:42:01 GMT > Assigned to Goethe 7 Mar 2009 23:59:06 GMT and the AAA says: > b. Within one week after an ID number is assigned to a CFJ, a Farmer > CAN once Harvest the ID number of that CFJ. Upon doing so, two Water > Rights Vouchers are created in that Farmer's possession In other words, your harvesting of 2401 fails because its ID number was assigned more than a week ago. I haven't checked the other CFJs in your list, but suspect many of the others have similar problems. This means that the rest of your actions require recalculation. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement, CFJs 2408-2409
On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 14:33 +, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2009/3/18 Alex Smith : > > As for the question the CFJ was trying to ask; either a right-side up or > > upside-down moo would have been appropriate to fulfil the obligation, > > due to rule 754(1) (they are clearly synonyms in this context). > > So you're judging that you can agree to an upside-down contract, and > the obligations apply as if they were the right way up? > > Interesting. Others: thoughts? I'm judging that the upside-down contract worked only because upside-down messages are in general (unless ambiguous) equivalent to right-way-up ones. After all, if you can call for judgement upside-down, you can fulfil an obligation to publish something upside-down (unless that would be ambiguous). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 11:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > > > 6155 FOR > > Ineffective due to caste. > Actually, given the PNP's standard voting header, it was specifically purporting to vote 0 times. So ineffective due to being a no-op. -- ais523
DIS: Re: [s-d] InterNomic II
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 21:02 +, Charles Walker wrote: > I am proud to announce the rebirth of InterNomic II. It is hosted at > http://internomic2.wikidot.com/ and includes a fully functioning set > of > forums. (The groups 'General' and 'Off-topic' under 'General' in the > forums > allow for anonymous and non-member posts if you want to try it out > without > joining.) The initial ruleset is similar to the one that was in use > when > the original InterNomic died, except with a different layout. > So, B Nomic and Agora, the two biggest nomics at this time (possibly > excluding blognomic, but I can't contact them, so if anyone's a member > please forward this to them) are invited to join InterNomic II. The > ruleset > is similar to the one that was in use when the original InterNomic > died, > except with a different layout. > > C-walker Forwarded to BlogNomic. -- ais523 Agoran ambassador
DIS: Re: BUS: Changes to the PBA
On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 21:16 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > I join the Vote Market. It was terminated by proposal. I'm therefore treating this as not sufficiently clear to agree to a new copy of the contract. -- ais523 Notary
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Changes to the PBA
On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 22:27 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > I create and agree to a contract with the following text: Sort-of works, but as a non-pledge contract (and non-public, for that matter), it doesn't become binding until at least one other person agrees to it (and therefore doesn't define assets, etc). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] The Champion's Contest begins!
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 15:26 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: > > "4x4": > > > > ... > > > > "Bits and Bytes": > > > > ... > > Crap, sorry, I forgot to change the To: address. Note that you have to submit answers privately. Submission to a-d doesn't count, although it does rather make solving the puzzles rather easier (assuming the answers are correct; to attempt to salvage some sanity from this, I'm not going to announce whether those were correct until the end of the answer submission period). Also, do you want a specific or generic clue for bits and byes? -- ais523 Contestmaster, Enigma
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: A Silly Bribe
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 15:39 -0400, Warrigal wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, titled "A Silly Bribe", with adoption
> index 1.1:
>
> {Set the power of every player with at least one valid FOR vote and no
> valid AGAINST votes on this proposal to 1.05.}
>
> Don't worry, having power doesn't automatically mean that those
> players can actually do anything. It just means that substantive
> aspects of them can't be modified by power-1 proposals and rules. I
> have no idea what this would break, apart from "not all that much".
You seriously don't want to see the sort of thing a decent player could
do if they had a positive power. (It wouldn't even need to be as high as
1.)
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: A Silly Bribe
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 14:41 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > Warrigal wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > >> You seriously don't want to see the sort of thing a decent player could > >> do if they had a positive power. (It wouldn't even need to be as high as > >> 1.) > > > > Okay, what could they do with a positive power? > > > > --Warrigal > Amend every rule with power equal to or less than theirs, create new > rules with power equal to or less than theirs... It would need rule 105 permission, but that's a lot easier to get via a scam than rule 105 permission + positive power. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6121 - 6139
On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 16:39 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> I call for judgement on the statement "Murphy's recent attempt to cause
> Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
> was using the mechanism specified in rule 2223, rather than the
> mechanism specified in the rule created by proposal 6130.", barring
> Murphy.
>
> I call for judgement on the statement "Murphy's recent attempt to cause
> Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
> failed because it was ambiguous which of two mechanisms were used to do
> the amendment.", barring Murphy.
>
> I call for judgement on the statement "Murphy's recent attempt to cause
> Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
> failed because it attempted to claim indirect authority from the
> non-existent Rule 6130.", barring Murphy.
