Re: DIS: Proto: Revision Limits

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 00:50 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: >    If the person who published the report made any errors, e SHALL >    publish a revision that fixes those errors, making sure to indicate >    that it is a revision. A person may create any number of revisions to >    a report. Attempts to

DIS: Proto: Revision Limits

I already know this is gonna be very unpopular, especially among Agorans who hold positions, but I think it's necessary. I've seen lots of reports recently that have been CoE'd, and I think it's time to set some limits. {{{ Title: "Revision Limits" Author: Trigon Co-Authors: AI: 1 Amend Rule

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

> On Oct 11, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> As is my custom, I pledge as follows: >>> >>> * If there is exactly one winning bid, and if that bid includes a blurb >>> describing the region of Dawsbergen, of at least 70 words, >>> I

DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

On Oct 12, 2017, at 5:57 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >The player who placed the winning bid CAN, and SHALL in a timely >fashion, cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to the winner >by announcement, >by paying Agora the amount of the bid, or >by causing the winning Organiza

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

oh man I missed the October auction gg kill me lol On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > It helps converge game states in simple ways. Let's say you try to do X. > Someone CFJs that you said it wrong for a dumb technical reaso

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

It helps converge game states in simple ways. Let's say you try to do X. Someone CFJs that you said it wrong for a dumb technical reason. So you want to make sure X gets done in the mean time. If you just say "I do X" with whatever technical thing corrected, then depending on the CFJ outco

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 21:50 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I oppose (not that it does anything). I rather like my judgement. BTW, as > I understand it, SHALL but CANNOT has generally held to be impossible, > except where the situation is somehow the fault of the play

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:44 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 18:32 Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> After 3557 I suggested that, whatever the rules imply now, we should put >> this in directly and legislatively (and an informal poll suggested that >> the preference was *for* the implicatio

Re: DIS: Spending shinies

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Where does it say that a transfer recipient defaults to agora? By > my reading that would fail for being ambiguous. I mean that spending might be a particular kind of transferring that defaults to Agora. It would probably make more sense

Re: DIS: Spending shinies

Where does it say that a transfer recipient defaults to agora? By my reading that would fail for being ambiguous. Also, my recent frustrations is several folks (not just you) have been working on Big Ideas so we've deferred making minor fixes like that, But the Big Ideas have been delayed and w

Re: DIS: Spending shinies

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:23 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined? > > No, we had a discussion of that last month, when I brought it > up. > > There was a pseudo-conclusion that spent couldn't be a > syno

Re: DIS: Spending shinies

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined? No, we had a discussion of that last month, when I brought it up. There was a pseudo-conclusion that spent couldn't be a synonym for paid, because paid requires specifying the recipient. So the

DIS: Spending shinies

Is it just me, or is spending a shiny currently undefined?

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

My bad. Apparently this is actually possible as of very recently, so recently in fact that the rulekeepor has not updated the online ruleset yet. That makes this completely redundant. I retract the proposal "Pledge Withdrawal." On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:28 PM, ATMunn . wrote: > Earlier I posted

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

Oh, okay, I see. Well, there goes my second attempt at taking advantage of the cheap pend price. :P On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:41 PM, VJ Rada wrote: > This is actually a version of the rules so new our H. Rulekeepor > hasn't written it yet :) > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:39 AM, ATMunn . > wrot

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

This is actually a version of the rules so new our H. Rulekeepor hasn't written it yet :) On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:39 AM, ATMunn . wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 20:31 Alex Smith wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:28 -0400, ATMun

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

Yeah, the pledge rule as written in the ruleset does not, but the proposal that made pledges an asset ("make your home shine) also made pledges withdrawable, and it passed a few days ago On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 20:31 Alex Smith wrote: >> >> O

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 20:31 Alex Smith wrote: > >> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:28 -0400, ATMunn . wrote: >> > Amend rule 2450 by adding the following text at the end: >> > { >> > If, at any time, a player owns a pledge which is impossible for e

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 20:31 Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:28 -0400, ATMunn . wrote: > > Amend rule 2450 by adding the following text at the end: > > { > > If, at any time, a player owns a pledge which is impossible for em to > > break, e CAN withdraw that pledge without objection

