On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 9:28 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business
<agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/23/23 12:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 8:24 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business
> > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >> On 6/23/23 11:07, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 2:49 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> >>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I believe I won the rice game on 12 June - not sure though. Here are
> >>>> my notes, wouldn't be at all surprised if I missed something critical.
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------
> >>>> 5-22 harvested plan
> >>>> Created: snail
> >>>> Up: {4st, beokirby, blob, inalienableWright, nix, snail, Yachay},
> >>>> Down: {Aspen, ais523, cuddlybanana, G., Janet, juan, Murphy}
> >>>> Signatures: snail, Yachay, 4st, beokirby
> >>>>
> >>>> After 5-22 harvest
> >>>> 4st 1
> >>>> beokirby 1
> >>>> blob 1
> >>>> iWright* 1
> >>>> nix 1
> >>>> snail 1
> >>>> Yachay 1
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------
> >>>> 5-29 harvested plan
> >>>> Created: 2023-05-22 by juan
> >>>> Up: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> >>>> Down: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
> >>>> Signatures: ais523, juan, G., Janet
> >>>>
> >>>> After 5-29 harvest
> >>>> Aspen 1
> >>>> G. 1
> >>>> Janet 1
> >>>> Murphy 1
> >>>> ais523 1
> >>>> cuddlybanana 1
> >>>> Juan 1
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------
> >>>> Note: ais523 had 1 rice at the time of Proposal 8989's alleged adoption
> >>>> (just before the 6-05 plans were harvested). So that proposal was
> >>>> resolved incorrectly and the victory condition remains 2 rice.
> >>>>
> >>>> Proposal 8988 was adopted, but I'm assuming that plans and signatures
> >>>> were continuous as the definitions didn't change over-much, and the
> >>>> winning plan below was signed in a way (by announcement/announced
> >>>> consent) that works under both rule versions. This, of course, is
> >>>> arguable.
> >>>> ---------------------------
> >>>> 6-05 harvested plan
> >>>> Created: 2023-06-04 by 4st
> >>>> Up: {G.}
> >>>> Down: {All active players with 1 or more rice at the time of creation,
> >>>> except 4st}
> >>>> Signatures: G., 4st
> >>>> (note: G is on both up and down lists)
> >>>>
> >>>> After 6-05 harvest
> >>>> G. 1
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------
> >>>> 6-12 harvested plan
> >>>> Created: 2023-06-05 by Beokirby
> >>>> Up: {Beokirby, Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> >>>> Down: {}
> >>>> Signatures: beokirby, juan
> >>>>
> >>>> After 6-12 harvest
> >>>> Beokirby 1
> >>>> Aspen 1
> >>>> G. 2
> >>>> Janet 1
> >>>> Murphy 1
> >>>> ais523 1
> >>>> cuddlybanana 1
> >>>> juan 1
> >>>> ---------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> I did not track after this, due to not knowing if things were reset on
> >>>> 6-12
> >>>>
> >>> "I, THEREFORE, DO ALL THE THINGS!"
> >>>
> >>> Based on my last Ricemastor report, and the resolutions of the CFJs, I
> >>> believe this to be correct as well.
> >>> Given that this is in fact correct, I, as Herald, I award G. the patent
> >>> title Champion (again), for "Rice".
> >>> Given that this is in fact correct, and as it has been over a week since e
> >>> won, it is overdue, and thus,
> >>> I deputise as Prime Minister to appoint G to the office of Speaker.
> >>>
> >>> (I would now like to execute a dive order on G., however, there is
> >>> currently no Referee to track it, and as to keep things smooth, I
> >>> therefore
> >>> do not do so.)
> >>>
> >> Oops, sorry.
> >>
> >> The deputisation fails. The time limit has not been expired for 14 days,
> >> and no intent was announced.
> >>
> >> The Champion award succeeds or fails based on whether G. actually won.
> >>
> >> I intend (under the meaning in R2160) to deputize for Prime Minister for
> >> the purpose of appointing G. to Speaker.
> >>
> >> I CFJ: "On or about 2023-06-12, G. won the game."
> >>
> >> Evidence:
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >> ID: 8988
> >> Title: Rice rewrite
> >> Adoption index: 1.0
> >> Author: Janet
> >> Co-authors: snail
> >>
> >>
> >> Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" to read, in whole:
> >> {
> >> The Ricemastor is an office.
> >>
> >> Rice is a fixed asset tracked by the Ricemastor, with ownership wholly
> >> restricted to players. If a rice would otherwise be in abeyance or is
> >> owned by the Lost and Found Department, it is destroyed.
> >>
> >> An active player CAN create a rice plan by announcement once per week,
> >> specifying two sets of players (the rice up set and the rice down set).
> >> When a rice plan is harvested, each active player in the rice up set
> >> gains one rice, then one rice is revoked from each player in the rice
> >> down set (if e has any). The Ricemastor's weekly report includes a list
> >> of rice plans. The creator of a rice plan CAN by announcement destroy
> >> it, thereby causing it to cease to be a rice plan.
> >>
> >> An active player CAN by announcement sign a specified rice plan. An
> >> active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it or if a
> >> contract e is party to clearly and unambiguously states that eir
> >> signature is on it. The Ricemastor's weekly report includes, for each
> >> rice plan, a list of players with signatures on it.
> >>
> >> A harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When a harvest occurs,
> >> the following happen in order:
> >> * The rice plan with the most signatures (breaking ties in favor of the
> >> earliest created), if any, is harvested.
> >> * All rice plans are destroyed.
> >>
> >> Immediately after a harvest, if a single active player has at least 2
> >> rice and more rice than any other player, e wins the game, then all rice
> >> and rice plans are destroyed. If the game has been won in this manner
> >> three times, this rule immediately repeals itself.
