Re: DIS: Proto-proto: The Republic of Agora
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Amend Rule 2126 to assign each player a state with a population, some portion of which supports em. What will this achieve? Nothing directly, but maybe others will come up with new effects based on these populations. (This is roughly inspired by my "Unruly Mob" proto from last year.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The org chart is not flat
Zefram wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: gains two Green VCs if the office has a weekly report, or one Green VC if the office has only a monthly report, What if the office has neither? Then the office has no salary. What about non-report duties? The office of promotor has no official report at all, but weekly duties. That'll need to be fixed, either individually or by re-defining the Proposal Pool as the Promotor's weekly report.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Expanded foreign relations
Eris wrote: On 7/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Proto-Proposal: Expanded foreign relations Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Ambassador is ordered to seek mutual recognition between Agora Nomic and Canada. Why? Why not?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The Republic of Agora
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Mostly just renaming things for flavor, but there is a bit of substance.] I dislike most of the renaming. Meh. I dislike abstract names. (In the first draft of the Card rules, everything operated directly on "pending draws"; it was later amended to operate on chips, which could be cashed in to draw more cards.) I considered basing the renaming on Parliament, but I don't know how the houses' votes are weighted; the houses of Congress do correspond pretty closely to what we're using. (I also don't know the short version of "bill originating in the House of ___".) The substance is in fact that of proposal 5050, which was voted down. F/A was 4/2, and one of those 2 was me. (I think I misunderstood the proposal's effect at the time.) Please develop some new mechanics if you want to use the population > concept. I'm not using it for anything yet, which is why the mechanics are fuzzy. The idea is to get the concept out there, and if someone does come up with a good use for it, then the mechanics can be cleaned up to work with that use.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador] Ambassador's report for July 17, 2007
root wrote: On 7/17/07, Peekee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On behalf of Agora I hereby repeal all rules, regulations, terms and any and all other parts of the Primo Coporation and its charter. The Primo Coporation no longer exists. ... As Primo unconditionally allows Agora permission to change its charter then any action in Agora must be able to change its charter. As this message is a post to the public forum in Agora it is an official action of Agora. TIASCOTC"ISIDTID"FTHPAFAVLT. ^ ?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ
root wrote: [the purported judgement of CFJ 1623] > was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that R754 was not clear on the matter, Yes. which is patent nonsense No. as "person" is not primarily a legal term. That's precisely why it asserted that R754 was unclear. Here is the relevant portion of the purported judgement: > Agoran law does not define "person" explicitly. Rule 754 can be read > as incorporating the legal definition (in its general form, of > course), but its use of the word "primarily" casts some doubt on > whether "person" is covered by that provision. This judge finds that > Rule 754 is unclear on this issue, and so it is necessary to consider > other standards.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ
root wrote: On 7/18/07, *Ed Murphy* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: root wrote: > [the purported judgement of CFJ 1623] > was also a rather flimsy analysis. It relied upon the assertion that > R754 was not clear on the matter, Yes. > which is patent nonsense No. > as "person" is not primarily a legal term. That's precisely why it asserted that R754 was unclear. Here is the relevant portion of the purported judgement: I don't think I follow you. If we agree that "person" is not primarily a legal term, then provision 3 (legal definition) does not apply and provision 4 (common definition) does. What's unclear about that? "person" has multiple common definitions, of which the legal definition is one.
DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of CFJ 1701 to Human Point Two
Zefram wrote: I hereby assign CFJ 1701 to Human Point Two. I intend to cause Human Point Two to judge this FALSE, with the following arguments: Most jurisdictions support a type of partnership in which some or all partners are responsible for a proper subset of the partnership's obligations. Rule 2145 should therefore be interpreted as requiring only what it explicitly says it requires. Rule 2145's definition of "partnership" explicitly requires each of a partnership's obligations to be devolved onto at least one of its parties, but its definition of "member" does not explicitly require each member (party responsible for at least one of those obligations) to be responsible for all of them.
DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ
Zefram wrote: If partnerships worked without legislation, the appellate judges for appeal 1684a are Speaker Human Point Two, CotC Zefram, and BobTHJ. If partnerships did not work without legislation, the appellate judges for appeal 1684a are Speaker Murphy, CotC Zefram, and BobTHJ. I proto-judge (on behalf of either HP2 or myself) REASSIGN, with these arguments: Was "person" defined by Rule 754 (3)? The judgement of CFJ 1684 says "no"; the purported judgement of CFJ 1623 says "maybe not". I say "maybe not". If "person" was defined by Rule 754 (4), then how was it defined? The judgement of CFJ 1684 says "human being"; the purported judgement of CFJ 1623 says "entity capable of communication". I'm not sure. This pair of uncertainties, and Judge Eris's failure to address significant sources (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person) expressing different viewpoints, suggests a judgement of REASSIGN. I have maintained for some time that it is in the best interests of the game to end up with a gamestate reflecting that partnerships were persons all along. (Tedious recalculations are no fun.) However, this is insufficient reason for a REVERSE; if the new judge justifies Eris's claim and once again judges TRUE, then the goal can still be reached by adopting a patch proposal.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: is insufficient reason for a REVERSE; if the new judge justifies Eris's claim and once again judges TRUE, then the goal can still be reached by ITYM "FALSE" here. Yes.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: result of CFJ 1694
Zefram wrote: I call for appeal of Primo's judgement of CFJ 1694. Arguments: [snip] This case has similarities to CFJ 1704. In that case, concerning Primo Corporation, the judge ruled that the possibility of direct modification of Primo's charter by the adoption of an Agoran proposal satisfied the requirement of unrestricted access to modify. However, that logic only applies because Primo Corporation's charter is a R1742 agreement, governed by the rules of Agora. Gunner Nomic 2.0's ruleset is a binding agreement, according to its rule 357.2, but it is not governed by the rules of Agora. It was formed independently from Agora, with no intention that it be subject to modification by the operation of Agoran law. Nothing in the Gunneran ruleset makes it adjudicable under Agoran contract law. Counterargument: Gunneran rule 358 copies Agoran Rule 106's force of law to Gunner in exactly the same fashion as Primo charter section 1 copies it to Primo. Another question, addressed only tangentially so far, is whether the Protectorate's rule allowing Agora to make changes is made ineffective by other rules of the Protectorate. Investigating that question now, I find the following: * Other Gunneran rules regulated either resolutions (the Gunneran equivalent of proposals), or rule changes in general. The former were inapplicable to Agoran proposals by definition; the latter failed to impose any restrictions that would prevent Gunneran rule 358.1(b) from doing what it said it did. * Similarly, other Primo charter sections (the Primo equivalent of rules) regulate issues (the Primo equivalent of proposals), but none of them regulate rule changes in general. Gunner's current rules and resolution history are currently located at http://www.gunnerrpg.com/nomic/viewtopic.php?t=62
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: result of CFJ 1694
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Gunneran rule 358 copies Agoran Rule 106's force of law to Gunner in exactly the same fashion as Primo charter section 1 copies it to Primo. No it doesn't. Primo charter section 1 gives Agoran law the capacity to modify Primo by the statement This is a binding Agreement governed by the Rules of Agora. The Gunneran ruleset contains no such statement. This much is clearly true. Its section 358 is the weak attempt to become a protectorate, which matches the *other* part of Primo charter section 1. Gunner had a rule to the effect of "Agora can change our rules". Agora has rules to the effect of "Agora is governed by the Rules of Agora". This seems to imply that Gunner was governed by the Rules of Agora, at least the ones involved in Agora changing Gunner's rules.