>
> Arguments:
> Ambiguous actions are normally taken to fail. I'm not sure whether the
> action Murphy tried was ambiguous enough to cause it to fail, but it
> certainly isn't completely clear-cut. Rule changes are held to a higher
> standard, as is shown by this quote from rule 105:
> {{{
> Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes
> that change to be void and without effect.
> }}}
H. CotC Murphy: you have less than a day left to assign these, and they
aren't listed in your database anywhere. Especially as proposal 6159 is
pending, this is pretty urgent; otherwise, I'll have to try to exploit
the possible dictatorship before its existence is ruled on, which will
make unclarity matters a lot worse than they already are. (Could some
people vote AGAINST it, to prevent it passing? That's the other
possibility to prevent problems here.)
--
ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [Anarchist] Repealment proposals
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 23:06 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > The following proposal is made as a part of the Anarchist's weekly > duties. > Date of this message: Sun 22 Mar 09 > Date of last fulfilment of these duties: Sat 14 Mar 09 > > Proposal: Speaker Anarchy > (AI=3, Disinterested) > > Repeal Rule 104 (First Speaker). N! -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Anarchist] Repealment proposals
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 19:35 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn > wrote: > 2009/3/22 Alex Smith : > > > On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 23:06 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > >> The following proposal is made as a part of the Anarchist's > weekly > >> duties. > >> Date of this message: Sun 22 Mar 09 > >> Date of last fulfilment of these duties: Sat 14 Mar 09 > >> > >> Proposal: Speaker Anarchy > >> (AI=3, Disinterested) > >> > >> Repeal Rule 104 (First Speaker). > > > > N! > > > > -- > > ais523 > > > > Funny thing is, this time it was actually the dice that chose > it. You > guys get this proposal now and again by people who aren't the > anarchist, right? > > Doesn't that rule serve no purpose anyway? Any attempt to change it will be met by anger and wrath (well, OK, maybe just AGAINST votes) from the long-standing players. The point is it's the only rule from the original ruleset that's survived amendment ever since the start of Agora. Not doing anything is actually helpful to help it maintain that status. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Joining InterNomic 2
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > 2009/3/23 Charles Walker : > > You could say something along the lines of > > 'Where another nomic makes it possible for Agora or a representative of > > Agora to perform actions within that nomic, X (person or post) may, without > > 3 or more objections, perform those actions.' > This X should probably be an office, but I'm not sure which one: first > I thought the natural choice would be the Ambassador, but then I saw > that "Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign > nomics operate on the Speaker's behalf." So should it be the Speaker? It should be the Ambassador acting on behalf of the Speaker, obviously. -- ais523 who is both the Ambassador and the Speaker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sowing some more chaos
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 11:09 -0400, comex wrote: > does. The proposal took effect but was unauthorized to make any Rule > Changes so did nothing. No, I think it didn't take effect, but nevertheless was not prevented from taking effect. There isn't a contradiction there. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An Unregistered Partnership
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:25 -0400, comex wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > ais523, comex, and coppro can join this contract by announcement. Other > > players can join this contract only with consent of all existing > > members. Any party to this contract can leave it by announcement. > > I join Indy. > > I intend, with the consent of ais523 and coppro, to cause Indy to > intend, with Agoran Consent, to register. I do not yet consent. Wait until Close It Up's passed first, or the Open It Up rule will make the dictatorship available to everyone. I do intend to consent to this later, though. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Sowing some more chaos
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 13:11 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > Just in case: > > If proposal 6122 did create a new rule, then I cause said new rule to > amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank' by means of > rule 2243. And I suppose the upshot of all this is, if you're going to run a scam, don't vote for a rule designed specifically to block that scam. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: polite request
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 22:26 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > 2009/3/24 Elliott Hird : > > 2009/3/24 Kerim Aydin : > >> > >> A humble request: can players (esp. newish players without email addresses > >> matching their nicknames) get in the habit of including their nick as a > >> signature? Used to be pretty much the done thing (for everyone, even the > >> old-timers) though might be a little out-of-fashion now, I think I've got > >> most of your names down but it always makes things easier... > > > > I think my nick is fairly obviously deduced from my real name. :P > > > As is Ais' (can never remember the numbers though) > Hmm... I wouldn't say my nick is easy to deduce from my real name. From the email address, though, it's easy. (Besides, I always try to sign anyway.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Report Report