> >> }
> >>
> >> [
> >> Changes:
> >> - Generally cleaned up wording
> >> - Handle rice at Lost and Found
> >> - Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case
> >> where a person is in both the up and down sets)
> >> - Use "CAN" for enabling
> >> - Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than
> >> "consent"
> >> - Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures
> >> - Removed Fancy Caps
> >> ]
> >>
> >> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Rule 2682/0 (Power=1)
> >> The Rice Game
> >>
> >> The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice
> >> Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by
> >> players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement,
> >> if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have
> >> Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice
> >> Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is
> >> consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e
> >> has created by announcement.
> >>
> >> A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs:
> >> - If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that
> >> Rice Plan is Harvested.
> >> - If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures,
> >> the one that was created earliest is Harvested.
> >> - In all other cases, nothing happens.
> >> And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends.
> >>
> >> Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having
> >> no repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these
> >> lists is its Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list.
> >> When a Rice Plan is Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice
> >> Up list, if that player is active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each
> >> player listed in its Rice Down list, if e has at least 1 Rice then
> >> e lose 1 Rice.
> >>
> >> If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2
> >> Rice and more Rice than any other player, then that player wins
> >> the game, and all Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in
> >> this manner three times, this rule repeals itself.
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Rule 2682/1 (Power=1)
> >> The Rice Game
> >>
> >> The Ricemastor is an office.
> >>
> >> Rice is a fixed asset tracked by the Ricemastor, with ownership
> >> wholly restricted to players. If a rice would otherwise be in
> >> abeyance or is owned by the Lost and Found Department, it is
> >> destroyed.
> >>
> >> An active player CAN create a rice plan by announcement once per
> >> week, specifying two sets of players (the rice up set and the rice
> >> down set). When a rice plan is harvested, each active player in
> >> the rice up set gains one rice, then one rice is revoked from each
> >> player in the rice down set (if e has any). The Ricemastor's
> >> weekly report includes a list of rice plans. The creator of a rice
> >> plan CAN by announcement destroy it, thereby causing it to cease
> >> to be a rice plan.
> >>
> >> An active player CAN by announcement sign a specified rice plan.
> >> An active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it
> >> or if a contract e is party to clearly and unambiguously states
> >> that eir signature is on it. The Ricemastor's weekly report
> >> includes, for each rice plan, a list of players with signatures on
> >> it.
> >>
> >> A harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When a harvest
> >> occurs, the following happen in order:
> >> * The rice plan with the most signatures (breaking ties in favor
> >> of the earliest created), if any, is harvested.
> >> * All rice plans are destroyed.
> >>
> >> Immediately after a harvest, if a single active player has at
> >> least 2 rice and more rice than any other player, e wins the game,
> >> then all rice and rice plans are destroyed. If the game has been
> >> won in this manner three times, this rule immediately repeals
> >> itself.
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> [R2682/1 did not appear in any published ruleset. The purported R2682/2
> >> did (under the incorrect belief that P8989 took effect), which differs
> >> from R2682/1 only in saying "at least 5 rice" in the final paragraph.
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> Arguments:
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> This comes down to whether P8988 (adopted without dispute) affected the
> >> continuity of previous "signatures". I argue that, after it took affect,
> >> nobody had "signed" a rice plan. "Sign"ing, in the new text, is a
> >> specific by action performed by announcement that necessarily could not
> >> have been performed before the proposal was adopted. The condition of
> >> "having signed" a rice plan is evaluated continuously, and must
> >> therefore always use the current definition in force.
> >>
> >> Even if redefining the action could allow continuity with some previous
> >> action, Judge ais523 found in CFJ 4032 that "consent" to Rice Plans was
> >> not a specific action, but a continuous state to be evaluated using
> >> either natural-language standards of consent or an adaptation of R2519,
> >> yielding similar results, but in neither case requiring a regulated
> >> action of any form.
> >>
> >> R1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") is irrelevant. Rice
> >> Plans are clearly continuous, but "signatures" are not entities under
> >> either the current or former version of the rule.
> >>
> >> }
> > Gratuitous arguments:
> >
> > "Sign" is not an arbitrary word, but a word with a common definition
> > in the context of documents (or document-like things such as Rice
> > Plans). A perfectly common and natural definition of "signing" a
> > thing is to add one's signature to the thing. In adjudicating Rule
> > 2682/0 in CFJ 4032, before "sign" was explicitly in that rule, Judge
> > ais523 literally uses the term as a direct and specific synonym for
> > adding a signature to a plan under the old rule:
> >
> >> "a Rice Plan has X's signature" is a synonym for "X is consenting to
> >> {the Rice Plan / the Rice Plan being signed}"
> > Signatures were added to the plans in question under R2682/0 and not
> > removed, so the plans were "signed" by common and obvious definition
> > at the time of the change from R2682/0 to R2682/1. So when this text
> > came into effect:
> >
> >> An active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it
> > The fact that those plans had been signed remained true under the new
> > rule as well as the old (there was never a moment when it wasn't true,
> > during that transition).
>
>
> Then what does (did?) "sign" mean under the new rule if not only and
> exactly what it is defined to mean in the text? The prior version of the
> rule shouldn't override the explicit definition in the new rule.
It means the same thing. What changes is the method. We went from:
"A player adds a signature (implied syn: "sign") to a plan by consenting"
to
"A player signs a plan (implied syn: adds a signature to it) by announcement."
As another example, if you went from "A player CAN flip switch X by
announcement" to "A player CAN flip switch X by Agoran Consent", that
change doesn't undo all the flips under the old method.
