Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:18 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 20:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Would it make o's just-now forgery (Jan 1 2017) instantly self-ratify? > > > (and thus self-ratify not just the date but any contents that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Trouble with agencies

I ratify this: > {{There is an agency with the following text. > "G: Overlord of Dunce (GOD) > Head: Quazie > Agents: G. > Powers: 1 - The ability to give notice to establish Agencies with > Quazie as the Director or Head and G. as the only agent > 2 - The ability to establish Agencies with

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

"Any protest from anyone about proposing 1 weekly report that contains full agency texts? It's not all that long..." As the superintendant, nope. Go for it. On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so that the HLR works better. > On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> I intend with 24 Hours notice to destroy the agency MKD. Nobody's

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I intend with 24 Hours notice to destroy the agency MKD. Nobody's ever > used it, and it doesn't seem worth keeping around. I think the Agency reports are out of whack. A weekly list of names carries very little useful information, and there's so long

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

I made Gaelan give them to you with an agency of his. On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Rubin Stacy wrote: > Where'd I get twenty shinies? > > -- > Trigon > -- > > On Oct 3, 2017 7:35 PM, "Owen Jacobson" wrote: >> >> 864 Shinies Player

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

Also don't forget your empty agronomist report this week! On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:27 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > how do i have so many? I had 63 last week, spent a lot, and don't > remember a big payday. > > I destroy my stamp, getting 27 shinies. I transfer 13 shinies to the >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

I’d argue that Apple Mail does the right thing here. It realizes that Date is easily forgeable, and instead displays what it knows is accurate. I *can* view the date by going to View > Message > Raw Source. Gaelan > On Oct 3, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

Interestingly, my mail client (Apple Mail) displays this message as being from today—I think it’s using the Received header. I’d proprose a blanket rule saying something like “people SHALL NOT use technical means to mislead others about the properties of a message, including but not limited to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 20:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Would it make o's just-now forgery (Jan 1 2017) instantly self-ratify? > > (and thus self-ratify not just the date but any contents that are self- > > ratifying?) > > The message still doesn't

DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

Where'd I get twenty shinies? -- Trigon -- On Oct 3, 2017 7:35 PM, "Owen Jacobson" wrote: > > 864 Shinies Player > 51 ShiniesATMunn > 70 ShiniesAlexis > 12 ShiniesAris > 65 ShiniesCuddleBeam >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 20:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Would it make o's just-now forgery (Jan 1 2017) instantly self-ratify? > (and thus self-ratify not just the date but any contents that are self- > ratifying?) The message still doesn't self-ratify until a week after the other players

Re: DIS: Congratulations everyone!

It's *fairly* safe to say I think that in terms of # of messages, it's never been higher in my memory (back to 2002). [Though the MB is misleading, this year has marked a pronounced and sudden shift towards people who top-post and don't trim the quoted parts (e.g. one-line replies to whole

Re: DIS: Congratulations everyone!

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: Agora-Discussion traffic last month was 6 MB, significantly more than our previous record of 2 MB from May. In addition to this, Agora-Business traffic was a record setting 2 MB. Although these records only go back to July 2013 (when archive gzip'ing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > > > Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to > > > display anomalous Date: headers. > > > > Could lead to some interesting time paradoxes, too (given that changing > > the gamestate

DIS: Congratulations everyone!

Agora-Discussion traffic last month was 6 MB, significantly more than our previous record of 2 MB from May. In addition to this, Agora-Business traffic was a record setting 2 MB. Although these records only go back to July 2013 (when archive gzip'ing ended), they are an impressive sign that Agora

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:19 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> It’s not the format that’s the problem. Many clients display the date a >> message was received, not the Date: of the message itself, when showing >> dates in message

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: It’s not the format that’s the problem. Many clients display the date a message was received, not the Date: of the message itself, when showing dates in message lists. Mine (Mail.app, macOS Sierra, up-to-date on patches) does this. *Sigh* well, at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:23 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> >> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>> [I think I did the CoE part of this message already, but I'm being very >>> clear here to be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to display anomalous Date: headers. Could lead to some interesting time paradoxes, too (given that changing the gamestate as though the message were sent at some other time than the time the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:08 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 22:55 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen >>> wrote: >>> "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self- >>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to display anomalous Date: headers. For example, this message's Date: header claims that it was sent on Jan 1st, 2017. I thought you meant "anomalous" as in weird format, yours looks

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:07 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >>> >>> "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self-ratifying >>> claim

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 22:55 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen > > wrote: > > "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self- > > ratifying claim that the message was sent at the indicated time.” > > Far too

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self-ratifying claim that the message was sent at the indicated time.” Far too powerful, given how difficult it can