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 14:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > > Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> *** - some win events possibly not reflected here > > > > This is correct as-is; the Herald is responsible for awarding Minister > > without Portfolio and has not done so; as a result the Speaker is still > > ais523. > > Actually, this is not true. I think comex's 27 Feb 09 scam was successful > and Sgeo awarded MwoP for it? > > 27 Feb 2009 15:52:16 -0500 > - comex Wins by Junta. comex gains Minister without Portfolio. > ais523 loses Minister without Portfolio. comex revokes > the Patent Title of Scamster from emself. comex awards the > Patent Title of H. to ais523. > The scam was successful, but I didn't lose MWoP, the AFO did. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Noncontentious wins
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 15:03 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I believe that ais523's win by clout is uncontentious, and that Goethe and > OscarMeyr's win by Junta is uncontentious (or at least un-CFJ'd for a while) > and all other non-awarded potential champions are currently contentious. > Any debate on those points? -goethe Yep, that fits my belief too. The others are currently under CfJ, debated, or have been called incorrect without substantial counterarguments. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] Moderately difficult puzzles
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 18:46 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > Alex Smith wrote: > > "READ ME" by ais523: > Oh drat, I made a mistake! New answer (suffers no ambiguities!): > > 8414004 > Answers only count if submitted privately. (You've made this bad enough, make sure that your answer officially counts as it would be even more ridiculous if your answer didn't count at all. Just forward the message to me or something.) /me considers sending Enigma puzzles via private email to all contestants to avoid a repeat of this sort of thing in the future... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Calls for appeal
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 06:24 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > > I intend to appeal CFJ 2426 with 2 support, because its reasoning is > > based on that of CFJs 2424 and 2425, and they should therefore be > > appealed as a set or not at all. > > ITYM 2423. > Oh, I misread your message, and thought you were appealing 2423 and 2424. Then I mentally shifted one number... You're appealing the same one I was trying to appeal, then. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Calls for appeal
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:27 -0400, comex wrote: > Testing, sorry for the spam I object. (Sorry, couldn't resist...) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] Moderately difficult puzzles
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:16 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > > /me considers sending Enigma puzzles via private email to all > > contestants to avoid a repeat of this sort of thing in the future... > > -1, if non-contestants don't see the puzzles until it's too late, then > they have less inclination to join the contest. Yep, I thought of that too. That's probably why I'll stick to the old way. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Joining other nomics
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 19:12 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > Okay, I guess I didn't really know exactly what was allowed since I > just read "outline changes to the gamestate". The only thing I can see > that would stop it is that it requires higher power than the 1 it gets > from adoption index, but then again I don't have that high search-fu, > so if anyone points out which rule it is I will retract the proposal. The problem is that you'd only create half an obligation, or so. A breach of an obligation can't be punished (Rule 1504) unless it was specified in some rule; and although I can imagine a proposal creating a platonic, power-1 obligation floating around in nomicspace somewhere, the rules wouldn't recognise that it existed. Likewise, rule 2160 also cares about obligations, but again only ones enforced by the rule. So the point is that if you want to do something non-instantaneous, you should put it into the rules, or the rules won't notice. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Insulator] Fnord!
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 17:35 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > Sean Hunt wrote: > > Ed Murphy wrote: > >> Denied. The history reflects that destruction. (The real discrepancy > >> is the creation of those rests in the first place; it happened on March > >> 10, but I missed including it in the March 15 report.) > > > > CoE: No CoE was submitted; the March 15 report has since self-ratified. > > Taral has two Rests more than e should. > I withdraw the CoE, having noticed that the appeals panel can only > destroy those Rests created with regards to the previous judgment, and > that those Rests were never created according to the self-ratified March > 15 Fnord!. Since Rests are not fungible, the ones destroyable by the > appeals panel never existed, therefore the action by the appeals panel > to destroy those Rests failed. I suspect Rests are fungible even though the rules don't say they are. See CFJ 2176 (the most recent precedent on the matter), as well as certain older precedents (referenced in that case, or by a zenith-cotc search for "fungible"). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] Moderately difficult puzzles
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 13:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:16 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > >>> /me considers sending Enigma puzzles via private email to all > >>> contestants to avoid a repeat of this sort of thing in the future... > >> -1, if non-contestants don't see the puzzles until it's too late, then > >> they have less inclination to join the contest. > > > > Yep, I thought of that too. That's probably why I'll stick to the old > > way. > > You could put them on a web page and announce the URL. It wouldn't stop people replying to the email and forgetting to change the To: line (which is what is presumably causing the problem in the first place, it's the same thing that causes nttpfs). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Insulator] Fnord!
