Re: DIS: MUD engines?

[Ian Kelly]

On 8/8/06, Cctoide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I've been considering setting up a small MUD/MOO
server for a group of friends. However, I'm a
little uninitiated and a quick google reveals a few
servers, among them LambdaMOO. There's a
Win32 version, WinMOO, but its last update
was in 2000. My Linux box is currently out
of order, so I don't know what else I could use...
I'm not sure, but I think I've heard about a few
MUD "frameworks"... can anyone enlighten me?


You may be thinking of LPMOO, an LP mudlib that simulates a MOO.  It's
probably also a bit aged by now, though.  I don't know what the
current state-of-the-art in MOOs is, but I imagine that they're likely
to run just as well under Cygwin as under Linux, so you might try
that.

-root

Re: DIS: Vote fight

[Ian Kelly]

A player may expend one VC to increase eir own VPOP by one.

A player may expend two VCs to increase any other player's VPOP by one.


These should be the other way around.  It should be cheaper to
increase another player's VPOP than your own.  Otherwise, why increase
another player's VPOP?

-root

DIS: Proposal distribution stalled

[Ian Kelly]

H. Distributor,
This week's proposal distribution exceeds the size limit and awaits
your approval.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Election updates

[Ian Kelly]

Promotor:  Voting opens; candidates are Murphy, Eris, and OscarMeyr.  I
vote for OscarMeyr.


Eek, I'm not a candidate!  That's what I get for not paying enough
attention to the elections.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: King me

[Ian Kelly]

As permitted by the new ruleset on the first of the month,
I make myself Emperor.


Yeah, and I'm the Duke of Arrakis.

-root

Re: DIS: Vote fight

[Ian Kelly]

On 8/31/06, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm willing to consider a hard reset of voting power upon a win.  What does
everybody else think?


I agree.  Periodic resets are necessary to prevent players from
getting too entrenched.

It also occurs to me that VPOP and VPDP haven't been defined by the
ruleset for some time.  I believe the current term is "Voting Limit".

-root

Re: DIS: Vote fight

[Ian Kelly]

On 9/7/06, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Just to check rule powers... R1950 is Power 3, and says in part:

  The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is
  one, if not explicitly modified by other rules.


Does this permit a Power 2 rule to modify voting limits on ordinary
proposals?


It looks to me like a Power 1 rule could modify the voting limits.
Since it only applies to ordinary proposals, I don't see this as a
problem.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: High-Power Deference

[Ian Kelly]

On 9/9/06, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Proposal:  High-Power Deference
(AI = 3, please)

Amend Rule 1482 (Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power) by appending
this text:

   If the Rule with the higher Power explicitly says of itself that it
   defers to another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall
   supercede the Power method for determining precedence.


If a rule would defer to rules of potentially lower power, would there
still be any reason for making that rule so high-powered in the first
place?

-root

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [bored in a meeting with wireless] might as well Assess

[Ian Kelly]

On 9/21/06, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Not exactly (I should have noted your attempt).  Votes are only
> counted for people who are players when the voting period for
> a proposal *starts*.

Actually, this may not be true!  Can someone read R1950 and tell me
if it's implied?  Maud suggested that this language implies it
in the last version, and I didn't change the wording, but I'm not
finding it!



From the Red Tape Repeals:


Amend Rule 1950 (Voting Limits) to read:

 The voting limit of an eligible voter on a democratic proposal
 is always one and cannot be changed.

 The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is
 one, if not explicitly modified by other rules.

 After the voting period for an Agoran decision has ended, the
 vote collector shall permit the first valid ballots submitted by
 an eligible voter to remain valid, up to a number equal to that
 person's voting limit on that decision as determined when the
^^ ^^  ^^^
 voting period for that decision began, and shall invalidate all
 ^^ ^^ ^^^   ^
 subsequent ballots submitted by that voter on that decision.


The only issue I see is that Grey Knight's voting limit at that time
was undefined, not necessarily zero, since e wasn't an eligible voter.

-root

Re: DIS: Is it possible to distribute an AI=3 proposal?

[Ian Kelly]

Irrelevant, since R1770 and R1952 were repealed.  Distribution is now
authorized by R1607, which doesn't require the proposal to be
"distributable".

-root

On 9/29/06, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On Sep 29, 2006, at 6:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


OscarMeyr wrote:
After the recent repeal-o-thon, we've had discussion that we may have
removed the rules enabling an AI=3 proposal to be distributed.  I'm waiting
the up to date ruleset to verify this.

??? I thought we were discussing whether a rule lower than power 3 could
change voting power away from default... nothing to do with distribution,
and default voting power works fine as far as it goes. Did I miss a
discussion ???