Re: DIS: rules vs. proposals
Zefram wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: But a CFJ on the statement "a proposal (in general) can get around R101" would have to be judged on the "current" ruleset, and it's unclear to me whether the judge should judge it using (1) or (2). There's nothing magical about rule changes that prevents a judge from considering them as a mechanism. The unclear bit is whether "get around R101" means "do things that the present R101 forbids" or "do things that the R101 at the time forbids". But actually either way I'd judge that statement TRUE: a proposal clearly *can* get around R101, of any version, specifically by enacting an enabling rule. Of course circumvention, as a concept, is not usual fare for a CFJ. Perhaps that's why you find it odd for judicial reasoning to involve hypothetical rule changes? There have been a few CFJs along the lines of "Rule X prevents any other rule from doing Y, unless the other rule takes precedence over Rule X". The analogue for proposals is less clear: perhaps "Rule X prevents any proposal from doing Y, unless the proposal alters the operation of Rule X".
DIS: Re: BUS: post-judicial-reform proposals
Zefram wrote: [The Order system is obsolete. With Timing Orders gone, the only remaining type of Order would be Legislative Orders, but a proposal can do whatever it wants anyway without requiring this bulky mechanism in the ruleset.] Proposals with ongoing effects have always been a bit fuzzy. It would be good to retain at least a minimal "Players SHALL act as required to do by adopted proposals" clause somewhere.
DIS: Proto: Interest Index
Proto-Proposal: Interest Index (AI = 2, please) Change the title of Rule 2153 to "Interest Index", and amend it to read: The interest index of a proposal is a non-negative integer with a default value of 1 and a maximum value of 3. Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its interest index by announcement. A proposal's interest index SHOULD be proportional to its complexity. "Disinterested" is a synonym for "interest index 0". A proposal SHOULD be disinterested if and only if its effects are limited to correcting errors and/or ambiguities. Amend Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) by replacing this text: a) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal's adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week). with this text: a) When a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains Red VCs equal to the proposal's adoption index multiplied by its interest index, rounded down to the nearest integer (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week).
Re: DIS: Proto: Interest Index
Zefram wrote: Second thoughts: with Red VC rewards now varying massively in magnitude, the one-per-week clause needs to be refined. I think that in each week each proposer should receive the largest single Red VC reward available from eir proposals that week, rather than whichever was chronologically first. How about When a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains Red VCs equal to the proposal's adoption index multiplied by its interest index, rounded down to the nearest integer, minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero). Elegant. There's also potential for arbitrarily large rewards, for high AIs, which makes me uncomfortable. Perhaps the AI should be capped at 4, for the purposes of the reward. Any proposal with an artificially inflated AI would presumably be voted down to deny the reward, anyway - and the higher the AI, the easier it is to do so.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: assignment of CFJ 1707 to Human Point Two
I wrote: Zefram wrote: I hereby assign CFJ 1707 to Human Point Two. I intend to cause Human Point Two to judge TRUE. Arguments: The statement "This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to make changes to its ruleset" is reasonably equivalent to "This nomic's rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do". Thus, it declared B Nomic as governed by Agoran law (at least for the purpose of changing B Nomic's rules), and provided a mechanism for the process (Agora's mechanism, the adoption of a proposal with AI >= 2 that says it changes B Nomic's rules, was incorporated by reference). I cause Human Point Two to judge as noted above.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Player VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs (* = Gray) root 1 6 1111* 1B You haven't applied the end-of-week change that copies VVLOP to EVLOP. Thanks, fixed it in the draft copy.
DIS: Re: BUS: Intended [IADoP] Org Chart
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Ambassador Protectorates *Tue 17 Jun 07 Wooble recently reported on protectorates. Message-ID? I don't see this one in the a-o archive. Additional reports that you don't list: * CotC: open judicial cases (R1868) * CotC: posture (R1871) * CotC: active sentences (R1504) * Scorekeepor: scores (R2136) You also don't list the scorekeepor as an office. I believe HP2 holds it, since 18 July (P5076). Fixed in the draft copy.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Rule 1551 says, in part: When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action. The recently ratified Assessor's Report lists two dependencies on CFJ 1688 in the history (left untouched by the second sentence of the above excerpt), but not in the totals (which may or may not be affected by the first sentence): 1) My VCs. Totals are not in question, as I spent myself down to zero on May 31 either way. 2) Human Point Two's (V,E)VLOP. Total would be 10 if CFJ 1688 is judged TRUE, 8 if it is judged FALSE. If CFJ 1688 is judged FALSE, then I'll likely CFJ on the following: * Human Point Two's VLOP increased from 0 to 10 between May 30 and June 2. * Human Point Two's EVLOP is 10. I recommend a proposal to clarify this paragraph of Rule 1551 (which Proposal 5101 does not attempt to alter), and solicit suggestions for how it should be clarified.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intended [IADoP] Org Chart
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Zefram wrote: Wooble recently reported on protectorates. Message-ID? I don't see this one in the a-o archive. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It was to a-o. It replaced an earlier attempt at an ambassador's report, also to a-o, on the same day. Oh, I do have that on file, I just typoed the month in the proto-report.
