Re: DIS: Proto-thesis: Agoran-style Initial Ruleset
pikhq wrote: On Sunday 16 December 2007 01:31:59 Ed Murphy wrote: Welcome to Eris's 17-digit monstrosities. That's an issue in the Agoran ID number rule, isn't it? ;) The Agoran rule limits them to 14-digit monstrosities, and allows them to be declared as chaotic so that subsequent numbers don't have to follow suit. This can be used as a feature. For instance, if the Sparta CFJs or the VC conversion scam CFJs hadn't been destroyed, then they could have been numbered starting at 91 or something (provided that the CotC is willing to risk being dinged a Black VC for the first one). Note that pre-regulation numbers have been inflated at least twice before: * In 1997, Antimatter submitted 100 spam CFJs to artificially inflate the Voting Token supply. 945 through 1044 were all "This statement is TRUE", except 971 which was "The Clerk of the Courts is not paid enough." * Also in 1997 or earlier, Crito submitted hundreds of spam proposals (along the lines of "Upon the adoption of this proposal, Crito wins the game") to scam an "identical FOR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN counts on three of your proposals in a row" win condition (voting had some sort of cost, so most of them got 0/0/0). The generalization of officially-regulated numbers from rules to proposals and CFJs was prompted by CFJs 1692-93, which in turn were prompted by then-CotC comex announcing "I assign CFJ 1684 to Eris" without explicitly associating the number 1684 with any particular CFJ in either the same message or any previous message. Granted, as long as Zefram continues to hold all three relevant offices, that issue will presumably fail to arise again in practice.
Re: DIS: Proto-thesis: Agoran-style Initial Ruleset
comex wrote: How does having one person hold all three offices solve or otherwise avoid the problem? What's relevant is not that the holders are the same, but that the holders are naturally inclined to fulfill eir regular publishing duties using systematic and unambiguous formats. Compare this: "I assign CFJ to ." to this: " I assign CFJ to ." to this: "CFJ 5000 Called by on Assigned to as of this message" > Periodically cycling offices is a good thing. This depends on the ability of the would-be new holder to do a good job. Why did things start falling behind back around June?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits, Voting Credits, and Marks Report
pikhq wrote: See B Nomic in emergency. Now *that's* overwhelming. Someone familiar with more nomics (BobTHJ?) might be able to get a thesis out of this. It was pointed out that Agoran culture tends toward creating single test cases with minimal knock-on results, while B culture tends toward wild experimentation (to the point that it has a standing rule for freezing and repairing the gamestate whenever enough players decide it's become broken). The FRC is an interesting hybrid. The fantasy rules are explicitly designed to be wiped whenever the players run out of steam for extending them, while the regular ordinances are largely static in practice.
Re: DIS: Preliminary Proto on Parliamentary Political Parties
Goethe wrote: I have the following in mind, before I go further, reactions? Enough interest? Proto-proto: Parliament Worth a shot.
Re: DIS: Preliminary Proto on Parliamentary Political Parties
root wrote: The downside is that it would make win by voting power more complicated, not less. Proto-generalization: Upon a correct announcement that a player has Excessive Clout, that player wins the game. A player has Excessive Clout if and only if a proposal with adoption index 1 distributed at that moment would be adopted at the end of its voting period, provided that (a) that player casts (and does not retract) as many valid votes FOR it as possible, and (b) every other eligible voter casts (and does not retract) as many valid votes AGAINST it as possible.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
Goethe wrote: Making it illegal but possible, with the only punishment being exile for the partnership (rather than punishment for members of the basis) means that I can register a partnership, vote with it, etc., and the worst that happens if I'm found out is that my partnership goes away (but the votes still count, etc.). May want to make the basis bear responsibility, too. Above and beyond dinging the front man (men) for eir violation(s) of Truthfulness? We may also want to extend "Who Am I?" to cover claims of personhood, extending forward to the moment of a judicial finding that the partnership isn't a person after all. (Incidentally, this is why I attempted to legislate a formal definition of "judicial finding", i.e. so we can use it as a timing basis without having to repeat "and the time limit for appealing it has expired" all the time.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposal 5374
Eris wrote: On 12/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 5374 D1 2Goddess Er Flexible VLOP options FOR NttPF, and on your own proposal yet.
DIS: Re: BUS: A CFJ on Retroactivity
pikhq wrote: WALRUS registers. Is this anything to do with http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/WalrusScam ?
Re: DIS: Proto-proto: Chambers
Buddha Buck wrote: If I wanted the obligations of playing this Nomic, I'd send a message saying "I register as a player in Agora under the name Blaise Pascal" to a different forum. Most obligations to act in Agora are voluntary. They fall into the following broad categories: * Duties of an officer (you can decline if nominated) * Duties of a judge (you can remain supine) * Obeying a contract (you can decline to become a party) plus the following odd cases: * Responding to claims of error (Rule 1551) * Resolving your attempts to perform dependent actions (Rule 208) * Speaker assigning Prerogatives (Rule 2019)
DIS: Re: OFF: recent CotC-tracked VC/mark awards
Zefram wrote: APPROX DATE (UTC) CASE SUBJECTAWD EVENT [snip] > 02 Dec 2007 23:39:06 1818 pikhq +1b call for judgement This didn't happen, due to 2176 (+b)'s "except as noted below" clause. > 05 Dec 2007 16:15:56 1812 BobTHJ -1B judgement overturned > 05 Dec 2007 17:47:07 1805 pikhq -1B judgement overturned Either I missed these, or they had no VCs to lose. In either case, the recent ratification has papered over the issue. > 13 Dec 2007 01:25:32 1830 comex -1b dismissive judgement I had missed this one. > 16 Dec 2007 18:30:45 1811 comex +1B judge on time This wasn't on time. I also had this: Tue 4 Dec 20:01:00 BobTHJ +1K CFJ 1812 (sentencing) (successful, CFJs 1808 - 1809)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Execute!
pikhq wrote:
On Tuesday 18 December 2007 13:38:42 comex wrote:
The AFO and I create the following contract:
{{
1. This is a contract governed by the rules of Agora. Its parties are the
AFO and comex. Its set of parties CANNOT be changed.
Invalid partnership. You're part of the basis of the AFO.
Valid partnership, but would be blocked from registration. Also, clause
6 would fail to register it anyway, per the judgement of CFJ 1819.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1836: assign pikhq
pikhq wrote: On Wednesday 19 December 2007 15:54:10 Zefram wrote: I hereby assign pikhq as judge of CFJ 1836. Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1836 == CFJ 1836 == Type: inquiry case Statement: Fookiemyartug is a player. I cannot judge this, since the H. CotC Zefram seems to think a different case, which WALRUS initiated, is not a case. Of course, it is ridiculous to think so. Apparently you changed your mind about a half-hour later. In any case, I think it's worth pointing out that Rule 2161 (ID Numbers) doesn't require entities to be assigned ID numbers in the order they were submitted.