-Goethe

It got lost in the discussion over how rules of lower power may affect rules
of higher power.  Here's the email:


On Sep 8, 2006, at 11:30 PM, Michael Slone wrote:
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 06:33:27PM -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
If there is no objection, I intend to flip the chamber of "Voting
Credits" to democratic.

One of Goethe's recent proposals (which was adopted, I believe)
eliminated switches, so flipping is probably undefined.


-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Is it possible to distribute an AI=3 proposal?

[Ian Kelly]

Sorry, I didn't read closely enough and though this was a
depth-flippting issue rather than a chamber-flipping issue.  But
chamber was also repealed, so it still shouldn't matter.

-root

On 9/29/06, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Irrelevant, since R1770 and R1952 were repealed.  Distribution is now
authorized by R1607, which doesn't require the proposal to be
"distributable".

-root

On 9/29/06, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 29, 2006, at 6:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> OscarMeyr wrote:
> After the recent repeal-o-thon, we've had discussion that we may have
> removed the rules enabling an AI=3 proposal to be distributed.  I'm waiting
> the up to date ruleset to verify this.
>
> ??? I thought we were discussing whether a rule lower than power 3 could
> change voting power away from default... nothing to do with distribution,
> and default voting power works fine as far as it goes. Did I miss a
> discussion ???
>
> -Goethe
>
> It got lost in the discussion over how rules of lower power may affect rules
> of higher power.  Here's the email:
>
>
> On Sep 8, 2006, at 11:30 PM, Michael Slone wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 06:33:27PM -0400, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> If there is no objection, I intend to flip the chamber of "Voting
> Credits" to democratic.
>
> One of Goethe's recent proposals (which was adopted, I believe)
> eliminated switches, so flipping is probably undefined.
>
>
> -
> Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
> OscarMeyr
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4871-4872

[Ian Kelly]

On 10/3/06, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 4872   | Voting Credits  | OscarMeyr | 3  | 09Sep06 | D

AGAINST - voting power doesn't get reset, the Promotor is allowed to
be nitpicky.


The proposal would reset voting power after every win.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ian Kelly]

4871:  FOR (is it broken?  Should I be against this clarification/
improvement for some reason?)


I just don't see the need.  If rule X defers to rules of a lower
power, then rule X shouldn't be so high-powered in the first place.
Or at least it should be broken up into a high-powered part and a
lower-powered deferring part.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] State of the Bench Report

[Ian Kelly]

On 10/5/06, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 03:08:18PM -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Now that rule *was* repealed.  No shirking!

I would go on hold, but with switches and activity apparently both gone,
I don't think I can.

I can pretty much guarantee that any CFJ thrown my way will not receive
my full attention, so perhaps I should (finally) deregister.


How long has it been since any CFJ got anyone's full attention?

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Switches reborn

[Ian Kelly]

  The rules may associate a switch to an entity.  Each switch has
  a collection of distinct states, including a distinguished
  default state and a distinguished current state.  A switch that
  would not otherwise have a defined default state shall have the
  default state null.


What if null isn't a defined state for that switch?


  If a switch is associated to an entity but has never been
  flipped, then any person may observe that switch by
  announcement.  Observing such a switch flips it to its default
  state.  A person who is permitted to observe each switch in a
  class may simultaneously observe all switches in that class by
  announcement.

  If a switch is associated to an entity but has never been
  flipped, then any person may flip that switch to its default
  state by announcement.  If a switch is associated to each member
  of a class, but none of these switches have ever been flipped,
  then any person may flip all such switches to their default
  states by announcement.


Don't these two paragraphs accomplish the same thing?


Amend rule 1688 (Power; Power=3) to read:

  Power is an entity switch with states among the natural numbers
  and default state zero.  An instrument is an entity with
  positive power.

The power of this proposal is hereby flipped to 1729.  For each rule
that had a defined power before the amendment to rule 1688 above took
effect, that rule's power switch is hereby flipped to that defined
power.  The power of this proposal is hereby flipped to 3.


Amend rule 1688 (Power; Power=3) to read:

  Power is an entity switch with states among the natural numbers
  and default state zero.  An instrument is an entity with
  positive power.

  If one entity (the Source) would flip the power of an entity
  (the Target) to a state higher than the power of the Source at
  the time the flip is performed, the Source instead flips the
  power of the Target to the current state of the Source.


"current state of the Source" is meaningless, since the Source is not
a switch.  I think you need "current state of the Source's Power",
which sounds a bit odd.  "Source's current Power" sounds better, but
it's also a type-mismatch, since the Power is a switch, not a state.