DIS: Re: OFF: judicial status
Zefram wrote: open judicial cases For the benefit of those who prefer tables: Case Question Applicable Open Assigned Judge / Panel 1621 veracity 8 Feb 07 26 Jun 07 18 Jul 07 OscarMeyr 1651 veracity 6 May 07 12 Jul 07 18 Jul 07 BobTHJ 1684 veracity 26 May 07 *19 Jun 07 30 May 07 Eris 1684a disposition 19 Jun 07 19 Jun 07 18 Jul 07 HP2, Zefram, BobTHJ 1688 veracity 15 Jun 07 15 Jun 07 18 Jul 07 comex 1698 veracity 9 Jul 07 9 Jul 07 9 Jul 07 1699 veracity 9 Jul 07 9 Jul 07 9 Jul 07 1702 veracity 12 Jul 07 12 Jul 07 18 Jul 07 Primo Corporation 1705 veracity 18 Jul 07 18 Jul 07 18 Jul 07 BobTHJ 1706 veracity 20 Jul 07 20 Jul 07 20 Jul 07 Pineapple P. * = suspended Assumes partnerships-yes
DIS: Judicial reform and the CotC DB
I've changed "Lying down" to "Supine". I've added UNDECIDABLE, IRRELEVANT, UNDETERMINED (veracity), AFFIRM and OVERRULE (disposition) to the list of possible judgements. I have not altered any data on past cases. There is no code for recording judgements for culpability or sentencing, nor (due to their relative rarity) am I strongly inclined to attempt to create any; the Gratuituous Arguments feature can instead be leveraged.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: I recommend a proposal to clarify this paragraph of Rule 1551 (which Proposal 5101 does not attempt to alter), P5101 makes the scope of ratification clearer. What aspect of R1551 do you think needs to be further clarified? What happens if the ratified material, despite becoming "completely true and accurate" per R1551, is self-inconsistent? This arguably doesn't apply to the recent instance: > I have interpreted these notes in the history as qualifying the table > as well as the history. I would have previously objected to the table > if those notes did not exist. I think, therefore, that the totals are > still conditional on CFJ 1688 after the ratification. but consider a hypothetical case in which a typo led to a flat-out discrepancy between two sections, both of which were then ratified.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5098-5106
Zefram wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: It would be good to have R2117 subsumed into deputation as well, but that's a more complex change. Yes, it seems odd to me that we have such a different procedure for that. R2117 was one of the specific instances from which deputation was generalized; the other was the ADoP's role in Speaker transitions, back around late 2005 / early 2006. What about agreements that lack timing requirements? Would there be any problem with a rule stating "any time the rules require X, but there would otherwise be no time limit, then the time limit is ASAP"?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5088-5097
Zefram wrote: The idea with these proposals is that you vote for your preferred minimum quorum and also for all the higher ones. Presumably if you want a minimum quorum of three then you also think that four would be an improvement (though a lesser one) on the present five. If three doesn't attract enough votes but four might, you'd want to have voted for four. If both are adopted then the later one (three) overrides the earlier one (four). I did a similar thing earlier with restricting the domain of scores, and Murphy did it for the power of MMI. In all of these instances there have been people perversely voting for later proposals but not earlier ones in the sequence. Don't you understand the structure? I'm baffled. As a side note, another method that I used once a few years ago was a single proposal that allowed pseudo-votes on sections of itself (defaulting to the same value as votes if not specified), which sections were declared ineffective unless the pseudo-votes favored them. This wouldn't work for the power of MMI, but would have worked for quorum and scores. (For sections requiring different power, it's easier to do multiple proposals with "proposal 2 is ineffective unless proposal 1 was adopted" type language.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Why not to repeal Rule 1795
BobTHJ wrote: On 7/23/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Upon the adoption of this proposal, Zefram incurs a requirement to publish a sonnet within three minutes after the adoption of this proposal. That's a bit harsh isn't it? I mean I would give em 5 minutes at least Judge Lindrum has set precedent in this area.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Why not to repeal Rule 1795
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Proto-Proposal: Why not to repeal Rule 1795 R1795 wouldn't do much to stop you if you wanted to do that. My favoured arrangement is that proposals should not be able to impose obligations directly (no more than they can create legal fictions), so if you wanted to impose a sonnet-writing obligation you'd have to do it via a rule. You can do it via a rule anyway, of course, and R1795 doesn't apply to an obligation from a rule. Which suggests that Rule 1795 should be generalized to all obligations and upmutated to Power=2. I think if the definition of Orders were repealed (or possibly just the definition of Legislative Orders) then proposals would indeed lose the capacity to generate orders directly. To allow Legislative Orders to work without a definition of Orders in the rules you'd need to have proposals creating bits of game state that the rules don't admit the existence of, which I think is is a bit of a stretch. Hence the suggested "X incurs a requirement to Y" wording, which is arguably given teeth by Rule 106.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: inquiry 1699: assignment of judge BobTHJ
BobTHJ wrote: On 7/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby change all sitting players to standing. I hereby assign BobTHJ as judge of CFJ 1699. I hereby rule FALSE. From the nature of the message in question it is clear that Comex was not attempting to deliberatly or recklessly make a false statement. While the statement has been found to be false, it was made under the assumption that it would indeed be true. NttPF.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The Republic of Agora
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Each player has a State with one or more Districts, a Base, and a Constituency. These names are quite opaque as to the significance of the parameters, and the relationships that the names evoke don't match the behaviour of the concepts. "State" and "Districts" go along directly with the House/Senate analogy. I'm open to suggestions on the other terms. Is it to be impossible to have zero Districts (EVLOP)? Your version of R2126 still allows VVLOP (Constituency) to go down to zero. Hmm, it probably should have a minimum of one. Each first-class player's Base is five. Any other player's Base is zero. A player's Base CANNOT be modified. Is the change from four deliberate? Yes. Law of Fives and all. When a player registers, Would be better to say "When a player is registered,", in case we ever have a player registered by someone other than emself. Same goes for deregistration, generally: we have often (such as in the current R2126) had rules assuming that registration and deregistration are always voluntary. Unnecessary generality. First come up with a method for non-reflexive registration that we might actually want to use. The Assessor's report includes each player's Constituency and number of Districts. There's no real need for the assessor to report VVLOP (Constituency) as well as EVLOP. VVLOP can only differ from EVLOP by events during the present week. I would include it (along with a history of recent events) whether it was required or not. Sheqels ($) are a measure of each player's ability to gerrymander the redistricting process. I'd prefer not to use the dollar sign for this, especially since it's not currency. But it could be. The two-for-one trading concept suggests asymmetric exchange rates. When a player registers or deregisters, e loses all eir $. There's the assumption of voluntary deregistration. I think it would be better to define that VCs (sheqels) CANNOT be possessed by non-players. That's in my "tighten definition of VCs" proposal; you're welcome to incorporate the fixes from there. Point; exile is vanishingly rare, but a number of players have been deregistered due to absence. On a separate note, what about adding the ability for players to will their VCs (sheqels) to other players upon eir deregistration? The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a default and minimum value of 1.0. A proposal is initially a House proposal if its adoption index is less than 2.0, a Senate proposal otherwise. You dropped the bit about the submitter setting the AI. It would be bad to lose the ability to make AI>1 proposals. Will fix in the next draft.
DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1699: result FALSE
Zefram wrote: == CFJ 1699 == [snip] Judged FALSE by BobTHJ: 24 Jul 2007 17:12:45 GMT BobTHJ's message was NttPF. Rule 2158.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Civil cases revisited
Proto-Proposal: Civil cases revisited A criminal case has the additional purpose of punishing the guilty. A civil case's purpose is limited to determining guilt; any response to this determination is left to the agreement. Alternate version: A criminal case has the additional purpose of punishing the guilty. A civil case's purpose is limited to determining guilt, and recommending a course of action for punishing the guilty and compensating any damaged parties; implementing this course of action is left to the agreement.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The Republic of Agora
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Unnecessary generality. First come up with a method for non-reflexive registration that we might actually want to use. Not that we want to use it, but it's happened before. I believe you were around when Morendil became Speaker while not a Player, and thus involuntarily became a Player without registering (and possibly without "being registered"). That was a mess. In fact, one of my earliest memories of Agora was being assigned to a CFJ pertaining to that situation. It is to rule out this kind of problem that I rewrote R869 to make some of the terms explicitly synonymous. Please keep this sort of problem ruled out, rather than just hoping that it will never occur. All right, I'll review this during the next revision. On a separate note, what about adding the ability for players to will their VCs (sheqels) to other players upon eir deregistration? Remember Probate? I'm sure we could draft it better than Kelly did, and cause less chaos, but it's still quite a lot of extra complication for the benefit it brings. Anyone who's deregistering voluntarily can spend all of eir VCs first (well, maybe all but one, under the current rules), and I don't see much value in giving someone who abandons the game the opportunity to make use of eir abandoned wealth. My first thought was actually to auction such VCs, but what would players bid with? I suppose they could bid with their own VCs, but then what ordering should be used?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-verdict on 1684a
Eris wrote: On 7/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: a) Should Rule 754 (3)'s "primarily used in ... legal contexts" be interpreted as "primarily used by Agora in legal contexts", or "primarily used by the English-speaking population in general in legal contexts"? In the former case, Rule 754 (3) applies; in the latter, it does not. This is somewhat time-reversed analysis. "person" was "human" until Zefram decided that maybe legal "persons" might be allowed. Are you going to be the one to tell Blob that?