DIS: Re: BUS: WALRUS #2
pikhq wrote: If WALRUS was not a player before this message, it submits the CFJs that it would have submitted if it were a player before this message. Since I have to track whether this series of alleged actions created any Blue Marks, I interpret matters as follows, pending clear and convincing evidence to the contrary: T1 = first time at which pikhq claimed to register WALRUS T2 = second time at which pikhq claimed to register WALRUS Based on information known to pikhq at the time, and without resorting to retroactivity, WALRUS was a person and a player at time T1. (To believe otherwise is tantamount to believing that pikhq would have deliberately attempted a questionable registration less than 10 minutes after judging that Fookiemyartug's questionable registration was unsuccessful. I am not prepared to believe that.) "the CFJs that it would have submitted if it were a player before this message" is equivalent to "the CFJs that it would have submitted if it were a player since time T1".
DIS: Re: BUS: WALRUS #2
Zefram wrote: If WALRUS is a person, and was a person at the time that you originally attempted to register it, then it was capable of submitting CFJs then. It failed only because you failed to make a suitable announcement. I agree with pikhq that, in context, WALRUS clearly referred to a partnership with then-undisclosed basis.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: WALRUS #2
I wrote: I agree with pikhq that, in context, WALRUS clearly referred to a partnership with then-undisclosed basis. Actually, I think this was comex's argument. Blah. Things get rough when the message backlog gets this large and complex. Anyway, the CotC DB is caught up now (except for a couple of my own messages, will handle those when they come back to me).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: WALRUS #2
root wrote: On Dec 19, 2007 11:18 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: T1 = first time at which pikhq claimed to register WALRUS T2 = second time at which pikhq claimed to register WALRUS Based on information known to pikhq at the time, and without resorting to retroactivity, WALRUS was a person and a player at time T1. (To believe otherwise is tantamount to believing that pikhq would have deliberately attempted a questionable registration less than 10 minutes after judging that Fookiemyartug's questionable registration was unsuccessful. I am not prepared to believe that.) If by "10 minutes after" you mean "19 hours before". Was it T2 that shortly followed the judgement of CFJ 1836?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: recent CotC-tracked VC/mark awards
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: 02 Dec 2007 23:39:06 1818 pikhq +1b call for judgement This didn't happen, due to 2176 (+b)'s "except as noted below" clause. There is no note below about not gaining blue marks. There's a note about *losing* blue marks when making excess calls for judgement, but nothing that cancels the positive award. Relevant excerpts: (emphasis added) (+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark, *except as noted below*. (-b) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue Marks. 16 Dec 2007 18:30:45 1811 comex +1B judge on time This wasn't on time. I reckon it was. Parties were notified on 4 December; parties did not close the pre-trial phase, so trial began on 11 December; time limit for judging expired on 18 December; comex judged on 16 December with two days left. Okay, fixed. I also had this: Tue 4 Dec 20:01:00 BobTHJ +1K CFJ 1812 (sentencing) (successful, CFJs 1808 - 1809) I reckon that BobTHJ did not pass sentence there because at least one of the items e listed as prescribed words was not a word. I said so at the time. CFJs 1808-1809 are irrelevant: they concern the case where nothing is explicitly specified for the set of prescribed words, which is what happened in CFJ 1783. In CFJ 1812 BobTHJ explicitly specified a set, but an invalid one. Report updated accordingly, but the Black VC gain was covered by the ratification.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: WALRUS #2
Zefram wrote: pikhq made an unsuitable announcement out of ineptness, I don't think it was deliberate. E mistakenly made a public message that relied on a term that was only defined privately. T1 was several hours after comex's Spartacus attempts. Had it occurred before those attempts, one could have reasonably argued that a previously-unknown partnership including pikhq was the only reasonable referent. "the CFJs that it would have submitted if it were a player before this message" is equivalent to "the CFJs that it would have submitted if it were a player since time T1". I don't think that's the clear interpretation, but in any case that interpretation doesn't help, because CFJ submission doesn't depend on playerhood. But if WALRUS didn't register at T1, then it didn't submit CFJs at T1 either, for the same reason (failure to clearly specify which person was submitting them).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1826-1827: assign root
comex wrote: On 12/20/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As stated above, I find that all of these points conflict with the best interests of the game, and so I think it important to deviate from the set interpretation. In contrast, a rational number interpretation results in no such problems. Based upon that, and upon Judge Goethe's prior reasoning if VVLOP is assumed to be a number, I judge CFJs 1826 and 1827 FALSE. IIRC the Assessor's report has been ratified so this has no effect on the game... right? The report in question included a note that the AFO's VVLOP was in dispute.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1836a: assign Goethe, root, Wooble
Wooble wrote: On Dec 20, 2007 7:56 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby assign the judicial panel of Goethe, root, and Wooble as judge of CFJ 1836a. With the consent of Goethe and root, I intend to have the panel judge REMAND with instructions to consider the effects of the ratification of the Registrar's report. s/Registrar/Assessor/
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: recent CotC-tracked VC/mark awards
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: (+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark, *except as noted below*. There is no provision below that says "If XXX then e does not gain the usual Blue Mark for calling for judgement.". (-b) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue Marks. In particular, this clause doesn't say anything about cancelling the blue mark gain. I interpret (+b)'s "except as noted below" as "except when a person calls for judgement within the narrower circumstances noted below".
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: recent CotC-tracked VC/mark awards
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: I interpret (+b)'s "except as noted below" as "except when a person calls for judgement within the narrower circumstances noted below". No doubt that's what was intended, but it's not what it says. I think my interpretation is a reasonable one, and as the recordkeepor of Marks, I'm sticking with it. CFJ if you like.
DIS: Re: OFF: recent CotC-tracked VC/mark awards
Zefram wrote: 20 Dec 2007 00:38:57 1839 pikhq +1b call for judgement 20 Dec 2007 00:38:57 1840 pikhq +1b call for judgement I had missed these. The other differences in our records depend on which CFJs comex called (CFJs 1833 and 1835), which CFJs WALRUS called (CFJ 1840), and how Blue Marks work for excess CFJs (CFJ 1847).
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1845: assign OscarMeyr
OscarMeyr wrote: (Murphy owes the Oracle four pieces of fluff and any hand tool.) Would you settle for three pints and a sandwich?