Also, is there a way to make this change without the bootstrapping?

-root

Re: DIS: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1589 assigned to GreyKnight

[Ian Kelly]

On 10/8/06, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Rule 698/14 (Power=1) says "A player who is inactive or unready is
ineligible to judge CFJs", so this would additionally mean that CFJ
1590 is FALSE.

(That rule quote is taken from the September SLR, but I can't see
anywhere where that rule has been amended since then.)


Rule 698 was recently amended by proposal 4867:
http://www.periware.org/agora/view_proposal.php?id=4867

I'm not sure whether the Rulekeepor has incorporated that proposal
yet.  Oddly enough, the new version still mentions activity, but it
now states the inverse of what you quoted.

-root

Re: DIS: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1589 assigned to GreyKnight

[Ian Kelly]

On 10/8/06, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 02:42:22AM -0700, Grey Knight wrote:
> Rule 698/14 (Power=1) says "A player who is inactive or unready is
> ineligible to judge CFJs", so this would additionally mean that CFJ
> 1590 is FALSE.

I *think* you may need to publish your decision (that is, post it to a
public forum, such as agora-business).  I'm sure someone will correct me
if I'm wrong.


E merely needs to submit it to the CotC.  As I recall, the precedent
for such actions sent to the discussion forum is that it is up to the
relevant officer to determine whether e has been properly notified.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's Memo

[Ian Kelly]

Panick in the streets!  Crime has no punishment!  Riots, riots,anarchy!!
I hereby gamble and commit wanton adultery.-root

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's Memo

[Ian Kelly]

On 11/9/06, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/9/06, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> I hereby gamble and commit wanton adultery.
Well, can you prove I didn't?  :-)-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hold

[Ian Kelly]

On 12/14/06, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


--- Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Manu wrote:
>
> > On 12/12/06, Michael Slone wrote:
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, going on hold is no longer defined.
> >
> > Which means that I am now a fully registered player again without
> > having to say anything. How convenient, I was thinking of going off
> > hold soon.
>
> Not necessarily.  From Judge GreyKnight's arguments on CFJ 1589:
>
> "All players that were inactive when 4866 was adopted are
>   considered inactive for any such rule until they next participate
> in
>   Agora, from which point they should be considered active."
>
> Wait a minute, I think GreyKnight mistakenly wrote FALSE instead of
> TRUE.  (I did pretty much the same thing myself, once.)  As such, I
> appeal the judgement of CFJ 1589.
>

Hmm, that IS the wrong way around. Consider:

> CFJ 1589: Quazie is inactive.
> Arguments: [...] Then, by this ruling, Quazie will be inactive (so
CFJ 1589 is FALSE).

I must've gotten the statement inverted in my head by the time I got to
the bottom of writing the arguments.



Happens all the time.

-root

Re: DIS: Amicus curiae

[Ian Kelly]

On 12/18/06, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I would have to say that its not dead in the 'nothing is happening' sense,
but it might be dead in the 'not living and breathing sense', I could go and
make a large argument that dealt with the 30+ deffinitions of death i found
on dictionary.com, yet i'm likely going to judge it false, noting that the
activity of judging the CFJ makes agora not dead


At the time of the CFJ you hadn't judged it yet, so I'm afraid that
argument just doesn't fly.

One might argue that the act of *calling* the CFJ makes Agora not
dead.  However, that strikes me as being metaphorically like poking a
cat to see if it's dead, then deciding that the activity of being
poked makes it alive, which is clearly fallacious.

-root

Re: DIS: Amicus curiae

[Ian Kelly]

On 12/18/06, Jonathan Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> At the time of the CFJ you hadn't judged it yet, so I'm afraid that
> argument just doesn't fly.

That's true when e decides to emself that Agora is dead, but it's arguable that 
the act of _submitting_ a decision that Agora is dead is paradoxical, since by 
doing so e is increasing the activity level of Agora.


No, a judgement of TRUE would merely mean that Agora *was* dead and
has since been reanimated.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 1594

[Ian Kelly]

So does this mean that 1594 now needs to be reassigned, since the
assigned judge was ineligible due to not being a player?

On 12/20/06, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I judge CFJ 1594 to be FALSE.  A Player can indeed be deregistered by
the publication of a Writ of FAGE as described in Rule 1789.

In particular, as the term "Registrar" is not defined elsewhere in
the Rules other than in Rule 1789, we fall back on Rule 754(4) and
look for common definition of the term.  The first definition of
the term in Merriam-Webster online is "an official recorder and keeper
of records" and the Herald is an officer (and therefore official)
and indeed keeps these records.  Therefore, the references to
Registrar in Rule 1789 are directed (successfully) at the Herald.