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5080 - 5087
comex wrote: On Monday 23 July 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: Wooble wrote: I believe my votes on these proposals were submitted within the voting period to the proper forum and were not counted. Correct. Those votes were as follows: 5080 5081 5082 5083 5084 5085 5086 5087 Wooble 4A F F F4F4A F4F All the proposals were still adopted. Except 5080. Blah. I think that neither this message nor the previous fulfilled all of the requirements of Rule 208. This does not clearly identify the options available (among other things), and the tally in the previous was incorrect. I believe that the options-available requirement is implicitly fulfilled by clearly indicating that the decision being resolved is whether to adopt a proposal. The tally issue is fuzzy. Various fixes coming up...
DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1651: recuse, assign Murphy
Zefram wrote: I hereby recuse BobTHJ from CFJ 1651. I hereby assign Murphy as judge of CFJ 1651. Statement: if a R107 notice initiating an Agoran decision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and there is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which voters were eligible at that time, then the notice's description of the class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible Proto-judgement: Rule 107/3 was in effect at the time this CFJ was called, so 107/4's one-week cutoff for challenges does not apply. The statement is straightforwardly true. For instance, if a notice says that the eligible voters are the active players, and there is later a dispute over whether a player was active (and thus is eligible) at that time, then the notice's description is insufficient to enable public agreement on whether that player is eligible. I therefore (proto-)judge TRUE. Even Rule 107's claim that "an explicit list ... is always sufficient for this purpose" may be counter to fact, if there is a dispute over whether one of the explicitly-listed persons was eligible. This clause should probably be reworded along the lines of "is considered to satisfy this requirement".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1708: assign Murphy
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Per the judgement of CFJ 1703, comex's claim was false. However, only "deliberately or recklessly" making a false statement violates Rule 2149, and per the judgement of CFJ 1699, comex did neither. Accordingly, I judge UNIMPUGNED. You seem to have misunderstood the available verdicts, and possibly also the charge. I intended the charge to be interpreted as "doing that which R2149 prohibits, on this particular occasion". Doing that would certainly be a rule violation, so UNIMPUGNED would not be an appropriate verdict. If comex has not violated the rule then e has not done what e was charged with, and so a verdict of INNOCENT would be appropriate. If you ignore the "violating rule 2149 by" part of the charge, then the (as you point out) the charge is not sufficiently specific to make the action it describes necessarily illegal. In that case a judgement of UNIMPUGNED is appropriate, and what comex did is irrelevant to that. Your judgement mixes parts of these two scenarios. What reasoning did you intend? The latter. Rule 1504 requires the initiator to specify "the action ... by which the defendant allegedly breached the rules". I do not consider "violated rule X" to be part of this specification; if it were, then UNIMPUGNED would be trivially inappropriate for any case using that phrasing. A case avoiding that phrasing is possible, e.g. in this hypothetical example: "I hereby initiate a criminal case. The defendant is Zefram, and the action is wearing a hat." but this has a different problem, i.e. the judge must consider the entire ruleset and determine whether the action violates any rule. Rule 1504 should probably be amended to require a separate specification of the rule allegedly violated. But this has problems, too: What if multiple rules are allegedly violated? What if the defendant is found to have breached some of them, but not others?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another CFJ
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: I call for judgement to determine whether CotC Zefram violated Rule 1871 (The Standing Court) by changing all sitting players to standing on or about Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:11:48 +0100. "determine whether" indicates an inquiry case, although your mention of a sentence indicates that you intended to initiate a criminal case (which has a different type of purpose). I'm not sure how to treat your message. Please clarify. It was intended as a criminal case. immediately before the change, Human Point Two was qualified to be assigned as judge of CFJ 1688, No it was not. R1868: Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active first-class players. Human Point Two is not first-class. Ah, I was wondering if I had missed something. Another UNIMPUGNED coming up, then. I'll see about adjusting the database to flag non-first-class players.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5080 - 5087 (corrected)
root wrote: On 8/1/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: For each decision, the options available are ADOPTED, REJECTED, and FAILED QUORUM.] No they're not. The options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT. There's a distinction between the options available to the voters on a proposal (FOR, AGAINST, PRESENT; defined by Rule 106) and the options available to Agora on any Agoran decision (ADOPTED, REJECTED, FAILED QUORUM; defined by Rule 955). Since Rule 208 is generic to all Agoran decisions, not specific to proposals, it seems to me that the options to which it is referring are the latter set. The significant distinction here is that between the options available to the voters individually and the options available to Agora collectively. For instance, if "Really Generalize Dependent Actions" is adopted, then for dependent actions the former set will be (SUPPORT, OBJECT) and the latter set will be (APPROVED, REJECTED). Proto-proto: Re-factor each type of Agoran decision into its own rule; define quorum as a default that can be overridden by the rule defining a type of Agoran decision.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: legal
comex wrote: Perhaps I need to read the archives, but I am uncertain of what is the default for regulated actions. Game custom is CANNOT and (not MAY NOT). A simple example of an action allowed only with CAN is in Rule 1868; one allowed only with "MAY" is in Rule 1607. If the actions CAN be done by default, then 1868 is a tautology, and if they MAY be done by default 1607 is a tautology. However neither being true by default makes most actions either criminally punishable or impossible. Neither CAN nor MAY is explicitly defined by Rule 2152, so ordinary language applies. Game custom for both is (not CANNOT) and (not MAY NOT).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: legal
comex wrote: On Wednesday 01 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote Neither CAN nor MAY is explicitly defined by Rule 2152, so ordinary language applies. Game custom for both is (not CANNOT) and (not MAY NOT). This is severely broken. Certainly MAY/CAN are not capitalized merely for emphasis. They're capitalized because some of us (primarily Zefram, I think) have been preparing in advance for a presumed revision of MMI that does explicitly define CAN and MAY.
Re: DIS: proto: clarify Mother, May I?
Zefram wrote: proto-proposal: clarify Mother, May I? * CAN : it is POSSIBLE for to . * CANNOT : it is IMPOSSIBLE for to . This eliminates " CAN only if " as a synonym for " CANNOT if not ". Similarly for the other cases. In particular, we might want to amend Rule 101 to say "an entity CAN perform a regulated action only if the rules explicitly allow it".
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Faction anyone ?
comex wrote: On Friday 27 July 2007, Antonio Dolcetta wrote: I was wandering if anyone is interested in creating a faction. Since the faction rules have been introduced no one has made one, Is there any interest at all in playing factions out ? I cause Agora to join B Nomic per rule 5-2. For reference, here's the relevant section of B Nomic's ruleset: http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Rules#Section_5:_Factions 5-3 says that factions can vote, but doesn't say how. Is it assumed that factions will define their own methods of acting through the agency of their parties?
Re: DIS: proto: clarify Mother, May I?
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: This eliminates " CAN only if " as a synonym for " CANNOT if not ". Similarly for the other cases. Those semantics are the usual meaning of "only if", aren't they? How else might "only if" be interpreted? As "if not , then the rules do not specify whether CAN or CANNOT ". (Do the rules regulate doing in general, or doing while ? Challenge: find a hypothetical case in which the latter interpretation would arguably be preferable.)
DIS: Re: BUS: RAR
Peekee wrote: I register as a *player* . Channeling Syllepsis, are we? 'whois peekee.co.uk' returns "Registrant: Alan Riddell", the same name given by the player who used the nickname Peekee in 2002-2004 (and probably 1998-2001 as well, though the agoranomic.org archives only go back to November 2002).