DIS: Re: CFJ 1847
comex wrote: On 12/20/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The argument against blue mark awards for excess CFJing rests on the interpretation that section (-b), by mentioning a circumstance that is a subset of the trigger for (+b), implicitly "notes" that (+b)'s award does not occur in that more specific situation. I contend that that is an unjustified interpretation, reading way more into (-b) than is written there. Do you have a suggestion for what else the except-as-noted-below clause could mean? Otherwise, as that bit is rather unclear, the best interests of the game are that the rule work as intended. H. Murphy, what was the intent of that clause? The intent was for the first clause in (+b) to refer to the first clause in (-b). Compare Rule 1871, which uses the following basic form: If X, then Z, except in the situation discussed in the next sentence. If X and Y, then Z'. to Rule 2176, which uses this one: If X, then Z, except as noted below. (some text unrelated to X) If X and Y, then Z'. (some more text unrelated to X)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1845: assign OscarMeyr
Zefram wrote: Benjamin Schultz wrote: b) comex referred to R2149 in eir arguments, and presented no other rule in the message as provided to this CFJ. I consider this to adequately identify the rule in question (although not as clearly as I might prefer). PASS Rule 1504 says that the announcement must "clearly specify" those three items. You've shown that all three were identified in some form in the message, but you haven't gone into whether they were clearly specified. I think it wasn't clear. When I examined the message to process it as a call for judgement, it appeared to me that the rule wasn't identified at all. The standard for clarity is not "Zefram must notice it on a first read-through". I would look for relevant precedents, but I haven't yet added search-by-argument-text to the CotC DB front end.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1847: assign comex
Zefram wrote: comex wrote: However, such a clause would not need the except bit in the first place, The except bit would avoid a conflict between the two clauses. Has there ever been much in the way of explicit legislation on the topic of rules conflicting with themselves? Informally, I think game custom on this topic is that the specific takes precedence over the general, and Y takes precedence over X in "X; however, Y".
DIS: Re: BUS: Mark spending
pikhq wrote: If I have one white, one blue, and one violet mark, You have neither a white nor a violet mark. > I spend them to increase my VVLOP by one. This would fail regardless.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1837-1838: notify BobTHJ
Goethe wrote: On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Roger Hicks wrote: To be fair, I was not certain that Agora would accept Fookiemyartug's retroactivity mumbo-jumbo, hence my reason for stating that it was a test. I did however search the ruleset first to see if there was any clear conflict with my actions. In hindsight, I didn't consider the last paragraph of R478 when drafting up the Fookiemyartug contract, and if I had honestly considered it I might have been deterred from attempting the Fookiemyartug scam. Actually, this sways me towards accepting this Unreasonable Agoran's innocence. Perhaps honestly believing that you have a *reasonable argument* which *will* stand up in court were you the judge should be enough of a standard. Often I've researched a scam and missed the critical line or word (e.g. in R478) that kills it. We don't want to discourage loophole searching completely, and this one is no different than when Zefram and I registered the Pineapple Partnership and claimed it was a person in the first place (we just got a more sympathetic judge! :P ) But when the point of controversy is immediately made clear (as with the PP), the recordkeepors who needed to track quantum gamestates (until the issue is resolved either judicially or legislatively) can get started on doing so right away. The longer this revelation is delayed, the more past messages they have to go back and re-examine, so the more difficult the task becomes. (Ratification is a standing acknowledgment that certain levels of difficulty aren't worth the effort.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Win
pikhq wrote: On Thursday 20 December 2007 22:37:29 Ian Kelly wrote: On Dec 20, 2007 9:53 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I create 100 points in my posession, as allowed by rule 2166/1. I win the game. Marks also have this loophole. Possibly VCs as well; changes to VCs are secured by R2126, but R2166 has the same power. -root So I noted to Murphy; I was hoping that he'd use that in his favor and mine. Oh, you'll get your wish soon enough. Or at least part of it. Then, I realised that points have the same loophole, so I used that, since I actually *can*. I realized that a few minutes after I got your message, but by then you'd already noticed it on your own.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Win
BobTHJ wrote: On Dec 20, 2007 11:28 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Irrelevant; the resolution need only include the valid votes on it. Inclusion of votes which were believed to be valid but aren't actually valid does not violate the requirements set by rule 208 (nor does any inclusion of invalid votes, so long as all valid ones are listed, and the result selected is correct). I intend without objection to ratify the IADoP's report posted on the 9th, however. See CFJ 1822. By now, the purported resolution of the Agoran decision to install pikhq as Scorekeepor has self-ratified.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor/Accountor] Voting Limits, VCs, Marks
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Levi 110 10 1B ... Gray LeviAFO, Big Brother, These are inconsistent. Fixed in next draft. Thu 20 Dec 07:46:26 Telescope registers What is Telescope? I found the most natural interpretation of root's message was that "Telescope" is a previously-unknown nickname for root. The ambiguity will be noted.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract: the Peer-to-Peer Partnership
root wrote: On Dec 18, 2007 5:31 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. This is a binding agreement governed by the Rules of Agora. Parties to this agreement are known as Partners. 2. The Partners shall jointly act as a partnership, in a manner governed by this agreement. The ability of each Partner to act as an individual is not thereby impaired. The partnership shall be known as the Peer-to-Peer Partnership, abbreviated as the P2PP. I'm disappointed. Nobody is interested in joining this? I'll re-read it and join later today.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Scoreboard
comex wrote: On Dec 21, 2007 9:07 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And have since destroyed it. I seriously just thought that a report without any points seemed bare. That's all there is to it. I had no idea that people would be this damned offended by it. THIS IS AGORA Then again, e previously used the same scam writ large to effectively gain 3 VCs and wipe out all other points, and no one attempted to sack em in response to that.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Scoreboard
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Then again, e previously used the same scam writ large to effectively gain 3 VCs and wipe out all other points, and no one attempted to sack em in response to that. That was a legitimate scam. Now that e's got eir win, further use of the same loophole is Not Fun. This is precisely the sort of social-contract thing that Wonko had to shame into some of the B players a couple weeks back.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Scoreboard
comex wrote: On Dec 21, 2007 9:42 PM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I solemnely swear on my offices & patent titles not to further use a scam. I note that it's a *single point*. Argument over a single point is Less Fun Than Not Fun. I think you might have a point. 88
DIS: Non-rule-backed currencies
Anyone feel like creating some? I'd play in a Catan variant if someone started one. (http://www.aworldlikemyown.com/index.php?comic=180)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Four foreign-relations proposals
comex wrote: On Dec 22, 2007 12:12 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: An announcement claiming that such an import has occurred is self-ratifying. I don't think you get around to specifying that it must be imported by announcement. True, though the Ambassador's report of cimon holdings would still self-ratify as usual (thus papering over unannounced imports).
DIS: Re: BUS: Real currency
avpx wrote: Any player may spend N pesos to cause another player to gain .75*N pesos. However, if one of the parties in the transaction is the Treasury, then N pesos may be spent by one party to cause the other party to gain N pesos. "I spend 500 of the Treasury's pesos to cause myself to gain 500 pesos."
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Prices track income
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: [Rather than limit the minting of currency, simply devalue it. This is both simpler and more realistic.] Been done before, and it was horrendous. Making currency units decay (as we now have them do) involves a lot less paperwork. When was this? Were the amounts larger? Alternatively, the decay rate could be changed from 1-of-every-5 to (AU formula, max 4)-of-every-5.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5375-5389
Goethe wrote: I CFJ on the following statement (criminal case): comex has violated Rule 2149 in his communication of voting on proposal 5375. Arguments: comex has stated specifically in the past that e does not believe that e has huge numbers of ordinary votes, nor would any reasonable person. So e has made a false representation of eir voting power with a demonstrated lack of belief in eir truthfulness on the matter. If found guilty, I request that eir repeat offenses and lack of respect for recordkeepors in light of eir own laziness in looking up records be brought into account during sentencing. Gratuituous arguments: 1) Rule 683 says that votes beyond one's voting limit are invalid, but does not explicitly say that they are not votes. Furthermore, comex did not explicitly claim that eir votes would be valid. 2) 1048576 is such a huge number in context that it could be interpreted as an implicit "most of these will be invalid" disclaimer. (A player who intentionally casts just a few more votes than eir voting limit would be more likely to slip it past the Assessor's notice; this would be a greater breach of trust than a player who at least wears eir laziness on eir sleeve, though it might be difficult in practice to demonstrate intent.)