-Goethe

Re: DIS: Officer shuffle?

[Ian Kelly]

On 12/21/06, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

H. Promotor OscarMeyr, are you still out there?  There are a number
of proposals waiting to be distributed.


Partially my fault.  There was a DNS hiccup a few days ago that
prevented em from reaching the database.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs

[Ian Kelly]

Nice one!  Although I'm not sure there's really any utility in calling
a CFJ that can't be assigned, other than to annoy the CotC.

By the way, no need to bar me:  I deregistered in December.

-root

On 1/10/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I see the ruleset has slimmed down a bit since I was last here.
Looks better without the white elephants.  I like what you've done with
rule 101.

I hereby register as a player.

The following five Calls for Judgement (labelled "A" to "E") are Linked
CFJs, constituting a single set of Linked CFJs.

A: I hereby Call for Judgement on the statement: in Rule 698 the phrase
"all barred players" means all Players that are Barred from Judging the
increasingly annoying CFJ.  I hereby Bar arkestra, Cecilius, and Goethe
(if e is a Player) from Judging this CFJ.

B: I hereby Call for Judgement on the statement: when a Judge is to be
assigned to a set of Linked CFJs as required by Rule 2024, references
in Rule 698 to "that CFJ" or "that increasingly annoying CFJ" must
be interpreted as references to the set of Linked CFJs.  I hereby Bar
GreyKnight, Manu, and Michael from Judging this CFJ.

C: I hereby Call for Judgement on the statement: a set of Linked CFJs is
an entity distinct from the individual CFJs from which it is composed.
I hereby Bar Murphy, Peter, and OscarMeyr from Judging this CFJ.

D: I hereby Call for Judgement on the statement: being Barred from
judging a CFJ does not constitute being Barred from judging a set
of Linked CFJs containing that CFJ, even though it has the effect of
making the Barred person ineligible to Judge such a set of Linked CFJs
under some circumstances.  I hereby Bar Quazie, root, and Sherlock from
Judging this CFJ.

E: I hereby Call for Judgement on the statement: it is impossible to
assign to Judge this CFJ any player who was registered at the time it
was called.  I hereby Bar sproingie and Zefram from Judging this CFJ.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity

[Ian Kelly]

> It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no?

How could you justify that?  If something loses its definition then its
properties are unknown.

In programming if you have a pointer pointing to an object, and you delete
that object, the pointer now points to who knows what.

In our case here the pointer - Unanimity - pointed to a definition -
exceeding any numerical adoption index - yet when that was deleted any
references to Unanimity refer to something with now undefined properties.


The rules aren't a computer program.  Clearly, the definition isn't
simply lost to the world as your metaphor would suggest.  After all, I
can still see it in the archives.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

[Ian Kelly]

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following proposal, entitled "fix
unanimity":

---
Be it therefore resolved that Rule 955 "Determining the Will of Agora"
be amended by replacing the word "Unanimity" with "aleph-0".
---

("Aleph-0" is the precise mathematical term for the most primitive
transfinite cardinal, the cardinality of the set of natural numbers.
Merely saying "infinity" would leave open the question of which infinite
number was to be used, because there are an infinite number of them.
I don't think it would be helpful to resurrect the special definition of
"Unanimity" just for this one rule.)


What do we need to introduce cardinality concepts for?  For voting
purposes, unanimity is much more intuitive.

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

[Ian Kelly]

What do we need to introduce cardinality concepts for?  For voting
purposes, unanimity is much more intuitive.


Come to think of it, it's also more correct.  A voting index of
aleph-null should properly only be used when infinitely many FOR votes
are placed, which I don't believe has ever happened.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

[Ian Kelly]

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ian Kelly wrote:
>Come to think of it, it's also more correct.  A voting index of
>aleph-null should properly only be used when infinitely many FOR votes
>are placed,

Not at all.  The voting index is not inherently a cardinal.  It is
not a count of FOR votes, but (mostly) a ratio between two cardinals.
Provided that there's at least one AGAINST vote, the VI is a rational
number, and it can well take values such as 1/3 or 7/2.  If there is
fewer than one AGAINST vote counted then it is to be expected that the
VI would exceed the number of FOR votes.  (Imagine if it were possible
to cast a half vote.)  If there are no AGAINST votes at all then we
have no choice but to leave the realm of rational numbers.  Calling it
"Unanimity" just obscures its true behaviour as a transfinite hyperreal.