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: judicial status
root wrote: On 8/12/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dates given are generally from the "Date:" header of the applicable message. This is not the legally effective time (CFJ 1646), but is an approximation of it. See the message in question for exact timing. Eep. Looking at CFJ 1646, I'm somewhat disappointed that the Judge offered no arguments for eir departure from the previous findings of CFJs 707 and 866. Now all my timestamps are wrong. 707 and 866 both pertain to time of receipt; 1646 pertains to time of transmission.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ratify
Peekee wrote: Quoting Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I intend to ratify the VC holdings listed in the Assessor's Report that I published within the past hour. Could that cause problems if it turns out I am not a player anymore? In that situation, the first paragraph of Rule 2126 would cause you to lose any VCs that you might possess as a result of the ratification. Is anyone going to own up to triggering the web form? (I triggered the "Fnord!" message to a-d, but did not trigger either "Support Ordinary" or the purported deregistration.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Return of Zeitgeist
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: If such a proposal received no AGAINST votes, its proposer gains one Zinnwaldite VC. Zinnwaldite isn't a colour AFAICT. Otherwise I like the proto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinnwaldite_(color)
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: judicial status
root wrote: Incidentally, I don't like these new dependent action rules; all the Agoran decision cruft makes them much more heavyweight than they really have any need to be. When are we ever going to use a dependent action with a majority index other than one? When we think of something important enough. For reference, here are all the current uses of Agoran consent: * Install an officer * Deregister a redundant partnership * Declare a protectorate (Ambassador only) and With Support: * Change an ordinary proposal's AI to 2 (2 support) * Appeal a judgement (2 support) * Grant/revoke Patent Title of Bard (2 support, or a Bard with 1 Bard support) and Without Objection: * Make a player inactive * Change a forum's publicity (Registrar only) * Ratify part of a report Also, as long as I'm looking at it, "less than or equal to" in R955(d)(3) should probably just be "less than", since the vote collector implicitly counts as 1 support. This should be handled by amending R1729(d) so that the vote collector is not auto-disqualified in this case. (Consider the IADoP's duty to attempt to change officers; e should be free to object to eir own attempt. Unless e is ineligible for other reasons, e.g. the current IADoP is a partnership.)
Re: DIS: proto: more knaves
comex wrote: Amend the rule titled "Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves" by replacing the entire text of the rule with: Knight and Knave are player switches with values NAY and YAY, tracked by the Speaker, with default values of YAY and NAY, respectively. Eww. Come to think of it, there should be a way to flip Truthiness. A knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are false. A knave SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are true. Ooh, tricky. Does "6000 FOR" count as a statement?
DIS: Re: OFF: map, again
comex wrote: For the agoran decision I initiated in this message: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-August/007098.html (published 7 days ago) the options available are APPROVED and REJECTED. No votes were made. The option therefore selected by Agora is APPROVED; No, it isn't. S/(S+O) = 0/(0+0) = 0/0 = 0 (Rule 2146), which is <= 1/2 (Rule 2124), so the OSbA is REJECTED (Rule 955). I hereby politely ask the rulekeepor to move the map to the beginning of the FLR. You did, but not dependently.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: map, again
comex wrote: On Monday 13 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: No, it isn't. S/(S+O) = 0/(0+0) = 0/0 = 0 (Rule 2146), which is <= 1/2 (Rule 2124), so the OSbA is REJECTED (Rule 955). You're right. Therefore, my notice resolving the decision was invalid, so the decision is still active. Would you like to vote SUPPORT or OBJECT? Maybe.
Re: DIS: proto: more knaves
comex wrote: On Monday 13 August 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: Eww. I couldn't think of a better way to allow a player to be a Knight and a Knave at the same time. Smullyan is rolling over in his grave. Peekee is jumping for joy, but you can't tell which ones are him and which ones are just pointing and saying "That's me over there". Ooh, tricky. Does "6000 FOR" count as a statement? I don't see how this modification makes the issue (which could be CFJed) any *more* relevant. SHOULD NOT doesn't count as a rule violation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contest: The Variety Show
comex wrote: On 8/14/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby agree to be bound by the following agreement: This contract does not exist until someone else agrees to it, correct? Someone has. Two someones, in fact. d) 1 point to a contestant who was an officer all week. e) 1 point to a contestant who was not an officer all week. j) 1 point to a contestant who is a partnership. Whereas the others are nice, these (and maybe h)) seem boring as you could award these every week to the same officeholder, non-officeholder, and partnership. Any suggestions? P.S. If a player consents to the agreement, then deregisters, e remains a contestant. Interesting loophole. R2136 allows non-players to be contestants (or contestmaster) and gain points - but they can't win, and can't keep their points if they register. The Scorekeepor is responsible for keeping track of their scores, but need not report them.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: The Republic of Agora
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Sheqalim Typo? Google and Wikipedia both say no. (S, sing. sheqel) are a measure of each player's ability to gerrymander the redistricting process. I dislike the "are a measure of" wording. The important bit here is that they're items that players can possess, but describing them as "a measure" doesn't express that. This gets into the attribute vs. possession debate. Each S has exactly one color (Gray if not otherwise specified). Colour is specified for all VCs that currently exist and for all new VCs being created, and you don't change that for sheqelim. The "Gray" bootstrapping clause is irrelevant now. It's a safety clause, in case a future proposal accidentally omits a color. (various corrections incorporated into a fix proto) If the proposal received no AGAINST votes, its author gains one Zinnwaldite S. I think this should be a separate list item. It's a proposal award, it goes with the proposal award. > And why the aversion to primary colours? All three primary colors are already in use. Zinnwaldite is the only color I found that starts with the same letter as Zeitgeist. c) When a player submits a judgement on veracity or culpability, I wish you'd propose these small changes (this, minimum EVLOP, Zeitgeist) separately, so that we can choose them independent of each other and independent of the district terminology. This is arguably a bug fix. Do you really intend a player who judges a criminal case GUILTY to receive a second salary for sentencing? c) A player may spend two S of different colors to decrease another player's state's planned districts by one. Not clear on whether planned districts can go to zero. Not helped by the duality (again) of treating "planned districts" both as objects and as a number. Planned districts are not objects, and can go negative (but districts remain subject to the district minimum). d) A player may spend three S of different colors to decrease another player's state's planned districts by ten percent. Can planned districts be non-integral? Surely half a district is just a smaller district, and you can't very well plan to do something that's categorically impossible. See above.
Re: DIS: Proto: recognize holidays
Zefram wrote: Benjamin Schultz wrote: I'm open to suggestions on an appropriate color. Mauve is my current choice. I suggest sticking to the primary colours, because they have well-known letter abbreviations. So far we're not using any of the subtractive primaries (C, M, Y) or the endpoints of the greyscale (K, W). Something else to do with more colours: we could add progressively more extravagant things that can be done by spending higher numbers of colours together. Collect all eight colours to win the game. ROY G BIV + Ultraviolet? (Specific information regarding Gamma Clearance is restricted to citizens of Gamma Clearance.)