Re: DIS: Draft decision on CFJ 1851
Zefram wrote: Benjamin Schultz wrote: H. Assessor Murphy properly reported the votes on Prop. 5373, but inadvertently omitted the specification of the outcome as required by R208 item (c). I therefore (draft)judge FALSE. That's the logic that I used. The question is whether, in the absence of explicit specification, the message *implicitly* specifies the outcome by virtue of the explicit tally of votes. IIRC we used to operate that way routinely, some months ago, under a substantially different version of the applicable rules. What's possible under the current version remains undetermined. The precedents of CFJ 1711 and CFJ 1810 point in opposite directions. The explicit tally of votes /and/ the subsequent "Text of adopted proposals:" followed by the text of the proposal in question.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5375-5389
Goethe wrote: On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: 2) 1048576 is such a huge number in context that it could be interpreted as an implicit "most of these will be invalid" disclaimer. (A player who intentionally casts just a few more votes than eir voting limit would be more likely to slip it past the Assessor's notice; this would be a greater breach of trust than a player who at least wears eir laziness on eir sleeve, though it might be difficult in practice to demonstrate intent.) I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. If this argument passes muster, I will personally lie and exaggerate about every game event and let you sort it out. -Goethe I'm not saying that it's good, merely that it could be worse. And if your lies and exaggerations were similarly obvious, then they wouldn't be /that/ troublesome. I'm also playing devil's advocate up front, in an attempt to preempt appeals on the grounds of "you didn't consider X". Rule 2149 could be extended to cover misrepresentation as well as perjury, with a test CFJ and subsequent rule annotation to hold up "knowingly casting a vote beyond one's voting limit without noting that it will be invalidated" as the canonical example.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Real currency
avpx wrote: The recordkeepor of pesos is the Treasuror. E is the only person who can manage the holdings of the Treasury, and yes, e can cause the Treasury to give pesos to someone. [snip] Murphy, I don't see why you could cause yourself to spend the Treasury's pesos. Only the Treasuror can handle this. The recordkeepor of X does not have blanket permission to cause X to act. We used to define Executors for that purpose, but nowadays it's done on a per-case basis. "The Treasuror CAN transfer pesos from the Treasury to a player by announcement" should suffice.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Real currency
avpx wrote: One of the reasons I wanted to make it rule-regulated, BTW, was so that it could possibly replace the system of VCs and marks, which, personally, I find a little messy. It might be a good idea, if we can all agree on that (which I doubt we can), to re-engineer the whole idea, and add new functionality to the peso, giving it the ability to increase one's VVLOP, and obsoleting the mark and VC. Obviously, there would be the ability to transfer VCs and marks for pesos (I was thinking that 1 mark should equal 1 peso, and 1 VC should equal 100 pesos). If you're obsoleting the other currencies, then you should just convert them in the proposal that does so, e.g. "Upon the adoption of this proposal, each player receives 1 peso for each Mark that e possesses, and 100 pesos for each VC that e possesses." Make sure you do this /before/ repealing VCs and Marks. The point of multi-colored VCs is to give an advantage to players who participate in multiple aspects of the game (primarily proposing, officeholding, and judging; rarer colors can either be spent, or saved toward a win attempt). The point of preventing transfers and making it cheaper to increase other players' VLOP is to give an advantage to players who log-roll. Not that these ideas couldn't be repealed, but it's worth giving some thought first. There's also the question of what things are worth spending currency on, besides the perennial favorite of increased voting power. Past attempts have included: * Cards / Powers. A recordkeeping nightmare, due to non-fungibility and cascade errors. * Proposal submission fees. Out of favor. On at least one occasion, they led to a notable dearth of submissions, as players mostly couldn't be bothered to work out personal budgets. (Judicial submission fees would surely be just as bad, if not worse.) * Payment of fines. Also out of favor. At one time, things like late reports were routinely pointed out and dinged; these days, anything short of "hmm, maybe it's time for the non-performing officer to be replaced" tends to be overlooked. * Zombies (basically power of attorney over long-inactive players). Really just a means to increased voting power etc. * Auctions. Obviously just a means to whatever the auctioned items (often Zombies) would be spent on. I'm just trying to add some realism to the currency system, and perhaps improve it. If you guys could help me out with it by giving suggestions, I feel like we really could make the game more lively. Explicitly tracking the holdings of a central non-player entity is IMO not worth the extra recordkeeping effort.
DIS: More on infractions
The rules used to define certain actions as either Crimes (matters of law, requiring CFJ) and Infractions (matters of fact, requiring a simple claim-of-error-style announcement, generally less serious), each with a specified penalty. Rule violations not otherwise defined as one of these things were shoehorned into something like "the Class N Crime of Violating the Rules" (N = Power of highest rule violated). I considered a proto that would revisit the Infraction system, but quickly realized that deputisation not only covers it sufficiently, but rewards (with a rare color of VC) a more useful activity (actually performing the late action, not just pointing out its lateness).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Real currency
avpx wrote: Also, I intend for pesos to be spent similar to VCs, in that one can increase his own VVLOP and others' as well. In fact, the biggest difference in terms of this is that they can be transfered. I've also some ideas for what they could be spent on. Namely, they could be used similarly to VCs, but also would be given to others' for help with tasks (for example, saying "if you help me with X, I'll give you Y pesos). This was You don't seem to like the idea of the Treasury. The reason I proposed it was that without it, who would hold the official Agoran money? That is, I wanted an official place where tax dollars would go, that is, money printed by the Treasuror. The rules already designate the Bank as a last-resort owner. Having currency have to explicitly come from somewhere would pretty much double recordkeeping, though that might be okay if income were less frequent and less complex. (One past model was basically just officer salaries plus a fixed monthly income.) Having currency have to explicitly /go to/ somewhere is a different matter, as losses and expenditures are somewhat less common. Do you have a specific model in mind for how taxes would work? (I explicitly modeled monthly decay of VCs on M.U.L.E., in which a fixed fraction of certain commodities spoil each month if left unused.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Real currency
Ed Murphy wrote:
avpx wrote:
Also, I intend for pesos to be spent similar to VCs, in that one can
increase his own VVLOP and others' as well. In fact, the biggest
difference in terms of this is that they can be transfered.
I've also some ideas for what they could be spent on. Namely, they
could be used similarly to VCs, but also would be given to others' for
help with tasks (for example, saying "if you help me with X, I'll give
you Y pesos).