You're probably right that my usage is also incorrect.  That was
merely the product of trying to envision a voting index for which the
value aleph-null does make sense.  By your argument, aleph-null should
never be used for voting index, since aleph-null is not a hyperreal
(as far as I am aware -- my understanding is that an infinite
hyperreal is defined as the inverse of an infinitesimal hyperreal,
which is not how aleph-null is defined).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix unanimity

[Ian Kelly]

On 1/11/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ian Kelly wrote:
>   By your argument, aleph-null should
>never be used for voting index, since aleph-null is not a hyperreal
>(as far as I am aware -- my understanding is that an infinite
>hyperreal is defined as the inverse of an infinitesimal hyperreal,
>which is not how aleph-null is defined).

Curious.  I rather thought it was.  Which infinite hyperreal do you
suggest in its place?  I must confess I have never formally studied
nonstandard analysis.


Neither have I.  And I'm not convinced that n/0 (I don't know whether
it has a name, let's call it h)is actually a hyperreal, since that
seemingly would require 0 to be its inverse, which would require 0 * h
to be 1 if the hyperreals are to be a field, which just strikes me as
being a bit odd.

I normally just satisfy myself with the usual definition than n/0 is
undefined, which is why unanimity makes as much sense to me as
anything.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Egregrious AI Modification Abuse

[Ian Kelly]

On 1/29/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Grey Knight wrote:


Upon adoption of this proposal, Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) is
repealed.


I hereby modify the Adoption Index of this proposal to "2 yellow
smarties".

I consider the attempt to modify the AI to fail.  I'll have to cross check
the rules later tonight.


Clarification:  I consider this to have failed, because it breaks the
proposal scripts, crashing half the world.


When the schema and scripts were written, AI was a real number by
definition.  It seemed unlikely that it would ever have to accommodate
values such as this.

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ian Kelly]

On 1/30/07, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On each proposal in the group of  proposals from  proposal 4893 to proposal
4902 (excluding proposal 4896) I place a vote of FOR, unless without my FOR
vote any one of those proposals would not pass, in which case i place a vote
of PRESENCE.

Also if any proposal in the group of proposals from proposal 4893 to
proposal 4902 (excluding proposal 4896) will pass with no votes against it,
my previous vote upon that proposal shall be retracted and i shall instead
vote AGAINST that proposal.

I vote AGAINST proposal 4896

I place a vote of 1 yellow smartie AGAINST proposal 4903 unless such voting
has been deemed to be invalid, in which case i shall (for the time being)
abstain from placing any vote upon said proposal.


I don't see how you can possibly argue that these votes (excluding
proposal 4896) are valid.

DIS: Re: OFF: Corrections and dismissals

[Ian Kelly]

On 1/31/07, Grey Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Due to a technical error, my first Notice of Rotation was ineffective.
The assignments of CFJs 1607, 1608, and 1609, as well as the second
Notice of Rotation following them should also be considered in error.


This is exactly the kind of situation that the fourth paragraph of
R1871 is intended to address.

-root

DIS: proposal pool down

[Ian Kelly]

Hey everyone,

Periware.org, which hosts the promotor's database and website, is
going to be down for much of this weekend.  Sorry for any
inconvenience.

-root

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Changing officers

[Ian Kelly]

I would be happy to add this kind of automation to the existing
proposal archive website, in whatever form is ultimately agreed upon.

-root

On 4/3/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Quazie wrote:
>Unless the automated sites e-mailed a properly formated proposal to the
>forum.  Thus keeping both an updated archive and an automated system.

No, this still means there's no archive of what the submitter actually
submitted.  There's only a record of what the automaton perceived.
The former is what has legal significance.  Do not presume that your
automaton will always function correctly.

I suggest that if you want to manage the proposal pool largely
automatically then the automaton should accept submissions via email.
You just need to announce "I prefer to receive proposal submissions in
this format: ...", and program the automaton to parse email messages that
match that format.  The players can be quite accommodating about this.
When a submission comes in that the automaton can't parse, all you have
to do is edit it into the standard format and feed it to the automaton.
The automaton can mail out proposal distributions and pool reports on
its own.  You can do all of this at present, without legislation and
without compromising archivability.  You don't even need to tell anyone
you're doing it, except for stating a preferred proposal format.

The same goes for voting, which is very amenable to standardised text
layouts.  Other offices can do the same, but to lesser extents.

I'd be happy to take over as Promotor, or as Assessor if we separate it
out again.  I'll use a suitable amount of automation, as I am already
doing as Rulekeepor.  (My rulekeeping automation posts the FLR monthly,
generates and posts the SLR weekly, puts both on my web page whenever
I make a change, and checks that the current FLR is consistent with
the preceding history.  I still edit the FLR itself manually, for the
time being.)

-zefram

Re: DIS: web pages

[Ian Kelly]

*sigh*  Nobody ever remembers to link the proposal archive.