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 16:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > But if rests are not fungible, the recordkeepor would be required to > track each rest as a distinct thing, and attempts to destroy rests > would have to match, e.g. "I hereby destroy the rest that was created > when I broke rule foo." We don't do that. > > There was a previous time this came up, when some of ehird's rests > were judged to be "different" (e.g. not apply to spending bans) > compared to others. That never came back to haunt us (yet?) > > But if it's found that assets that we've treated as fungible are > not in fact fungible, then all attempts to destroy rests, at least, > have failed. Right? In the common case that a player attempts to destroy all eir Rests in one message, I would imagine it would be unambiguous which Rests were being destroyed. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Yet another Partnership Removal
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 09:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I submit the following Proposal, "enough again already", AI-2: > > -- > [The PNP was the last partnership which seemed to justify > partnerships existing. Now it is also compromised. When > do we finally say enough of it?] > > Repeal Rule 2145 (Partnerships). > > -- Wouldn't this remove the R101 rights of pre-existing partnerships? As a result, is it even possible? -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 6167
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 10:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I object to the intent. I vote AGAINST 6167. I raise the point > that a record of votes is part of resolving a decision, but not actually > part of anyone's Report as far as I can tell (that must be explicitly > defined as being part of a Report (R2143, R2202), feel free to point out > if I missed it). Well, it was certainly /purported/ to be part of an official report; and that's all that ratification by objection cares about nowadays, it seems. (I don't think that this is a bug, by the way; purporting something to be an official report when it isn't will likely get objected to pretty quickly.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 6167
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 12:18 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I firmly believe that the publication of a false fact is inherently > misleading. If it is done purposefully, it is purposefully misleading. > > I do see your argument. What you claim is that you published a document, > and that it's not your fault that the document happens to be wrong, and > you didn't say "I hereby assert that this document is correct." But > that's generally a "washing your hands" mockery of causality, and, as > a judge, I wouldn't allow that as an escape clause. E.g. I would say > that if you publish a document claiming X, it's the same as you claiming X, > just the way that if you publish a document claiming "I act", it's the > same as you acting. You can't have one part of ISID work without the > other. The actual loophole appears to be that comex's claims were so ridiculous that no reasonable person would believe them, and therefore they were not intentionally misleading (as nobody would be mislead into believing them). -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 6167
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 13:01 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> comex wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:56 AM, The PerlNomic Partnership
> > wrote:
> >> NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE
> >> 6167 D 1 3.0 comex Foo
> >
> > I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document, which
> > is part of an official report: { Every eligible voter voted FOR the
> > decision of whether to adopt proposal 6167. No other ballots were
> > cast on that decision. }
>
> Of /course/ I object to this!
>
This is obviously a reference to something, because you've done that
exact phrasing more than once. What is it?
--
ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Votes
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I vote FOR Proposal 6165 and AGAINST proposal 6166 (not because of lack of > trust of comex-as-rulekeepor, but because I never thought ruleset > ratification > was a good idea to begin with...ratify everything else but let the rules be > corrected when need be). -Goethe Well, the problem is that a long-standing rules problem may break the rest of ratification. (For instance, if the rules don't say what we think they do, the ratification rules may be completely broken.) That way, we could end up with a really large massive gamestate recalculation unless the rules are ratified, preferably without dependencies on anything but the proposal rules. On the other hand, I don't really like ratifying the rules while there are so many scam warnings in them... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 10:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I understand the tradeoff, I just prefer to ratify change events (e.g. > proposals) rather than the state for the ruleset in particular. Unlike > those who like hard-resets every time there's uncertainty (B? Or at > least my impression of B) I don't mind some (reasonably-limited) > reconstruction work, those are at least interesting debates as far as > process goes. > > I think a good compromise is ~annually, at a time when there's less > controversy; the last one was Sept 08 and (as you say) right now we're > in a relatively confused period. So, not now. B's trouble is that massive gamestate recalculation is kind-of common there, and hard resets aren't nearly common enough. Recently, we actually discovered that nothing at all had happened since the last hard reset (due to various bugs), and we hard-reset again to make sure (including the ratification of absolutely everything in the gamestate, rare in any nomic, including B). -- ais523
DIS: zenith.homelinux.org down?
Murphy's website (including things like the CotC database) appears to be down; I can't load from it locally, nor ping it from Normish. Can anyone confirm this? If so, can Murphy fix it? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 11:31 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > > The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define > > "announcement" anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for > > months. > > Actually, we've got a judicial precedent (I'll look up the number later > unless someone else does) that a common-language definition of > "announcement" is "something said in public" and that R478 defines what > fora are public. So, even if the bug existed, I think we'd all be just > fine -goethe I don't think redefining words in RL definitions works. (I think that the announcement on BlogNomic, for instance, was sufficiently public - after all, it even found its way to Agora pretty quickly - and that "public" in the natural English definition of announcement would use the natural English definition of public, not the Agoran definition.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 14:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > > Also, perhaps we should allow the Assessor to end a voting period early > > if there is a certain amount of positive votes (say, VI twice the AI and > > at least half of all active players voting). > > Tweaks? (Allow arbitrary changes to the gamestate without objection) Agora used to have a rule like that, but it was repealed (I can't remember why, but there was a good reason). Personally, I think it should be not only without objection, but require a large amount of support. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] Results from last week
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 22:10 +, Alex Smith wrote: > This is the Enigma results from last week's puzzles: 4x4, er ev hg is ni > no, and Bits and Bytes. Because many contestants are likely to be interested, I'd like to informally request Murphy to reveal eir solution to er ev hg is ni no, and Billy Pilgrim to reveal eir unusual solution to 4x4. (It's always more fun coming from the words of the authors/contestants than from the contestmaster, IMO). Note that this is not obligatory, just a fun informative side thing. (The answers to 4x4 and bits and bytes were already spilled to a-d by mistake...) -- ais523 Contestmaster, Enigma
DIS: BUS: [Enigma] clarification
Are we guaranteed never to get the same clue twice? The rules of Enigma don't rule it out; however, it's unlikely that I'd repeat a clue, as that would just make the contest less interesting and rewarding. -- ais523 Contestmaster, Enigma