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pledge Withdrawal

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:28 -0400, ATMunn . wrote: > Amend rule 2450 by adding the following text at the end: > { > If, at any time, a player owns a pledge which is impossible for em to > break, e CAN withdraw that pledge without objection and with 24 hours > notice. > } We used to allow the Notar

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

I had no idea that website existed. That would have been useful as a new player (although by now I know pretty much all of them) On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Alex Smith > wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-10

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

After 3557 I suggested that, whatever the rules imply now, we should put this in directly and legislatively (and an informal poll suggested that the preference was *for* the implication). A couple MMI changes have been proposed by others but I think they all had a couple bugs and got voted down,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

Yeah G. has already made that argument vociferously, and several times. Right now as the CFJs stand, it's good law and recently re-affirmed (also with regards to MAY). But you're quite right that the precedential underpinnings are shaky. On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I'm

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

I'm digging into the precedent of the SHALL implies CAN by announcement (e.g. CFJ 3557), and I think it arose by taking various judgments out of place. I'll post a more detailed analysis later. On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 18:22 Josh T wrote: > Good job on noticing the extra comma there. > > 天火狐 > > O

DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

Good job on noticing the extra comma there. 天火狐 On 12 October 2017 at 17:57, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > [Since we're on the subject of bad grammar, I might as well take care of > this - > ain't getting any fresher.] > > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > This auction ended at Tue, 1

DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] October Estate Auction

Yes, I think you're absolutely right on this. The "VJ Rada called 3 elections" CFJ judged a couple of months ago by omd also interpreted very similar text in the same way that G. here does. On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > [Since we're on the subject of bad grammar, I mig

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

I agree that Agora should be language-agnostic for the most part. On 10/12/2017 09:47 AM, Josh T wrote: I object to this for hopefully obvious reasons, given my history with playing with language. 天火狐 On 12 October 2017 at 09:34, ATMunn . > wrote: Title:

DIS: Re: BUS: Creating and Revoking Agencies

Note that this intent fails as it doesn't specify the resulting powers. On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 16:10 VJ Rada wrote: > OscarMeyr that amendment doesn't work, it's not a power. You COULD > create the power to make pledges. > > I intend to amend ORP to remove the text "to Alexis" if it exists. > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Resolving Elections (Tailor FAILED QUORUM, Assessor PSS)

Sorry I did a rather thorough search of the archives at that time, don't know how I missed it. On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > COE, on 5 oct I voted present for tailor and (pss, g) for assessor. -G. > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > >> I resolve the Agoran decis

DIS: Re: BUS: Creating and Revoking Agencies

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 19:50 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I intend, with 24 hours Notice, to amend ORP by appending "1. Resign from > any office. 2. Object to, or support, or withdraw any objection to or > support for, any notice of intent. 3. Cast or withdraw any vote on any > Agoran decision. 4. Tr

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

A SHALL NOT on registering, under any circumstances, is probably a bad idea. I'd tend to just go with the official language thing instead. -Aris On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > How about this: “Public messages must be communicated using a form of > communication that ca

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

How about this: “Public messages must be communicated using a form of communication that can be interpreted by all players without unreasonable effort. People SHALL NOT register if they are not capable in communicating in such a fashion, or understanding communications understood by other player

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:04 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: > >> If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something > >> like “understandable to an average English speaker.” This le

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

This is yet another example of the I say I do therefore I do fallacy that has plagued Agora for a long time, unless I mistake myself. On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 14:26 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Alex Smith > wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-1

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:04 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something >> like “understandable to an average English speaker.” This lets us >> avoid grammar-nazi arguments about if somet

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

Well, the interesting thing to me is that we don't codify (in the Rules) that English is our official language. We used to say that a person was someone who was generally "capable of communicating by email in English (including via a translation service)", but that's as close as we got. In fact

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:04 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: > If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something > like “understandable to an average English speaker.” This lets us > avoid grammar-nazi arguments about if something counts as > English(TM). (grammar issues, funner, dej

Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

If we do this all (doesn’t seem terribly necessary) I’d say something like “understandable to an average English speaker.” This lets us avoid grammar-nazi arguments about if something counts as English(TM). (grammar issues, funner, deja vu) Gaelan > On Oct 12, 2017, at 10:14 AM, Alex Smith wr

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

I miss the PNP. Also the President, that was fun. On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 13:49 Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:41 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > > You appear to be arguing for the e vs it distinction to be used to > > distinguish between persons, as defined by R869 and everything els

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:41 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > You appear to be arguing for the e vs it distinction to be used to > distinguish between persons, as defined by R869 and everything else. By > this definition, Agora, not being capable of ideation on its own, does not > count as a person. T

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

You appear to be arguing for the e vs it distinction to be used to distinguish between persons, as defined by R869 and everything else. By this definition, Agora, not being capable of ideation on its own, does not count as a person. On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On T

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

Good points. On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:21 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > > This proto is definitely technically superior to the first one, but it > has > > contradictions. One option is to replace "personal" with "third person", > > since "pers

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:21 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > > This proto is definitely technically superior to the first one, but it has > > contradictions. One option is to replace "personal" with "third person", > > since "personal pronoun" refers to all t

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > A power-1 rule can only amend rules with power at most 1. > > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 12:57 ATMunn . wrote: > >> New proto: >> >> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short] >> Author: ATMunn >> Co-Author(s): Alexis >> AI: 1 >> >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidered judgment on CFJ 3569

I'll publish a revised version taking into account ais523's arguments (which thankfully do not affect the conclusion) and correcting typographical errors. On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 13:32 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > I submit the following thesis, entitled "On

DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidered judgment on CFJ 3569

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I submit the following thesis, entitled "On Conditional Votes and Trust > Tokens": This was a very nice judgement. Thank you for taking the time. In terms of "coordinating peer-review" for the thesis, I'll put this copy up for thesis voting after 4 da

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

If my memory serves, "e" was used to refer to persons, but not to non-person entities that may have person-like characteristics. The Lost and Found Department, for instance, was never referred to with "e" in my memory. On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 13:27 Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:21

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:21 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > This proto is definitely technically superior to the first one, but it has > contradictions. One option is to replace "personal" with "third person", > since "personal pronoun" refers to all three persons of pronoun. I just realised we have

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

This proto is definitely technically superior to the first one, but it has contradictions. One option is to replace "personal" with "third person", since "personal pronoun" refers to all three persons of pronoun. On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:57 AM, ATMunn . wrote: > New proto: > > Title: "Clearing

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 07:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather > (by Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in > English". I'd argue that an English-like language which uses Spivak pronouns (and a few other changes) is in

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

A power-1 rule can only amend rules with power at most 1. On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 12:57 ATMunn . wrote: > New proto: > > Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short] > Author: ATMunn > Co-Author(s): Alexis > AI: 1 > > Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora" > { > A languag

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

New proto: Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short] Author: ATMunn Co-Author(s): Alexis AI: 1 Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora" { A language is a set of symbols, sounds, and rules used to communicate information. The official language of Agora that SHOULD, under

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Josh T wrote: > I object to this for hopefully obvious reasons, given my history with > playing with language. > > 天火狐 > > On 12 October 2017 at 09:34, ATMunn . wrote: > >> Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short] >> Author: ATMunn >> AI: 1 >> >> C

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 at 10:40 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather (by > Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in English". > I had been intending to bring back the old WO rule cleanup mechanism to fix minor typos and errors

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

Don't mind codifying spivak, but it's not it's own language rather (by Wikipedia definition) "a set of gender-neutral pronouns in English". On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote: > Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short] > Author: ATMunn > AI: 1 > > Create a power-1 rule titled "

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

I object to this for hopefully obvious reasons, given my history with playing with language. 天火狐 On 12 October 2017 at 09:34, ATMunn . wrote: > Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short] > Author: ATMunn > AI: 1 > > Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora" > { > A langu

DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] Clearing up language confusion for new players

Title: "Clearing up Language Confusion" [CuLC in short] Author: ATMunn AI: 1 Create a power-1 rule titled "The Language of Agora" { A language is a set of symbols, sounds and rules used to communicate information. The official language that should be used in all Agoran fora is Spivak. The Spivak