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self-ratifying claim that the message was sent at the indicated time.” On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:55 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: Far too powerful,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> So the TDOC precedent was set long ago in a very different ruleset. I've >> always >> been of the opinion that we should go with the Date: header, and the >> knowledge >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: So the TDOC precedent was set long ago in a very different ruleset. I've always been of the opinion that we should go with the Date: header, and the knowledge that it can be forged for tiny advantage be dealt with by some kind of crime (e.g. "if the

Re: DIS: Another UTF-8 question (for o or someone else)

> On Oct 1, 2017, at 10:26 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > Finding out my sending charset was surprisingly awkward because it's only > given as a multipart header (for some reason it uses multipart format even > though there is only one part), not a header of the email

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> The “technical domain” precedent has never, to my knowledge, been overturned. >> The tooling I’m working on right now treats the Date: header as >> authoritative by

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > The “technical domain” precedent has never, to my knowledge, been overturned. > The tooling I’m working on right now treats the Date: header as authoritative > by > default, on the presumption that (a) we can amend a recorded message that’s > got >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:23 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> [I think I did the CoE part of this message already, but I'm being very >> clear here to be sure]. > > You cut that _very_ close to a week. And because of an erroneous clock

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3568 assigned to o

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:18 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 21:16 Owen Jacobson > wrote: > I find this CFJ to be TRUE, following the caller’s arguments exactly. The > alleged claim of error was > > > CoE this is

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Annals of Fate

No worries I wouldn't have done it for a "real"-length report. :) On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > [In while it's still easy] > > > >

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Annals of Fate

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > [In while it's still easy] > > - > Herald's Weekly Report > > Everyone has 0 Karma > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > [I think I did the CoE part of this message already, but I'm being very > > clear here to be sure]. > > You cut that _very_ close to a week. And because of an erroneous clock setting > in Nichdel's

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 19:00 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I CFJ on the following by paying a shiny: > >     If grok had not deregistered, e would have issued trust tokens to > >     both Aris and G. by eir vote on

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3568 assigned to o

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 21:23 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > I believe you got it backwards and meant to judge it FALSE. > > > > I also believe that this was an INEFFECTIVE assignment, because for some > reason our > > CFJ system for

Re: DIS: voting strength question

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: However, what keeps non-players from voting is in R683: An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a notice satisfying the following conditions: [...] 2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3568 assigned to o

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I believe you got it backwards and meant to judge it FALSE. > > I also believe that this was an INEFFECTIVE assignment, because for some > reason our > CFJ system for some reason platonically disallows invalid judgments. Can we > fix that > please?

DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: [I think I did the CoE part of this message already, but I'm being very clear here to be sure]. You cut that _very_ close to a week. And because of an erroneous clock setting in Nichdel's computer, quite likely not on the side you intended. Mail

Re: BUS: CFJ 361 judged TRUE (Was: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3561 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus)

> On Oct 2, 2017, at 6:42 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > TTttPF > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > >> On Oct 2, 2017, at 6:41 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Final Metareport

> On Oct 1, 2017, at 10:26 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 at 22:13 VJ Rada > wrote: > I apologize profusely. If anyone wants ADoP, it's all yours. I was > considering resigning and calling an election, but

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3568 assigned to o

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 21:16 Owen Jacobson wrote: > I find this CFJ to be TRUE, following the caller’s arguments exactly. The > alleged claim of error was > > > CoE this is bugging me. > > Sent in response to an attempt to collect a report award, and without any > trivially

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 19:00 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I CFJ on the following by paying a shiny: > > If grok had not deregistered, e would have issued trust tokens to > > both Aris and G. by eir vote on Proposal 7899. > > > This is CFJ 3569 - I assign it to

Re: DIS: voting strength question

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 16:32 Kerim Aydin wrote: > It looks like *all* entities, anywhere, ever, have a voting strength > of 1 on decisions to adopt proposals, as per here in R2422: > > If not otherwise specified, the voting strength of > an entity

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Repealing an ineffectual rule

Well, anyway, good thing is to know that the power system works for protecting votes - proposal would have failed if it had the AI to affect voting strength :). On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I support. Besides the phrasing issues, I agree that voting strength was too > harsh. I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Repealing an ineffectual rule

nttpf On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I support. Besides the phrasing issues, I agree that voting strength was too > harsh. I wrote this proposal as a silly thing as I was thinking about the > potential implications of CB’s proposal. Voting strength was

DIS: Re: BUS: Repealing an ineffectual rule

I support. Besides the phrasing issues, I agree that voting strength was too harsh. I wrote this proposal as a silly thing as I was thinking about the potential implications of CB’s proposal. Voting strength was the first debuff I could think of, as well as a very simple one to implement. This

DIS: voting strength question

It looks like *all* entities, anywhere, ever, have a voting strength of 1 on decisions to adopt proposals, as per here in R2422: If not otherwise specified, the voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision is 1. However, what keeps non-players from voting is in