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 17:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > > The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define > > "announcement" anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for > > months. > > Rule 478, last paragraph. Nope, it defines action by announcement in terms of announcements. (comex has now re-added the accidentally dropped penultimate paragraph, which defined announcements.) And I meant 478, just said 754 by mistake and only just noticed. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Grabbing a dictatorship loophole, I'll explain later
On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 23:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > To prove that, you'd have to prove that B's 5th Era was not only broken, > but specifically broken in such a way that their alleged "Export" > proposal was either (a) not a proposal at all, or (b) neither adopted > nor rejected. The proposal was never either adopted or rejected; the clock at B was broken, thus the proposal's voting period never started. On the other hand, as comex points out, the rule in question was repealed separately by an Agoran proposal, so this doesn't work. (I wonder what effect this has on the ruleset ratification argument? It's only a historical accident that the Agoran rule was repealed separately; without a ruleset ratification, we could therefore have been wrong about the Agoran ruleset for ages due to events at B.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] SoA Report
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 01:21 -0400, Warrigal wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > http://www.nomictools.com/agora/aaa > > > > Federal Subsidy: 7 > > I join the AAA. I ask for subs. > You already were a party, according to my records. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Public contract list
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 10:51 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > CoE: Vote Market II us a contract. Accepted, I missed Murphy joining. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Public contract list
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 17:54 +0100, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 10:51 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > > CoE: Vote Market II us a contract. > > Accepted, I missed Murphy joining. > Actually, no, denied. It isn't public, as far as I can tell; it's a private publically-known contract. (It wasn't created as public, and hasn't been made public since.) -- ais523 Notary
Re: DIS: InterNomic II
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 20:06 +0100, Charles Walker wrote: > Agora can join B now. It just needs to post to spoon-business that it > has decided to become a faction. Note for Agorans who aren't B players: B decided that Agora fit the B definition of a contract. This is unlikely to have an effect on Agorans who aren't B players (as is well-known, nomics can declare anything about each other they like). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2435 assigned to Taral
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 13:27 -0400, comex wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > And finally, the hypocrisy of partnerships is revealed here. > > Says one of the original partners of the Pineapple Partnership. > > But now that the PNP's out of office, maybe it finally is time for the > sunset of partnerships. OK, if comex is saying that, I'm worried... -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Three Elections
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 11:27 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > CoE: I never declined my nomination for Grand Poobah. You explicitly need to accept nowadays (rule 2154). The rules of nomics have a nasty tendency to change while you're away... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Scorekeepor] Contestmaster Rewards, Scoreboard
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 13:10 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > I deputise for the Scorekeepor to award 0 points to Murphy (no points > > awarded by any of the three contests e's contestmastering (FRC, Cookie > > Jar, Werewolves) in March), 0 points to Goethe (no points awarded by BF > > Joust in March), 0 points to Wooble (no points awarded by the AAA in > > March, even though three were revoked; IMO this is a bug), and 15 > > x-points and 15 y-points to ais523 (60 x-points and 52 y-points were > > awarded by Enigma in March, and 15 current players were contestants of > > Enigma at some time in March); such awards are by the mechanism in rule > > 2234 (as opposed to the mechanism in rule 2233). > > Fails, since the time limit has not expired and the office is not vacant. The office is vacant; Taral just resigned. > I only count 14 current players who were contestants of Enigma at some > time in March: Murphy, root, Wooble, Pavitra, comex, ehird, Elysion, > Sgeo, Billy Pilgrim, woggle, coppro, Tiger, Dvorak Herring, and > Rodlen. Am I missing somebody? Me. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Scorekeepor] Contestmaster Rewards, Scoreboard
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 13:22 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > >> Fails, since the time limit has not expired and the office is not vacant. > > The office is vacant; Taral just resigned. > > I deputised for IADoP to install myself, in response to Goethe's > deregistration. I didn't think you were a candidate, due to the change in the rules, so I think your attempt failed. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Scorekeepor] Contestmaster Rewards, Scoreboard
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 13:26 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 13:22 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > > > >> >> Fails, since the time limit has not expired and the office is not > >> >> vacant. > >> > The office is vacant; Taral just resigned. > >> > >> I deputised for IADoP to install myself, in response to Goethe's > >> deregistration. > > > > I didn't think you were a candidate, due to the change in the rules, so > > I think your attempt failed. > > That was the Grand Poobah election. For Scorekeepor, I nominated > myself, which constitutes acceptance. Ah, OK. We probably need to ratify an IADoP report some time soon... -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6168-6186
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 15:43 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I come off hold. I vote as follows: If you were on hold at the start of the voting period, you can't vote. (I'm not sure if this is the case or not.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Three Elections
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 18:34 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > Goethe wrote: > > Scorekeepor: root, Yally > I endorse root. > > Grand Poobah: ais523, coppro > I endorse coppro. Both those elections have since ended; I withdrew, and Yally never nominated emself in the first place. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distributions & Report
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 19:35 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > Streamlined how? > > I'll work on replacing the data-scraping logic with the next > distribution. At least this was a small batch. (But why was > Tiger's proposal left in the pool?) Because nobody knows what the voting limits are at the moment, until Goethe's scam is resolved. (At least, that's coppro's stated reason.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distributions & Report
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 21:13 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > The formula is designed to require a sufficient number of players to > pass the proposal with everyone else voting AGAINST. Remember that the > initiator of the action cannot support; therefore with even three active > players, a proposal with adoption index 2 would normally require 2 votes > (2:1): floor((2*3)/(2+1)) = 1. Actually, = 2, your arithmetic is wrong. > > If you can find another bug, I'd appreciate you pointing it out. Dependent actions often end up buggy in some way. (They turned out not to be broken last Holiday, for instance, but there was certainly some weirdness going on, real or perceived.) Unrelated to the formula, I'm also a bit confused about the timing related to whether there's a "vote" ongoing or not. Finally, you should insert a safety check for if the AI somehow becomes less than 1. (I don't think that's possible under present rules, but you never know what might happen in the future.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment & caste fix.