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: judicial status
1) Amend R955(d)(3) to make majority index actions require the ratio be greater than or equal to the index if the actor is an (active) first-class player; strictly greater otherwise. I prefer amending R1728(d) so that the vote collector is generally allowed to vote on actions with Agoran consent, and eir vote is defaulted to SUPPORT. 2) Amend R2124(a) to add 1 to the support index iff the actor is not an (active) first-class player. If we end up defining second-class players etc., then some interesting formulas could be thrown around here. 3) While we're at it, I think we should forbid inactive players from performing dependent actions in general. Hmm, maybe.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Two protos
root wrote: On 8/16/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (a) With N Supporters. For this method, the support index is N, and the tally of votes need only include a number of SUPPORT votes sufficient to approve the action. "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter". (b) Without N Objections. For this method, the objection index is N, and the tally of votes need only include a complete list of OBJECT votes (if any). "Without Objection" is synonymous with "Without 1 Objection". How would this work for actions that are with N supporters and without M objections? We haven't got any of those at the moment. If we added one, then these could be reworded as "the tally of votes MUST include ", with the R208 amendment allowing the irrelevant bits to be omitted.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Republic repair
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Proto-Proposal: Republic repair I'm opposed to this being a separate proposal from the Republic of Agora. Merge the fixes into the main proposal. I plan to; that was written before I saw the votes swinging roughly 2 to 1 against.
Re: DIS: proto: reward deputisation
Zefram wrote:
proto-proposal: reward for deputisation
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2126 by appending to the list of ways that VCs can be gained:
d) When a player deputises for an office e gains one Cyan VC,
unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the
same office in the same month.
[Another rarer action to reward with a new colour.]
I suggest Magenta (opposite of Green) for this, and Yellow (opposite of
Blue) for judging sentencing on time. Cyan (opposite of Red) could be
used for the Zeitgeist award.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Transfinite arithmetic
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Proto-Proposal: Transfinite arithmetic Do you have a use for more of those identities, then? Variety Show agreement, item 6c. Standard arithmetic covers that particular case, but still.
Re: DIS: proto: reward deputisation
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: I suggest Magenta (opposite of Green) for this, Pavitra already claimed magenta as the celebratory colour. Mauve, actually. I was thinking orange would be suitable for zeitgeist, being adjacent and similar to red. Orange alert. Orange alert. I was originally hoping that we could make something of the mathematical relationships between the primary colours, perhaps a way of generating one colour from another like the Beads proto some months ago. But the associations you're suggesting in the meanings are too weak to make any semantics from. I think we're better off seeking psychological associations with the colours. I have a couple more ideas for VC colours that I'm doing this way. Here's a list of things that you could get Boons for, about a year ago: * Recognizing Agora's birthday * Speaker's choice on April Fool's Day * Having zero Blots * Protege naming up to four mentors within four weeks after eir 60-day Grace Period * Repealing a rule when there are 100+ rules and the Rulekeepor feels the repeal simplifies the rules * Proposal adopted during one's Grace Period * Proposal adopted on Guy Fawkes Day * Speaker's choice once a week
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Transfinite arithmetic
Proto-Proposal: Transfinite arithmetic d) 0 / Y = 0 +inf / +inf = undefined +inf / Y= +inf otherwise X/ +inf = 0otherwise (-X) / Y = X / (-Y) = -(X/Y) X / 0 = +inf if X > 0 X / 0 = -inf if X < 0 +inf's could also be sorted based on the numbers that led to them, e.g. 2/0 > 1/0, but that would be complicated and sometimes inappropriate (e.g. a democratic proposal receiving votes F F F F F F is arguably more strongly supported than an ordinary proposal receiving votes 5F 5F 5F 5F 5F).
Re: DIS: proto: reward deputisation
Zefram wrote: Here's a list of things that you could get Boons for, about a year ago: What was a Boon? Boons and Albatrosses were Ephemeral Patent Titles. At the end of each quarter, each player's Kudos (used to pay for various interesting actions) were reset to a baseline + #Boons - #Albatrosses, then all Boons and Albatrosses were revoked.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: The Republic of Agora v1.1
Zefram wrote: Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing the paragraph containing "The adoption index of a proposal is" with this text: Since you've moved the change in the "Support Democracy" procedure to a separate proposal, this amendment to R106 should not be inserting the word "initially". The insertion of that word should go with the procedure change that detaches chamber from AI. That would force those proposals to AI = 3. On the other hand, if this passes but the amendment to R2142 doesn't, then R2142 would increase AI without changing chamber. (On the gripping hand, have we actually used R2142 yet, in any of its various forms?)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Generalize power-based allowance
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: A permissively regulated attribute CANNOT be modified, and a permissively regulated action CANNOT be performed, except by an instrument with power at least as great as that of the rule defining that attribute or action as permissively regulated. This is a nifty thing to factor out. However, I find the term "permissively regulated" to be misleading. The regulation is essentially restrictive, with permission appearing only in exceptions. Sorry I can't suggest a better term at the moment. My dissatisfaction with the term is the primary reason this is still stuck in the proto stage.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Refactor regulation
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: An action is regulated if any of the following is true: What is the effect of an action being regulated? The new Rule 2125 would specify the effect, depending on how it is regulated. Furthermore, Rule 101 (ii) fails to grant players the right to perform regulated actions.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Generalize power-based allowance
Pavitra wrote: A permissively regulated attribute CANNOT be modified, and a permissively regulated action CANNOT be performed, except by an instrument with power at least as great as that of the rule defining that attribute or action as permissively regulated. How about: A secured attribute CANNOT be modified, and a secured action CANNOT be performed, except by an instrument with power at least as great as that attribute's or action's security level. If a rule specifies that an attribute or action is secured, but does not list the security level of that attribute or action, then the security level defaults to the power of that rule. I like "secured attribute". There's little point in a security level higher than the power of the securing rule, because a rule of equal power can simply claim precedence over the securing rule (the point of this construction is to save it the trouble of doing so). There might be a point for non-rule instruments, which are not covered by the current precedence rules; here's the rule that used to do so: Rule 1513/4 (Power=1) Authority of Non-Rule Entities The Rules may grant to certain entities the power to require Players to perform (or refrain from performing) actions. Such Entities shall have whatever power is granted to them by the Rules. In the event that the requirements of such an Entity conflicts with the Rules, the Rules shall always take precedence. If two or more such Entities conflict with one another, then the relative precedence of the respective Rules which grant coercive Power to the Entities in conflict shall determine which requirements take precedence. If two or more Entities authorized by the same Rule conflict, then the Entity mentioned first in that Rule takes precedence over the others. No entity (including any body of text) may require a Player to perform or refrain from performing any action unless that Player has previously been provided with the information of which actions may be required of or prohibited em by that entity. History: Created by Proposal 1704, Sep. 1 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 2805 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, substantial Amended(2) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999 Amended(3) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000 Amended(4) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000 Repealed by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), Aug 28 2006
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Generalize power-based allowance
Pavitra wrote: There's little point in a security level higher than the power of the securing rule. Actually, that's under the old system. Under the new system, there would be little point in a security level higher than the power of the rule defining security levels. (And so that rule should have Power 3, otherwise other rules with Power 3 can't use it to full effect.) Oh yes, I meant to write in a clause about that. Append the sentence "A rule CANNOT specify a security level greater than its own power." And so this makes some sense (assuming that security levels can ever be different from Power); we probably don't want a rule with Power 2 declaring a security level of 3. I hadn't considered the other direction (a rule declaring a security level lower than its Power). Now that I do, it seems equally pointless, e.g. why bother enshrining the basic behavior of some concept in a Power 3 rule if you're going to let Power 2 rules modify that behavior? In short, I don't see any good reason for a security level different from the securing rule's Power, in either direction, and so I don't see any good reason to define security level as a separate concept.