This was
Oops, forgot to come back up and finish this bit. Anyway, the
original idea behind Marks was to encourage deals like "if you
help me with X, I'll give you Y Marks" for things not worth
spending whole numbers of VCs on. In practice, this seems to
have been dwarfed by bartering ("if you help me with X, I'll
help you with Z") and gifting ("here, have some help with X"
simply out of desire to see X done well).
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1845: assign OscarMeyr
OscarMeyr wrote:
b) comex referred to R2149 in eir arguments, and presented no other
rule in the message as provided to this CFJ. A statement in the CFJ
argument is not a clear designation in the CFJ statement proper of the
rule allegedly breached. FAIL
Criminal cases don't have statements, only inquiry cases do. The
required elements can be covered in statement form ("X breached/violated
Rule Y by doing Z"), and were covered that way before Zefram's
formalization of criminal cases, and the CotC DB still shoehorns them
into that form (to avoid a major code rewrite for relatively little
gain), but none of that actually makes them statements.
Rule 1504 requires the "announcement" to specify the rule allegedly
breached, and explicitly recognizes the "argument for eir guilt" (by
requiring the CotC to invite the defendant to rebut it). I fear that
the precedent of interpreting "announcement" narrowly enough to lead
to your proto-FALSE judgement would risk breaking other things as well.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Winnation
OscarMeyr wrote: We do need a patch in 2126, along the lines of replacing: VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified): With: VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color(s) is/are accurately specified and the player has the VCs): Any formal definition of "spend" belongs in the Assets rule.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Winnation
pikhq wrote: Common sense dictates that, when you spend something, you have also lost it. The rules do not say otherwise, so common sense prevails. This whole case is centered around whether or not "to spend" is sufficiently similar to "to lose" to allow the VC loss to be waived. I invite the judge (to be assigned) to take this into account. The common-sense definition of "to spend" implies that you have the money being spent. "To lose" does not carry the same implication, at least not as strongly. More to the point, "spend X to do Y" implies that, if X doesn't happen, then it can't cause Y either. This was explicitly used in my favorite card game (Doomtown): (card #1) Action: Sacrifice X. Gain Y. (card #2) Action: Sacrifice X to gain Y. (card #3) Reaction: Save X. You must be able to do each thing, i.e. if you don't have an X then you can't play any of these. On top of that, in #1, both things are effects of playing #1, so you can usefully react with #3; in #2, cause and effect is chained (sacrificing X is a cost of gaining Y), so you can't usefully react with #3.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor/Accountor] Voting Limits, VCs, Marks Report
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Sun 23 Dec 00:40:15 Zefram -3R increase root's VVLOP by 6 Sun 23 Dec 00:40:15 Zefram -3R increase Goethe's VVLOP by 6 I increased root's VVLOP by 8 and Goethe's by 4. Corrected in next draft.
DIS: Proto: Synaesthesia
Proto-Proposal: Synaesthesia (AI = 2, II = 2, please) Change the title of Rule 2126 to "Ribbons", and amend it to read: Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. Changes to Ribbon holdings are secured. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players. Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of Ribbon is a currency. The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of Ribbons. Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained: (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon. (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon. (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon, unless e violated a requirement to submit a report within a time limit. (+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan Ribbon. (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon, unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit. (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit. (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for at least three months, was never a player before that period, and names another first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White Ribbon. (+M) When, during Agora's birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon. (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains an Ultraviolet Ribbon. (+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award. (+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo Ribbon. (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded points to at least three different contestants during that month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon. If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of Renaissance. Upon the adoption of this proposal, for each color of Ribbon, each player who owned at least one VC and/or 100 Marks of that color immediately before the adoption of this proposal gains that color of Ribbon. Change the title of Rule 2176 to "Notes", and amend it to read: Notes are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted to players. Each Note has exactly one of the standard twelve pitches (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of Note is a currency. The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes. Notes are gained as follows: (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the number of eir proposals that were adopted during that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >= AI/2: (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note. (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note. (A#) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an A# Note. (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note. (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who published at least one weekly report during that week gains an E Note. (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who published at least one monthly report during that month gains an Eb Note. (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D Note. (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at least one Point during that week gains a C Note. (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note. Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows: (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a
Re: DIS: Proto: Synaesthesia
I wrote: Create a rule titled "Rests" with Power 2 and this text: Rests are a fixed currency. Ownership of Rests is restricted to players. Whenever a player possesses a Rest, the Conductor CAN destroy it and award a Note of random pitch to that player, and SHALL do so as soon as possible. Upon a correct announcement by the Conductor that no player possesses a Rest, this rule is repealed. Forgot the conversion clause: Upon the adoption of this proposal, each player gains a number of Rests equal to the number of VCs e possesses, plus 1/100 the number of Marks e possesses (rounded down to the nearest integer). May as well secure changes to Rest holdings, too.
Re: DIS: Proto: Synaesthesia
Eris wrote: On 12/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (A#) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an A# Note. This is usually written Bb, not A#. Yes, but A# fits the alphabetic correlation (inspired by Nomicron's Runes) between the pitches and the events awarding them.
Re: DIS: Proto: Synaesthesia
Eris wrote: On 12/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Eris wrote: On 12/26/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (A#) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an A# Note. This is usually written Bb, not A#. Yes, but A# fits the alphabetic correlation (inspired by Nomicron's Runes) between the pitches and the events awarding them. Why not swap C and D for F and A? :) What would C and D stand for? The current correspondences are F = For, A = Against, E = rEport, D = juDgement, C = Contest.
Re: DIS: Proto: Synaesthesia
I wrote: Proto-Proposal: Synaesthesia (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note. (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note. (A#) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an A# Note. (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note. Oh, I have a better idea - change A# to Ab. (Leaving Bb for a future award of some sort.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor/Accountor] Voting Limits, VCs, Marks Report
pikhq wrote: Tue 25 Dec 02:52:40 Murphy -1k transfer to pikhq Tue 25 Dec 02:52:40 pikhq -1k transfer from Murphy *Excuse* me? WTF? Typo. Fixed in next draft.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor/Accountor] Voting Limits, VCs, Marks Report
pikhq wrote: On Monday 24 December 2007 21:40:32 Ed Murphy wrote: Assessor's Voting Limits and Voting Credits Report Accountor's Marks Report [snip] Murphy's VLOP is disputed (CFJ 1850). Your *win* is disputed, not your VLOP. Since you announced that your EVLOP was higher than everyone else's combined already, you have already won (although this is in dispute). Everyone's VVLOP should be 4 if you won, otherwise, yours is 4, and the rest are the same. False. Rule 2126 used to reset VVLOP directly from a win, but now resets it only when the Herald awards the Patent Title of Champion.