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 22:08 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > This repairs the illegal flips made previously by my office. Oh great, now we get to argue about what the "result of a claim of error is" (I presume you're basing that action on the second paragraph of rule 2211?). Maybe also on the referent of "e" there. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distributions & Report
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 00:30 -0400, Warrigal wrote: > The problem with having multiple ways to change the rules generally is > that every one has to fail simultaneously for "Agora Is A Nomic" to > kick in. This is fine if every general rule change method is actually > a reasonable way to change the rules, but if you have one like "with > 12 support and no objections" in there, Agora loses its protection. It was me who first suggested the 12 support thing (it was shot down), but IMO that would be entirely workable in the case of a serious bug (you could probably find 12 supporters for fixing something life-threatening), but a scam that requires 13 people is no scam at all, you could easily force through a regular proposal that way. I'd prefer a working rule-change method than AIAN preserving a random gamestate from the past where it's theoretically possible to change the rules via some unknown and confusing method. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distributions & Report
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 18:54 -0700, Taral wrote: > I contest these CoEs. You can only contest a CoE by calling a CFJ on the matter, specifying which report you're contesting and specifically stating you're contesting it. You didn't provide the text of the CFJ, so that fails. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Actually paying attention to the AAA
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 18:09 +0100, Alex Smith wrote: > I mill 8-7=1, 7*8=1, 7*8=1, 5+7=1, 8/8=1, 8/8=1. > > I harvest each of the following ID numbers of ordinary proposals for 2 > y-points each: > > 6168 6169 6176 6182 6183 6184 6185 6186 > > I harvest each of the following ID numbers of democratic proposals for 4 > x-points each (using X as 1 where necessary): > > 6170 6175 6177 6178 6179 > > I buy a Digit Ranch. A quick reminder to the SoA: you have just over 2 days left to award me points for these (unless you've done so already and I didn't notice.) I prefer friendly reminders to NoVing / equitising... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Attachments
On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 22:29 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > Like... Microsoft Excel. As far as I know, TNP2 couldn't read an Excel file; it has no spreadsheet software installed, is probably on too small a server to run OpenOffice, and runs the wrong OS to run Excel. (You'd be surprised how much reading of reports TNP2 has done in the past, but that mostly relies on them being in text form.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: RE: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly and Monthly Contract Reports
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 16:15 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2009/4/6 Ed Murphy : > > For entering things, sure, but for being able to analyze purported > > errors and correct them if needed? Not everyone has their own VCS. > > > > (git|darcs|hg) is hard, let's go shopping. During my previous stint at Notary, I kept a darcs repository of all the changes to the report. (Not to mention, of course, the intrinsic change history that comes from posting all reports to email.) -- ais523
Re: ?spam? DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly and Monthly Contract Reports
On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 04:41 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > CoE: This is incorrect. See the PNP's most recent message containing the > list of parties. Ugh, I always manage to forget to update the PNP list somehow. My brain just filters out PNP party-change messages the same way it filters out spam and adverts. Probably not a good quality for a Notary to have... > CoE: My Grand Poobah pledge is not listed. Denied. Yes it is, in both the list at the top and the text explanation at the bottom. -- ais523
Re: ?spam? DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly and Monthly Contract Reports
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 16:29 +0100, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 04:41 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > > CoE: This is incorrect. See the PNP's most recent message containing the > > list of parties. > Ugh, I always manage to forget to update the PNP list somehow. My brain > just filters out PNP party-change messages the same way it filters out > spam and adverts. Probably not a good quality for a Notary to have... > > > CoE: My Grand Poobah pledge is not listed. > Denied. Yes it is, in both the list at the top and the text explanation > at the bottom. > Also, I seem to remember that Goethe terminated G1/G2/G3 ages ago, but they still seem to be on the report. I'll look into that for next time, as to whether my memory's wrong or the report is. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Attachments
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 10:23 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 22:29 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > >> Like... Microsoft Excel. > > > > As far as I know, TNP2 couldn't read an Excel file; it has no > > spreadsheet software installed, is probably on too small a server to run > > OpenOffice, and runs the wrong OS to run Excel. (You'd be surprised how > > much reading of reports TNP2 has done in the past, but that mostly > > relies on them being in text form.) > > Is it also incapable of using the xlrd python package? > Wooble suggested the Perl packages for reading Excel files, too. So I suppose it's technically possible, although it would need a proposal to install it if you wanted to do it properly. As for the general issue of attachments, I'm not sure how well they're archived in the usual Agora archives, which could become a problem down the lines. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Getting back on the MwoP list