-root

On 4/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Since no one else has stepped forward, I've put together a
web page to describe Agora to outsiders.  It's currently at
.  Taral, please put
it up on .  Amendments are welcome.  Also,
as I do only structural markup and not visual design, if someone wants
to produce a CSS stylesheet that might be a useful addition.

-zefram

Re: DIS: web pages

[Ian Kelly]

On 4/5/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ian Kelly wrote:
>*sigh*  Nobody ever remembers to link the proposal archive.

Sorry, I didn't know about it.  I'd like to see it myself.  Where is it?


http://www.periware.org/agora/pool.php

By default, it shows only the current contents of the pool, although
that has a tendency to be empty since the Promotor generally adds the
new proposals and then distributes them as a single batch of work.
But the search parameters can be adjusted to list any proposals going
back to early 2003.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal pool report

[Ian Kelly]

On 4/25/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>Or, of course, you could volunteer to take over as Promotor, eh?

I'm up for that.  My manifesto: if elected I'll distribute proposals
promptly, in semi-weekly batches, to keep the game moving.  Proposals will
generally wait less than five days before distribution.


Would you be willing to take over the proposal archive as well?  It
currently exists as a postgres database, a suite of poorly organized
perl scripts, a couple of newer python scripts, and a couple of PHP
web scripts.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Who needs partners, anyway?

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ian Kelly wrote:
>I hereby make the following agreement under R1742, heavily based on
>the Pineapple Partnership.

What's your theory by which you can make a R1742 agreement with only
one player?

-zefram



Game precedent.  There have been multiple R1742 agreements in the past
made by a single player, and they've never been challenged before.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Who needs partners, anyway?

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/22/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 5/21/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hereby register as a player, with the nickname root.

Welcome back, human!


Thanks!


> I hereby make the following agreement under R1742, heavily based on
> the Pineapple Partnership.

Argh...


If it makes it any better, I'm hoping to get a reductio ad absurdum
argument out of this.


> 2. The Steward shall act as a corporation sole, in a manner governed by this

I think you mean ``soulless corporation''.


Ah, you found the fine print!

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/23/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm not sure that it should, but the rules definitely have an opinion
on it.  I'd be quite happy to generalise personhood much more widely so
that the issue wouldn't arise.  B Nomic's rule on this is a great model:
it explicitly allows any "external force" to register, and so allows AIs,
teams, RL corporations, and so on.


How interesting. I predict that the force of gravity will be
registering shortly at B Nomic.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/23/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 5/23/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How interesting. I predict that the force of gravity will be
> registering shortly at B Nomic.

Can the force of gravity pass a Turing test?


In a quantum universe, yes.  Fortunately, the rules don't require an
actual test to be performed.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/23/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 5/23/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a quantum universe, yes.

How do you figure?


Quantum theory isn't actually required; I was being snarky.  I just
mean that in any Turing test setup with gravitationally generated
responses, there would be a chance (however small) of passing the test
by dumb luck.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/24/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

What exactly about that provision makes you think I would enjoy Agora
being transformed into a glorified database?


BEGIN TRANSACTION;

UPDATE RULE 106
SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
WHERE TEXT = 'document';

COMMIT TRANSACTION;

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BEGIN TRANSACTION;
>
> UPDATE RULE 106
> SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
> WHERE TEXT = 'document';
>
> COMMIT TRANSACTION;

Query OK, 0 rules affected (0.00 sec)
Rules matched: 0  Changed: 0  Warnings: 0


I beg to differ; you seem to be assuming a different database
organization. It seems more useful to me in this context to have rules
be modeled as tables rather than rows.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

root wrote:

> On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > BEGIN TRANSACTION;
>> >
>> > UPDATE RULE 106
>> > SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
>> > WHERE TEXT = 'document';
>> >
>> > COMMIT TRANSACTION;
>>
>> Query OK, 0 rules affected (0.00 sec)
>> Rules matched: 0  Changed: 0  Warnings: 0
>
> I beg to differ; you seem to be assuming a different database
> organization. It seems more useful to me in this context to have rules
> be modeled as tables rather than rows.

Why?  Are cursors around the corner?


Mainly because it allows for the above syntax rather than having to
resort to all sorts of messy string manipulations.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

root wrote:

> On 5/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> root wrote:
>>
>> > On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > BEGIN TRANSACTION;
>> >> >
>> >> > UPDATE RULE 106
>> >> > SET TEXT = 'SQL script'
>> >> > WHERE TEXT = 'document';
>> >> >
>> >> > COMMIT TRANSACTION;
>> >>
>> >> Query OK, 0 rules affected (0.00 sec)
>> >> Rules matched: 0  Changed: 0  Warnings: 0
>> >
>> > I beg to differ; you seem to be assuming a different database
>> > organization. It seems more useful to me in this context to have rules
>> > be modeled as tables rather than rows.
>>
>> Why?  Are cursors around the corner?
>
> Mainly because it allows for the above syntax rather than having to
> resort to all sorts of messy string manipulations.