DIS: Re: BUS: proposals: truthfulness
Zefram wrote: Amend rule 2149 by inserting the words "or which e is reckless regarding the veracity of" at the end of each sentence in the second paragraph. I still think this should define "reckless", perhaps by example.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Generalize power-based allowance
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: e.g. why bother enshrining the basic behavior of some concept in a Power 3 rule if you're going to let Power 2 rules modify that behavior? Perhaps some aspects need to be power=3 difficult to modify, but other aspects should be modifiable at power=2 in certain well-defined ways. Makes perfect sense to me. Ah, point. Well, that can be added if/when we come up with such a case in practice.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5147-5171
Zefram wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: 5158 Di 2Zefram Agora is (nearly) a republic AGAINST ... 5160 Di 2comex Agora is (nearly) a republic FOR When I left in a huff in 1997, I did so largely because I perceived that people bore a grudge against me. I had the impression that, whereas my proposals were almost never voted for, equivalent proposals from other players attracted votes. My paranoia has reduced, and when I started playing again this year I thought that my perception had probably been mistaken. But here's a much clearer case. Back in 1997 there weren't actually identical pairs of proposals. Whence the anti-Zefram movement? It might be a tall-poppies thing. Let's look at the VLOP and VC leaders, grouping partnerships with the players who most often control them in practice: 27 33 Zefram + Pineapple 15 23 Murphy + Human Point Two 12 9 BobTHJ + Primo 11 14 root 9 6 Wooble 8 2 comex followed by roughly half a dozen players at around 5 and 0 - and most of that is not because of the BVLOP increase, but rather because I've been spreading VLOP around in recent months.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Refactor regulation, take three
Proposal: Refactor regulation (AI = 3, please) Amend Rule 2125 (Regulation Regulations) to read: An action is regulated if any of the following is true: (a) The rules specify that the action CANNOT be performed, or CAN be performed ONLY IF certain conditions are satisfied. It occurs to me that this does not cover "X CAN Y if Z", and similarly for (b) and "X MAY Y if Z". I think pretty much all such cases are covered by (c), though.
DIS: Re: BUS: win
Levi wrote: By Rule 2136: A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player's score is set to zero. I announce that I now have 100 points. Therefore I win the game. Actually, you have 101 points.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5147-5171
Peekee wrote: Problems are the discussion forums defined in the rules? I suspect there would be little way of regulating protos. Yes, Rule 478: Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: 5171 AGAINST (invisible F) Ah, you're in the "unless" == "iff not" camp too? Curious. I had no idea that interpretation of "unless" existed in formal logic. I've always used it to mean "if not". I'm undecided. I think the matter warrants further discussion.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Player (* = inactive)VLDP EVLOP VVLOP VCs eekeeP is not listed. I expect CFJ 1724 to be judged FALSE. [When ties for determining Party were broken by alphabetical order, Quazie's Party was Blue. Now that they are broken by order of VC gain, eir Party is indeterminate.] No such change has occurred, it's only been proposed. Fixed in next draft. This problem seems like a good reason to not make such a change. Can be solved by retaining alphabetical order as a secondary tiebreaker to cover such cases. (Can't assign them to the Gray Party, as it would break the "lose a VC of a color you don't have -> lose a VC of your Party's color instead" clause.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5147-5171
comex wrote: On 8/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That's strictly on the merits. With 5159 I nearly voted PRESENT, but I'm worried that it's a scam setup. I had a nightmare two nights ago that involved a R2134 win being sprung, which is probably related.) You're correct in that the purpose of the proposal is to allow conspiracies to make other players R2134 win. But since you'd have to have nearly every VLOP-powerful player other than the target cooperate and risk losing VLOP for nothing if something goes wrong, and allow the target to become the speaker even if it works, that's not really a *scam*. Much the same can be done under the current system: conspirators can spend VCs to raise the target's VLOP; the target can spend VCs to raise someone else's VLOP, preferably someone inactive or like-minded.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
Levi wrote: In Rule 2139 replace the following text: The Registrar's report shall include the following: with: The Registrar's report SHOULD include the following: I agree with the idea of saying "The X's report includes Y", and leaving it to other rules to place requirements on publication.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Ministers Without Portfolio
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: a) Default Officeholder. We repealed this for a good reason. And what reason was that, then? b) Default Justice. This is a better way to handle a default justice than what we had before. Why? c) Wielder of Veto. Undemocratic. So? I'm opposed to the whole principle of prerogative powers. (But you knew that already.) Increased VLOP is a prerogative power. Discuss.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Ministers Without Portfolio
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: And what reason was that, then? Having a default officeholder makes officeholding indeterminate when we're not sure who the default officeholder is. It spreads uncertainty regarding the game state. We ran into this recently regarding the CotC, when resolving CFJ 1684a, where we couldn't be sure who was speaker. And, of course, we don't need offices to be filled immediately. We can install a new officer in a mere four days if there's no disagreement, and if an office remains vacant for long then we can deputise quite easily. If there's disagreement but no uncertainty, then the default officeholder gets to pull an extra Green VC or two. If there is uncertainty, then deputisation gets around that as well; VC awards/penalties remain uncertain, but that's an argument for the long-overdue Plato-Pragmatisation of VCs. Increased VLOP is a prerogative power. Discuss. It's not a prerogative power in the executive sense. One has increased VLOP not due to holding an exclusive position of authority but due to game actions that are open to everyone simultaneously. Variable VLOP *is* undemocratic, but the scope of its effect is restricted, so the important matters are properly democratic. Winning the game is also open to everyone simultaneously, and the scope of two out of these four prerogatives is restricted in the same way that variable VLOP is.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 1724-1725: Lets tidy up
Zefram wrote: (I think there is CFJ evidence that Jon is a person already) CFJ 1700. Murphy wants to appeal it. Not because I doubt the outcome, but because Judge Wooble didn't so much as ask for Jon to send a message from eir own e-mail address.
Re: DIS: Proto: MMI change
Levi wrote: Just noticed that Rule 2160 uses POSSIBLE. If it's the reverse of IMPOSSIBLE, it would be defined the same as CAN. But then, in Rule 2160, I'm not sure POSSIBLE is the right term? There was a proposal to change it to LEGAL, whereupon it was pointed out that many actions are LEGAL but IMPOSSIBLE due to R2125(c); I think this spawned much of the recent MMI debate, in fact. Changing it to POSSIBLE-and-LEGAL would avoid this problem.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: VCs for voting
Levi wrote: At the end of a proposal's voting period, each player who was the only player to cast a valid vote for a given option on it gains one Pink VC. Not totally sure this is a good idea. I'd be voting FORx1 AGAINSTx1 PRESENTx1 on all Ordinary proposals, and the higher power proposals should probably be adopted/rejected based on merit rather than votes cast to win a VC. I don't see that the latter is significantly different from votes cast to deny the proposer an Orange VC (I think that was the color Zefram proposed for the Zeitgeist concept). But, I do like the idea of VCs that can be gained just through the voting process. Maybe something like each player who cast a valid vote on a proposal that didn't reach quorum gets a VC would be a good idea? (either in addition to, or instead of this) The old "penalize voter apathy" concept would fit here, too. All this was really an afterthought to the "penalize excessive invalid votes" concept; the initial title was "The Assessor Strikes Back". :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: VCs for voting
Zefram wrote: At the end of a proposal's voting period, each player who cast at least one valid vote on it, but cast more invalid votes than valid votes on it, loses one Pink VC. Cute. BobTHJ will hate you. It's principle rather than practice. If e believed eir VLOP was somewhere from 4 to 6, then e could simply cast 7 or 8 votes, and I'd still have to check.