Re: DIS: Proto: Transactions
pikhq wrote: From playing B Nomic, I've seen one potentially useful idea: transactions. I'm not sure if everyone wants them, but let's see: Proto: Transactions (power=3?) Create a rule titled "Transactions" with the following text: A transaction is a method of announcing actions, contained entirely within "BEGIN TRANSACTION" and "END TRANSACTION". A transaction may have a list of assertions and may have a list of actions. If any assertion made within the transaction is not true at the time of the transaction or, alternatively, the time specified within the assertion, then none of the actions in the transaction take effect. If any action made within the transaction fails, then none of the actions in the transaction take effect. You're missing this bit: "If it cannot be determined with finality and certainty whether or not a Transaction Succeeds, then the Transaction Fails." which avoids paradoxes due to asserting e.g. Goldbach's conjecture. I would also leave out this bit: "or, alternatively, the time specified within the assertion" and just have assertions specify time periods directly when needed, e.g. "X was the Y at some point during November 2007."
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposal 5373
root wrote: On Dec 22, 2007 8:44 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I cause the AFO to publish the following. Perhaps I'm misremembering, but didn't a recent proposal cause Murphy to become Assessor? Yes, but the AFO remains vote collector for anything distributed while it was Assessor. My vote collector duties start with 5375.
Re: DIS: Proto: Transactions
pikhq wrote: On Monday 31 December 2007 11:08:56 Ian Kelly wrote: On Dec 31, 2007 11:04 AM, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps: "An announcement may be made asserting the success or failure of a Transaction. This announcement is self-ratifying."? We'd have to remember to make the announcement for each transaction. -root Hmm. "If the transaction's success or failure can't be readily determined, it is said to fail. A successful transaction self-ratifies" The point of ratification is to avoid having to look for errors long after the fact. Hence the self-ratification of e.g. any message purporting to be an official report, which covers cases where the identity of an officer is in question. Also, overlooking the failure of an attempted registration during an Emergency Session could happen just as easily without transactions. I think manual ratification is sufficient. However, since determining which officer(s) are responsible for evaluating the success of a given transaction is non-trivial, how about: "The Database Administrator (DBA) is a low-priority office. The DBA's report includes a list of transactions since the last such report (if any), their success or failure, and the status of the relevant portion of the gamestate afterward."
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1840a: assign Goddess Eris, Levi, root
Eris wrote: On 12/31/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Dec 25, 2007 6:27 PM, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: With agreement, I would like to have the panel judge REASSIGN. I think a fresh look on this would be valuable I agree to this. I'll do it after the Holiday to avoid giving the CotC a headache. And to avoid violating Rule 2157 (by causing the panel to violate its obligation not to violate Rule 1769). Ugh, now I have a headache, and you probably do too.
Re: DIS: Proto: Transactions
root wrote: On Dec 31, 2007 12:25 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Also, overlooking the failure of an attempted registration during an Emergency Session could happen just as easily without transactions. Without the transaction, the registration in my example would have been successful; it was the unsuccessful attempt to sit up in the same transaction that made it unsuccessful. The point was that improper usage of transactions could actually amplify the effects of an unnoticed error rather than dampening them, as appears to be the intent of the proto. Ah, I mis-remembered which action Emergency Session blocks non-Senators from taking. Perhaps if the DBA's report were self-ratifying?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: VC spends
pikhq wrote: What a waste. . . VVLOPs are almost inevitably going to be reset in a bit as it stands. Only if CFJ 1850 is judged TRUE.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes
Goethe wrote: On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it. Interesting. Technically, this isn't known "within" the voting period but only at the endpoint. R2127 probably doesn't let it work. You can probably get around it by something trivial like "if quorum hasn't been met 10^-14 seconds before the end of voting period". -Goethe The determination doesn't need to be within the voting period, only the published information on which it is based.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Oyez, oyez!
pikhq wrote: On Monday 31 December 2007 15:28:22 Benjamin Schultz wrote: On Dec 31, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Josiah Worcester wrote: I intend, with 2 Senate supporters, to call an Emergency Session. The topic? Developing tensions with B Nomic. Other than B thinking we surrendered, what tensions are getting tensor or tenser? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr They are trying to restrict people who are members of more than one nomic, especially members of Agora. And whose fault is that?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes
Goethe wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: Goethe wrote: On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it. Interesting. Technically, this isn't known "within" the voting period but only at the endpoint. R2127 probably doesn't let it work. You can probably get around it by something trivial like "if quorum hasn't been met 10^-14 seconds before the end of voting period". -Goethe The determination doesn't need to be within the voting period, only the published information on which it is based. But you can't figure out if the proposal "would meet quorum" until the moment after the voting period has ended. -Goethe I don't understand how this in any way acknowledges my previous comment on the matter.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5375 - 5389
Goethe wrote: No, extending the voting period for these is the whole purpose of holidays. The "If some Rule bases" paragraph clearly doesn't apply to these. The "If some Rule requires" paragraph might, though. 2006-07: 4877-92 started after the holiday, 4874-75 ended before. Zefram's proposal history indicates that 4876 also ended well before, and that 4875-76 had botched text. 2005-06: 4847 started after, 4846 ended before. 2004-05: 4628-31 ended before, 4632-33 were potentially affected (but 4632 failed regardless and 4633 was ratified in February for other reasons), 4634-35 started after. 2003-04: 4543-44 ended before, 4545-49 started during (but the results were probably still valid), 4550-51 started after. 2002-03: 4425-26 ended before, 4427-31 started after.
DIS: More holiday foo
April 1 was a holiday through 2006. 2006: 4851-54 ended before, 4855 started before and intersected, 4856-59 started after. 2005: 4654-62 ended before, 4663-70 and 4671-73 started before and intersected, 4674-75 started after. 2004: 4557-62 ended before, 4563-65 started before and intersected, 4566-67 started after. 2003: 4470-72 ended before, 4473-74 started before and intersected, 4475-78 started after.
Re: DIS: Checking In
Iammars wrote: So far, I know that I need to affirm CFJ 1828a, Judge on CFJ 1844 and CFJ 1839, Vote on a lot of proposals, and come to a conclusion on the panel of CFJ 1831b, and I'm a little over halfway through. My question is, since we're on holiday, when is the first time I can legally post these things to the public fora? You can legally judge (including causing a panel to act) starting on January 7 at midnight UTC. You can consent to another panelist's intended action at any time. For voting, see Goethe's and my recent messages to a-d. There may be a CFJ on the topic.
DIS: Re: BUS: A CFJ of pure insanity
pikhq wrote: I Call for Judgement on the following: Dependent actions with fewer than Quorum voters have not been made since clause (a) of rule 955 was made to have its current text, except for the self-ratification of the voting results. Evidence: (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum. Evidence: Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which case quorum is N, or the decision is whether to approve a dependent action, in which case quorum is zero). Arguments: All such decisions have failed quorum. The only way such votes are legitimate is due to self-ratification. Trivially true. Quorum for dependent actions is zero, so none of them had fewer than Quorum voters.