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 11:00 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 19:57 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> I award 20+14i points to ais523 > > > > I believe this brought me to a winning score; although 3 x-points have > > since been revoked from me, I believe I nevertheless have a winning > > score of 78+34i (78*34 = 2652 >= 2500). Therefore: > > > > The following sentence is a Win Announcement, and this sentence serves > > to clearly label it as one. ais523 has a score x + yi such that xy >= > > 2500. I win by points. > > I verify that this is a correct announcement (although you're actually > at 76+34i, which is still enough to win). Scoreboard coming shortly. I wonder where I miscounted? Good thing I like to leave margins when winning, if possible... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Attachments
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 11:15 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > > As for the general issue of attachments, I'm not sure how well they're > > archived in the usual Agora archives, which could become a problem down > > the lines. > > I believe they're blocked. Speaking of the archives, base64 messages > also show up in encoded form (see CFJ 1580), though at least it's > possible to copy+paste them into a decoder. > When my email's down (which is more often then you might think), I often read via the archives; therefore, putting something in an attachment probably doesn't correctly send it via the public forum. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Two contest-related proposals
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 13:04 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> {{{
>
> Amend Rule 2234 (Rewarding Contestmasters) to read:
>
> As soon as possible after the end of a month, for each contest,
> the player (if any) who was its contestmaster for at least 16
> days during that month MAY once announce that e performed duties
> related to that contest in a timely manner during that month,
> subject to other rules regarding truthfulness.
>
> As soon as possible after a player makes such an announcement,
> the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award, for each of
> the contest's axes, N points to that player, where N is
> either the number of players who were contestants of that
> contest at any time during that month, or the number of points
> awarded by that contest on that axis during that month,
> whichever is less.
>
> }}}
This would overwrite the change made by proposal 6188. (However, it
looks like it isn't passing, so this probably isn't much of a problem.)
--
ais523
Re: DIS: RE: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly and Monthly Contract Reports
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 20:41 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2009/4/6 Ed Murphy : > > A wiki is just a VCS with a GUI front-end. Discuss. > > Wikidot is just a bad VCS (does it even handle non-linear edits? I > doubt it.) operating on a bad document format with an awful interface > that requires javascript and that has no way to get non-HTML out of > it; even scraping is prohibited by its TOS, and as a result it's > decreasing the quality of our reports for no gain -- in fact, > anti-gain, since the Notary has to use it. > > Discuss. Not to mention that Murphy's solution for actually being able to submit a report at all involves me having to edit one page, and rename and retag an entirely different page, whenever a contract is created or destroyed. And yet I can't come up with anything better... -- ais523 Notary
Re: DIS: RE: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly and Monthly Contract Reports
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 15:54 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Elliott Hird > wrote: > > Wikidot is just a bad VCS (does it even handle non-linear edits? I > > doubt it.) operating on a bad document format with an awful interface > > that requires javascript and that has no way to get non-HTML out of > > it; even scraping is prohibited by its TOS, and as a result it's > > decreasing the quality of our reports for no gain -- in fact, > > anti-gain, since the Notary has to use it. > > > > Discuss. > > No one's forcing the Notary to use it. Discuss. The data's all there, and we're left with no legal recourse to get it back again as Wikidot don't allow automated scraping; the Notary reports are "manual scraping" by copy/paste. So migrating back would be rather tricky and time-consuming, although probably possible. -- ais523
Re: DIS: RE: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly and Monthly Contract Reports
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 14:10 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Elliott Hird > wrote: > > Wikidot is just a bad VCS (does it even handle non-linear edits? I > > doubt it.) > > Non-linear edits? Are you referring to branching/merging? > More to the point, Wikidot doesn't even handle edit conflicts (instead it just locks the page); most wiki software can get those right. -- ais523
Re: DIS: RE: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly and Monthly Contract Reports
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 14:27 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > The data's all there, and we're left with no legal recourse to get it > > back again as Wikidot don't allow automated scraping; the Notary reports > > are "manual scraping" by copy/paste. So migrating back would be rather > > tricky and time-consuming, although probably possible. > > Not necessarily. Have we actually tried using the backup feature to > download the site as a zip file? How compatible is wikidot syntax > with, say, wikia syntax? > I asked Murphy about the possibility of using the backup feature to scrape the site, and got no response IIRC; maybe e missed the message. The syntax is rather different from MediaWiki's, but a sufficiently small proportion of it is actually used on the notary wiki that automatically converting would be easy enough. -- ais523 Notary
Re: DIS: [proto] Mornington Crescent as a contest?