Re: DIS: proto: VC award for triplication
Zefram wrote: [I'm concerned that the fiddliness of the condition might increase the assessor's workload unreasonably. Murphy?] I'm already publishing F/A totals, so identical results there would trigger a count of PRESENT votes. However, checking this condition would potentially require digging into past voting results, so I would recommend adding a requirement for some player to announce the gain or loss. "order of voting period ending" should break ties in order of ID number.
Re: DIS: proto: distributor as an office
Zefram wrote: The distributor is an office. The distributor SHALL send eir weekly report to each non-null forum at least once each quarter. This could be a monthly report; it's not like the fora change very often. I don't know whether the Distributor's workload is large enough to merit a weekly-report-level Green VC salary.
Re: DIS: proto: allow non-player wins
Zefram wrote: proto-proposal: allow non-player wins Create a rule titled "Non-Player Wins" with this text: When a non-player wins the game, e becomes a player.
Re: DIS: proto: distributor as an office
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: This could be a monthly report; Yes. I wanted to make it a monthly report, but that would depend on the ability to report switches monthly. You protoed something to that effect, but it's not in the ruleset yet. I don't recall that offhand, and don't have time to run a full search. Should be fairly simple, though: Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by replacing "That officer's report" with "That officer's report (or monthly report, if the switch is defined as a monthly switch".
DIS: Re: BUS: Resubmitting refactor regulation
comex wrote: I submit the following proposal: Proposal: Refactor regulation (AI = 3, please) Murphy is a coauthor of this proposal. Why? And why did those who voted AGAINST it do so? Perhaps this one could do with some more cooking time.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on knavitude
comex wrote: On 8/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: comex wrote: But it is still a quote. Quotation is an aspect of its construction, yes. That doesn't exempt it from R2149. I CFJ, barring Zefram, on the statement: A part of a message sent to a Public Forum that is quoting another message (even if the quote is intended to perform an action) is never a violation of Rule 2149 to publish. Arguments: Rule 2149 states Merely quoting a statement does not constitute publishing it for the purposes of this rule. Gratuituous argument for FALSE: If the quote is intended to perform an action, then it is not "merely" quoting.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1738: assign root
comex wrote: On 8/29/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I concur with the Initiator's arguments and enter a judgement of TRUE. I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this. I vote SUPPORT. At least wait for our sole knave to weigh in on the discussion (in a-d, so as to avoid further entangling the issue).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resubmitting refactor regulation
root wrote: On 8/29/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: comex wrote: I submit the following proposal: Proposal: Refactor regulation (AI = 3, please) Murphy is a coauthor of this proposal. Why? And why did those who voted AGAINST it do so? Perhaps this one could do with some more cooking time. Primarily because I don't think that impossible actions should necessarily be considered regulated. Which of the sections do you think this applies to? For each of those sections, can you give a hypothetical example of an impossible action that should not be considered regulated?
DIS: CotC DB
I've updated the database code to identify criminal cases and recognize the possible judgements on culpability, and filled in the correct values for the past judgements. Please let me know if you spot any problems. Eris, how do I regenerate cotc_amend.pyc from cotc_amend.py? Not that it matters AFAICT, since I'm not setting matters.typecode = 'Criminal' directly when entering the CFJ, but adjusting it manually afterward.
DIS: Re: BUS: Nominees for Herald
comex wrote: I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Peekee the holder of the office of Clerk of the Courts. (E will have a chance to register shortly before the 14-day limit expires.) I vote OBJECT.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: I feel, therefore I act
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: then the knave is considered to /feel/ the announcement to be true, and this rule prohibits neither the announcement nor the action. Yuck. If you want to make such an exception, please do it without this false distinction. If you want a loophole for knaves then it has to be bigger than this. The rules in some cases require information to be published, and the publication of those statements is significant to the rules even though they do not constitute an action by announcement. That was written in a hurry (and as a direct reference to the origin of "truthiness"). Would "unless required by other rules to publish such a statement" be a sufficient extension of the loophole? Also, I'll oppose removal of the recklessness clauses. Feel free to replace them with something clearer, but don't just drop them. If a player doesn't think about the veracity of a statement at all then e is in the clear under your version of the rule, but under my version a judge would be likely to rule em reckless. I asked (twice) what you had in mind by "reckless", but you didn't answer, until this. How about: A knight SHALL NOT publish a statement unless e believes it may be true, and SHOULD NOT do so unless e believes it is. and similarly for knaves (with some sort of loophole as noted above).
DIS: More CotC DB stuff
I added a "Criminal cases" link, just above "All cases". comex, your mirror is broken; please let me know if something on my end's caused it, though I can't think of anything that would.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: I feel, therefore I act
Zefram wrote: comex wrote: but possibly end up just a useless pain. How exactly was truthiness ever going to avoid this fate? It was perfectly fine in its original form, if you ask me.
DIS: Notes on Herald's report
> TITLES OF HONOUR Listing date-awarded would make for a nice research project. Ephemera were repealed long ago, so that note can be removed. > First Speaker: Michael This is defined by the rules, but not as a Patent Title. If e was awarded the title as a Patent Title at some point, then this should go into Items of Past Significance. > Fantasy Rule Catalyst:Peter This set, too. Or possibly a separate list of Patent Titles that were awarded by proposal but never defined by the rules. > ITEMS OF PAST SIGNIFICANCE This note on Ephemera can also be removed. An explanation of the meaning of the titles (since the rules no longer provide that information) would make for another nice research project. > FUGITIVE > Peekee 11 Apr 04 13:52:56 Did this change when e re-registered? > THREATS This was repealed and can thus be removed. > AGORAN ARMS This was moved to a Rule and can thus be removed, or possibly adjusted to note the rule number.
DIS: Notes on CotC's report
> open judicial cases
Can this be given in tabular format, please? e.g.
Inquiry Caller Called Judge Assigned
---
1729 Zefram 21 Aug root21 Aug
1730 Pavitra 22 Aug BobTHJ 22 Aug
1731 Zefram 23 Aug Murphy 23 Aug
Criminal Caller Called Judge Assigned Defendant Notified
1708 Zefram 23 Jul Murphy 30 Julcomex 13 Aug
1733 comex23 Aug root23 AugEris ---
1735 comex23 Aug BobTHJ 23 AugEris ---
1736 comex23 Aug Murphy 23 AugP.P. ---
Exceptions (e.g. question suspended pending appeal, defendant ended
pre-trial phase early) could be described below the table.
Exact timestamps can IMO just be looked up in the archives, which
anyone who needs to know them will probably be doing anyway.
> future events
This should note who is required to do what. Or it could just be
described generally ("e.g. judges required to judge ASAP after
applicable and open, R2158; inquiry/veracity always applicable, R591;
criminal/culpability applicable after pre-trial, criminal/sentencing
applicable after judgement of GUILTY, R1504").
> posture and qualification
For completeness, this could have four columns (player, posture,
active, first-class) with all players explicitly included, and a
note on the conditions for qualification ("active first-class
player, R1868", plus something about R1871). Possibly a fifth
column to show which players are qualified.