DIS: Re: BUS: Nonpublic deregistrations
Goethe wrote: On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: Has the AFO become public? I've lost track. [Feel free to inform me if the following was somehow against the AFO contract at the time or not with consent. -Goethe] From: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org (Josiah Worcester) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:22:47 -0700 Subject: BUS: CFJ 1786 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In response to CFJ 1786: The AFO proclaims itself to be a public contract. (let's see how *that* mucks up the CFJ works. :p) It's not against the AFO contract, which allows any partner to control the partnership itself without prior consultation. The interesting question is whether the contract rules recognize this; I'll have to mull it over later (after I've had a chance to decompress from work).
DIS: Re: BUS: A location!
pikhq wrote: I create the following location: Over There 1) Elephants may move to this location. 2) Elephants may leave this location. This isn't a public contract, either.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nonpublic deregistrations
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: It's not against the AFO contract, which allows any partner to control the partnership itself without prior consultation. The interesting question is whether the contract rules recognize this; It doesn't qualify as any of the formulations of rule 2178. It includes neither the contract text nor any of the three options for the notice of intent. I think it is therefore not effective in making the AFO a public contract. I was thinking of Rule 1742's "A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such", but it was the partnership (contract + set of partners) and not merely the contract that pikhq caused to act. Rule 1742 has been amended once since the time in question, but the amendment only changed the first paragraph, which is not relevant to this issue.
DIS: Re: BUS: No silent partners
Goethe wrote: I submit the following proposal, "No silent partners", AI-2. -Goethe No Silent Partners Amend Rule 2145 by replacing: A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains at least two persons is a person. with: A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains at least two persons that have made a public post in the last 60 days is a person. Now I have this mental image of a partnership's personhood flickering on and off like an almost-burnt-out light bulb.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A location!
Eris wrote: On 1/2/08, Josiah Worcester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I CFJ on the following: There are elephants Over There. Something tells me you made all that machinery just so you could do this. :D Blame root for locations. And blame Goethe for CFJ 1629.
DIS: BF golf
What interpreter/debugger are the other contestants using? I've been using http://www.iamcal.com/misc/bf_debug/ but it's rather slow. I also found http://esoteric.voxelperfect.net/wiki/Brainfuck#Implementations but I can't be arsed to test all of them individually.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1836b: assign Murphy, root, Zefram
root wrote: On Jan 7, 2008 9:33 AM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hereby assign the judicial panel of Murphy, root, and Zefram as judge of CFJ 1836b. I intend, with the agreement of my fellow panelists, to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM in this case with the following concurring opinion, revised from the prior judge's arguments: Error rating: 20 Rule 1551/11 declares that ratification ratifies the official document, not necessarily the entire public message. An official document can be part of a public message. We note that the Assessor's report includes VLOPs, VCs, and Marks; thus, these figures are part of the Assessor's report. However, any declaration of playership is *not* a part of this. Therefore, the ratification of the Assessor's report ratified Fookiemyartug's VVLOP and its VC and Mark holding, but not playerhood. I consent.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Attn pikhq: Re: OFF: CFJ 1856: assign Goethe
Goethe wrote: The issue of cron jobs is where Judge Zefram and I differ, and I'm considering both those judgments and my own initial thoughts carefully. Since Zefram uses cron jobs, I assume e considers them legally effective. Does that mean that you don't? Or is the distinction on some more subtle point? CFJ 866 set the precedent that a person receives a message when it enters eir "normal technical domain of control". The obvious counterpart to this is that a person sends a message when it leaves eir NTDoC. I don't think it's legally significant what tools a person uses to exercise eir NTDoC (traditional MUA, copy+paste, CotC DB, cron job, etc.) - Peekee's "send e-mails labeled as coming from me" web form from CFJ 1719 would be a more significant borderline case.
Re: DIS: Power of Attorney, precedence
comex wrote: Also, we might (maybe?) need to violate the R101/478 right of participation in a PoA. A PoA that authorizes anyone to act on behalf of Player X by voting or retracting votes is certainly reasonable; but does this mean that Player X can't reasonably vote on eir own behalf, therefore the PoA breaches eir right of participation? There are three things going on here: 1) Participating in the fora 2) Accomplishing secondary effects (e.g. casting votes) of one's participation in the fora 3) Maintaining these secondary effects over a period of time (e.g. not having one's votes retracted) Rule 101 only grants the right to 1), and Player X's PoA would not violate that right.
DIS: Re: OFF: recent CotC-tracked VC awards
Zefram wrote: APPROX DATE (UTC) CASE SUBJECTAWD EVENT 04 Dec 2007 20:01:00 1812 BobTHJ +1K sentence on time 07 Jan 2008 17:39:09 1850 root +1B judge on time 07 Jan 2008 19:31:11 1846 pikhq -1B judgement overturned 07 Jan 2008 21:01:47 1839 Iammars+1B judge on time 07 Jan 2008 21:44:38 1844 Iammars+1B judge on time 07 Jan 2008 23:50:03 1857 pikhq +1B judge on time 07 Jan 2008 23:50:03 1858 pikhq +1B judge on time 08 Jan 2008 05:18:45 1859 Murphy +1B judge on time 08 Jan 2008 21:19:04 1856 Goethe +1B judge on time 09 Jan 2008 19:48:12 1849 Eris +1B judge on time 09 Jan 2008 19:48:12 1849 Eris +1K sentence on time 09 Jan 2008 23:39:59 1845 OscarMeyr +1B judge on time I lost one for 1840 being reassigned. OscarMeyr gained one for judging 1851; I assume that'll be in your next update.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1849: assign Goddess Eris
Zefram wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: I appeal this decision. There were two appealable decisions there: verdict and sentence. You must specify which one you are appealing. I already entered the appeal into the database. On the assumption that e'll initiate it with the proper specification, I'll just patch the timestamp when e does.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: recent CotC-tracked VC awards
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: I lost one for 1840 being reassigned. Oh yes, I missed that. OscarMeyr gained one for judging 1851; No e didn't; e was late. Ah, you're right, the holiday only delayed obligations to January 10 at 00:00 UTC. Draft report corrected.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits Report
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Sat 22 Dec 04:29:53 pikhq awarded Champion; each player's VVLOP set to BVLOP Claim of error: as pikhq did not win, I believe e could not be validly awarded the patent title of Champion, and therefore this VVLOP reset did not occur. Many reported VLOPs are incorrect as a result. Unclear. Recommend you call that CFJ. Murphy 1 1004 1007 Claim of error: per CFJ 1850, the loophole that allegedly permitted the +1000 VVLOP did not exist. Already corrected in next draft.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5390-5404
Zefram wrote: The report shows a reset of VVLOP due to an award of Champion, but that award came from a non-win. It looks to me like the announcement of the award was therefore INVALID, and so the VVLOP reset did not occur. I haven't formulated this properly for a CFJ yet. Rule 649, relevant excerpt: A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial question contesting the validity of the conditions. Rule 1922, relevant excerpts: The following are Patent Titles: (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who wins the game. The Herald's report includes how the player won. Suggested statement: "Goethe awarded the Patent Title of Champion to pikhq ."
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5390-5404
Zefram wrote: (Disclaimer: I'm not convinced about the accuracy of the most recently reported voting limits, so some of the following votes may well be invalid due to VLOP.) Explain please?