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 22:33 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > Is the idea even feasible? I am thinking somewhere along the lines of > the original Mornington Crescent, with all its nuances and strategies, > being played as a contest monitored by a few meta-rules. So a move > consists of a description of the move with things like "Nice move, > I'll have to rethink this. Actually, Uxbridge is the only worthwile > legal move for me right now." combined with a meta-action like > [praising another player's move]. http://www.nomic.net/deadgames/mornington/dunx/ Rather different from what you thought up, though; the "old ruleset" looks like quite an interesting and fun ruleset for Mornington Crescent. It also explicitly claims copyright on its rules, which is rather unusual for a nomic to do; that might mean they'd care if someone tried to fork their nomic. Long-dead, though, it seems. -- ais523
Re: DIS: [proto] Mornington Crescent as a contest?
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 22:50 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > 2009/4/6 Alex Smith : > > Rather different from what you thought up, though; the "old ruleset" > > looks like quite an interesting and fun ruleset for Mornington Crescent. > I can't be bothered to read all that, I'm sorry, but it's not at all > what I meant. From what I can see Mornington Nomic is more of a nomic > meant to look like a game of MC than a game of MC fitted into a nomic. Yep, in my view making up plausible-seeming actions is less fun than having actual rules that when you play, make people think you're making the rules up as you go. -- ais523
Re: DIS: [proto] Mornington Crescent as a contest?
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 22:59 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > Okay, well, not in mine. At least that's not the kind of game I want > to create now. I take it you're not a big fan of MC as it's originally > played? It's a great game in the abstract, but only if it has no important side-effects. Merging it into a nomic in any way at all would destroy its spirit, I imagine, as people would have an incentive to act in certain ways. -- ais523
Re: DIS: [proto] Mornington Crescent as a contest?
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 17:06 -0400, Jamie Dallaire wrote: > I'm not that familiar with MC, but what you're describing sounds like > it might fit well as a round of the Fantasy Rules Committee. As long > as you start with an appropriate first rule for the round that sets up > the ground rules of MC, it could work. And the "progress" of each > player would be well tracked by the Style Points awarded by Fantasy > Rules Committee. > > http://groups.google.com/group/frc-play?pli=1 That's actually a pretty good idea. Now one of us has to win a round so we can set it up... (The typical FRC restriction style, though, would mean that the victory condition would be rather different.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: pragmatic ribbons
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 10:05 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I submit the following AI=2 proposal, entitled "pragmatic ribbons": Good idea, I've thought something like this was necessary for ages, but forgot to propose it. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] This week's puzzle
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 19:18 +0100, Alex Smith wrote: > You have a week from now, good luck! Oh, and my usual reminder: Even if you aren't a contestant right now, you can still score points from an Enigma puzzle as long as you join Enigma during the answer submission period, and are a player of Agora when I come to actually hand out points. -- ais523 Contestmaster, Enigma
DIS: [Enigma] Clarification
Another clarification to do with Enigma: You can only submit one puzzle a week. (But save the others for future weeks, so you can keep scoring y-points.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] This week's puzzle
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 12:35 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > There was one Enigma puzzle this week, "Scales" by Tiger: > >> A puzzle named "Scales". > >> You have a balance scale and want to be able to measure any integer > >> number of ounces. Which is the biggest weight that you can measure > >> using four known masses, and still be able to measure each integer > >> number of ounces below it? Which four weights should you use? > > Does this include being able to measure 0 ounces? The puzzle's restricted to being able to measure positive weights, or it doesn't make sense. -- ais523 Contestmaster, Enigma
DIS: Re: BUS: Recusals
On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 13:55 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > I recuse ehird from CFJs 2423-25. Err, what? CFJ 2423's had a judgement for ages, and is now out of appeals range; and 2424-2425 were appealed, I think remanded, but the rejudgement time limit hasn't run out yet. So I'm not convinced that this is legal. -- ais523
Re: ?spam? DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] Last week's results
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 14:38 -0400, Jamie Dallaire wrote: > To Tiger and ais523: Is there any particular logic to the way you came > up with these, or was it just a matter of trying until something > worked? The first two times this puzzle was submitted I tried the > latter technique but eventually tired of failure ;-) I started with solving it on a grid much bigger than 5*5 (it was 12*12, IIRC), to get the relative positions of the colour patches right. I then went and shrank it in size until I got a 5*5 solution. Tiger: Did you do it the same way, or did you have a different method? -- ais523