What messy string manipulations?

update rules
set text = replace(text,'old','new')
where number = 106


Well, that wasn't a good example.

update rules
set text = replace(replace(replace(replace(replace(replace(text,
'old', 'new'), 'Old', 'New'), 'long paragraph that takes up several
lines', 'even longer replacement paragraph'), 'foo.', 'foo. BobTHJ
wins the game.'), 'random text', 'more random text designed to hide
the fact that BobTHJ wins the game'), ...)
where number = 106

Granted, you could still do that with a series of statements if you so
desired, but my way pretty much forces it. I see this as a good thing.

Also, imagine if somebody were to mistakenly (or not) leave off the
where clause, and nobody noticed.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

[Ian Kelly]

Why were we doing this again?


Er, I forget. Something to do with 0-member partnerships, judging from
the subject line.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/24/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 5/24/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, titled "More on paragraphs":

As long as you're working on 1023 (d), could you clarify (d) (3)?

>   (3) Units are considered in an ordered tree hierarchy.  The
>   root is empty, any unbulleted units are its children,
>   and the bulleted units following an unbulleted unit are
>   its descendants (with nested bullets corresponding to
>   nested levels of the tree). If the text consists only of
>   bulleted units, then the top-most level comprise the
>   root's immediate children.

I notice you've made some changes here (and I'm glad you're removing
the reference to depth-first search), but I find that the introductory
sentence is still a bit obscure.  Who is required to consider units in
an ordered tree hierarchy, and what are the consequences of em doing
so?


I'm not sure that I see the problem.  The clause is definitional, not
procedural.  Would it help if "considered" were replaced with
"conceptually organized"?

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs on Nemo

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/24/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Anyway... I meant to say that I don't know what rule 106 you're talking
about.


Er, it's the one titled "Adopting Proposals".

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protectorates

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/24/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I suppose so. Am I permitted to modify proposals after I submit them?

BobTHJ


No, but you can retract it and submit a new one.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/24/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  (3) The units of a document form an ordered tree with the order
  determined as follows.  Each unit has a level, which is the
  number of spaces preceding the first non-space character on
  the first line of the unit.  The root is an empty unit with
  level zero which nominally appears at the beginning of the
  document.  A barrier between two units is a unit appearing
  between those units which has level no greater than that of
  the unit appearing first.  One unit is a descendant of
  another unit if it appears after the latter, has strictly
  greater level, and is not separated from the latter by a
  barrier.


I'm reluctant to make indentation matter, since that could interfere
with the rulekeepor's ability to make formatting changes.  I'll give
this some thought, though.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: The Standing Court

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

   A player may change emself from sitting to lying down, or vice
   versa, by announcement.


Why can't standing players change themselves to lying down?  Seems a
bit arbitrary.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Inactivity

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/25/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 5/25/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> E hasn't posted since March.  Anybody know where e's gone to?  E's
> needed in an administrative capacity at the Dwarf Fortress wiki, and
> apparently e's not responding to emails either.

E has responded to emails from me as recently as last week.


That's good to hear.  Probably e's just been busy.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/25/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

If a rule states that a Magnate pays a specified type and amount of
property, then that property is transferred to the designated receiving
Magnate instantly (if possible) upon that requirement taking effect.


Ick.  My apologies for not having commented until now, but if Agora
has taught me anything, it's that platonic property transfers are a
Bad Thing (also that "I say I do, therefore I do" is a fallacy, but
that's not apropos).  The weekly percentage-based tax levies seem a
particularly pernicious instance; whenever an error is detected, all
the affected Magnates' levies in the intervening period of time will
have to be reassessed as well.


A Player who performs one of the following actions without being certified
for that action has er Voting Limit on Ordinary Proposals reduced by two (to
a minimum of 0):
* Submitting a ballot for distributed proposals
* Supporting or opposing a dependent action
* Submitting a proposal for distribution


Methinks that the main effect of this, especially in conjunction with
R2142, is that half the players' VLOPs will drop to 0, and all the
interesting proposals will be democratic.  Which isn't necessarily a
bad thing, but if history is any indication, I suspect that the
certification mechanism will see little use.