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: As late as possible
root wrote: I submit the following proposal, titled "As late as possible" (AI=2): == Amend Rule 1023 (Common Definitions) by replacing this text: (a) The phrase "as soon as possible" means "within seven days". with: (a) The phrase "as soon as possible" means "within seven days", and the phrase "as late as possible" means "within the seven days preceding". I like the idea, but this highlights an abuse of the language that has long been overlooked. I suggest "in a timely fashion before" and "in a timely fashion against". Also, how should this interact with the Dec08/Jan09 holiday?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: As late as possible
root wrote: On Jan 10, 2007 12:42 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I like the idea, but this highlights an abuse of the language that has long been overlooked. I suggest "in a timely fashion before" and "in a timely fashion against". I meant to write "in a timely fashion after" here. I don't want to amend half the ruleset. If we were to keep ASAP as it is and define "in a timely fashion" to mean the same thing, would that work? I suppose so. Also, how should this interact with the Dec08/Jan09 holiday? Good question. I'm tempted to just let the normal holiday rule cover it, but it should probably allow the action to be performed as early as a week before the beginning of the holiday. The normal holiday rule would allow it to be delayed until 3 days after the end of the holiday, same as now.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Fwd: Prerogative assignments for January 2008]
pikhq wrote: Object. I was awarded the patent title "Minister Without Profile" by proposal. Unless CFJ 1859 is appealed and overturned. I suspect it won't be, but I've been maintaining an unofficial Mark record just in case.
Re: DIS: Drafting CFJ 1861
Goethe wrote: Other thought: "Legal name" in an Agoran CFJ means must refer to "legal in terms of Agora" and that means "Agoran name" which is necessarily unique which is legally trivial and not the statement intent but it's what it says. Objection, Your Honor. That sentence should be taken out and shot.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Fwd: Prerogative assignments for January 2008]
root wrote: By the way, the web archive shows that I initiated CFJ 1859; it was actually comex. Zefram's case file appears to be correct, however. Fixed, thanks for the catch.
DIS: Re: BUS: Nominations
comex wrote: For the CotC election I intend to vote for and only for a candidate who will maintain a database with a web interface (preferably *the* database) emself. Currently we have, in effect, two redundant databases (one of which is a set of text files), one maintained by Murphy, one Zefram. The CotC database has a very nice interface, but it is not always in sync with the actual gamestate, which I dislike. This would change if I were CotC again, as the database would drive the carrying-out-of-duties rather than the other way round. If made CotC, I intend to: - attempt to find a way to manage the CotC database (see above) or, failing that, make my own It was relocated once before (from Eris's server to mine), but it took a good bit of head-scratching. I could give you a shell account, but then you'd be cut off whenever my server's net connection decided to flake out for a while. (The cfj.qoid.us mirror is a good workaround for that problem.) - send messages to official in the same verbose format as Zefram The DB was designed to generate copy+paste'able messages in a similar format (follow the "Format for e-mail" link on any case page). I'd have to see how much updating it would require (some things are just terminology; others are somewhat conceptually different, e.g. the mechanism for calling appeals, but could be dealt with by one who knows how; others are completely outside the DB's knowledge, e.g. pre-trial phases, and would likely require manual maintenance of an external file - not that I haven't been doing that in spades anyway with the Assessor and Accountor records). - support automated CFJ submission to the extent that is feasible and that is acceptable to Agora Should require username+password to block spambots.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nominations
pikhq wrote: On Friday 11 January 2008 04:27:57 Zefram wrote: I nominate myself for Clerk of the Courts. I consent to and support my own nomination. Why did you self-nominate? You'd just keep your CotC job, since he's been objected to enough already. ;) No, I hadn't been. At the time, there were 2 supporters (me, implicitly, and Goethe) and 1 objector (you); I could have installed myself by announcement at any time between 4 and 14 days after my announcement of intent, provided that S/(S+O) > 1/2 at the moment I did so. Now that Zefram has consented to eir self-nomination, R2154's IADoP-managed election procedure will kick in at the 4-day mark, so supporting or objection to any intent-to-install-by-announcement has become irrelevant.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nominations
comex wrote: - I will try to get stuff from Zefram's archives into the database. (I don't know how flexible the database structure is, but...) CFJ 818*, for example, makes excellent reading, but it's too old to even be in the current database's Stare Decisis. I have offline files of CFJs 1-61, most of 667-1072, and everything from 1077 onward, and have been slowly back-populating the most recent ones into the database. I'll do 818 now as a special case (and am open to further requests, e.g. 707 and 866 were previously requested in this fashion).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nominations
comex wrote: It was relocated once before (from Eris's server to mine), but it took a good bit of head-scratching. I could give you a shell account, but then you'd be cut off whenever my server's net connection decided to flake out for a while. (The cfj.qoid.us mirror is a good workaround for that problem.) What sort of database is it? PostgreSQL back-end, typical judicial activity updated via Python scripts and $EDITOR, other things (e.g. registrations) handled via manual PGSQL commands. What I'm wondering is whether the advantage of having CFJs assigned immediately (which speeds up the process and works if the CotC is unavailable) outweighs the hassle of having to go to a webform instead of just sending a reply. Has this been done before? Assigning CFJs is more complicated than recording their submission.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nominations
comex wrote: This is a non-issue as far as I can see. If a player submits a CFJ through a web interface, it doesn't actually exist in the gamestate until the submission is posted on a public forum. So the interface would in any case email business on eir behalf (CFJ 1719). That's just to submit the CFJ; once assigned, you'd see another message on official. If the server hosting it suddenly exploded, the CotC presumably can still manage CFJs emself. I might be able to rig my server to send emails through my account (given a prior agreement that Agora would treat them as sent by the actual submitter), but yeah, (1) automating assignment is too difficult and (2) it'd be kind of pointless without that.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nominations
comex wrote: On Jan 11, 2008 7:13 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why would automatic assignment be too difficult? Posture and activity changes can easily be tracked manually, and if an occasional invalid judge were to be assigned due to the manual changes not being updated the judge assignment would still stand, no? If a player became inactive or deregistered, e would be unqualified and not just poorly qualified. Any assignment to em would be invalid and if e deregistered, e probably wouldn't judge it anyway. A player becoming supine would also be a problem. And a player sitting up could miss eir turn.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nominations
Iammars wrote: On Jan 11, 2008 7:56 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: I, for one, would rather wait for the CotC to do it right. The judicial system is not the place to experiment with automatic message generation. This begs the question: Where is the right place? Something that can afford to be broken for a while without significantly affecting anything else. (We may not have any good candidates, in which case we may want to adopt one for testing purposes.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nominations
comex wrote: If such a thing were implemented, any confusion would only occur if someone was delibrately trying to confuse it, i.e. "I de-register". This probably wouldn't happen and if so, I'm sure the CotC would be EXCUSED :) Or all messages could be disclaimered with "if it is possible and legal to do so". I, for one, would rather wait for the CotC to do it right. The judicial system is not the place to experiment with automatic message generation.