After an Ordinary Proposal is distributed, but before voting ends, any
Player may destroy digits e controls corresponding to the digits in the
number of that proposal by announcement. This has the effect of increasing
eir Voting Limit on that Proposal by two. This action may be performed
multiple times by the same Player for the same Proposal.



When a Judge issues a judgment on a CFJ, e may (once per CFJ) destroy digits
e controls corresponding to the digits in the number of the CFJ. If e does,
the Agoran Treasury pays em $1000.



As soon as possible after a new rule is added to the ruleset, a Player may
(once per rule) destroy digits e controls corresponding to the digits in the
number of that new rule. If e does, e gains 1 VC.


Is the intent that the player must destroy a digit corresponding to
*each* digit in the number of the proposal, CFJ, or rule?  If so, I'm
not sure that this requirement is conveyed.


An Equation Factory is a type of Land. An Equation factory consists of a
mathematical equation containing three variables (represented by the capital
letters X, Y, and Z). An Equation Factory's equation is determined at the
time it is created and it may not be changed. At any time, the owner of an
Equation Factory, if e holds an Equator's License, may use any three digits
e owns to 'Process Equations' by announcement:
1. E substitutes those digits into the equation in place of the Variables.
2. E solves the equation to obtain a result between 0 and 99 inclusive.
3. The original digits are destroyed and e receives two newly created
digits, one for each digit in the resulting number (adding a leading zero if
needed to obtain a two digit number)
If, when solved, an equation produces a number that is not in the range of 0
to 99 that Equation Factory is destroyed.


I don't get this.  If all of the variables have been instantiated,
then there is nothing to solve for.  My guess is that you mean
"expression", not "equation".

Also, what happens if the result is not an integer?

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/25/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

If a provision were added to pardon errors that appear on the Secretary's
weekly report if they go unnoticed for a week following that report, would
that be satisfactory? At the most you would be looking at unrolling 2 weeks
of history then (one week during the report, and a second week for errors to
be noticed).


If the solution is to be preventative ratification, I would prefer to
use the existing mechanism rather than have it happen automatically.
Otherwise I have to actually read the report on a weekly basis. :-)

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements of CFJs 1678-83

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

root wrote:

> On 5/25/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Human Point Two judges CFJs 1682 and 1683 FALSE.
>>
>> Arguments:
>>
>> The first paragraph of Rule 1742 consistently uses plurals.  I interpret
>> this as requiring such agreements to be made among a set of two or more
>> players.
>
> I call for the appeal of both these judgements. By the same argument,
> we could easily say any of the following:

I suppose I should have said that R1742 explicitly says "among
themselves", implying interaction between two or more players.  If
these judgements are remanded, I'll likely re-judge accordingly.


I don't see how that changes anything.  If the rule were specific
about number, it could easily say "zero or more", "one or more", or
"exactly 42"; and it would still be consistent with the usage of the
phrase "among themselves".

-root

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


root wrote:
> And therein lies the problem with appealing the
> judgments: in the event that they're overturned, they never existed,
> and the appeal is thus just as invalid as the original judgments.

Funny, that's exactly what I claimed when I said my deregistration
paradox couldn't be resolved by appeal.  But y'all didn't buy the
logic then, and it seems to be resolved...  -G.


I wasn't paying much attention at that point, or I probably would have
agreed with you.

-root

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

[Ian Kelly]

For example, what happens if Murphy's CFJ (not the PPs) is appealed?
If it's sustainted, it's sustained, the opponents will have had a
fair hearing.  If the majority of justices agree it should be
overturned, it can be Reassigned, with strong arguments suggesting
overturning, and Appellate Orders to the CotC to ensure the new judge
is a natural person.  The reassigment (if it ended up overturned)
would be a clean first assignment to a natural person.


Yes, that should work.  Very well, I call for the appeal of CFJ 1623.

-root

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/30/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Eris wrote:
> (~P -> P) -> P

P -> ~~P

(~~P -> ~P) -> ~P


P -> (~P -> P)

But I'm confused. What precisely is P supposed to represent in this context?

-root

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/31/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In classical logic, (~P -> P) -> P is a tautology, since ~P -> P is
equivalent to P.


((~P -> P) <-> P) -> ((~P -> P) -> P)

-root

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Zefram wrote:
> Specifically, I think, "the Pineapple Partnership is not a person".

Problem is, if (as Eris claims) it's a general rule that
(~P -> P) -> P,
then we could also say
(~Q -> Q) -> Q,
where Q = ~P.

so Eris's claim doesn't resolve the original ~P -> P -> ~P -> (...)
paradox at all.  Unless I misunderstood her first statement.


In order to use the statement to prove either P or Q, one must first
assert either (~P -> P), or (~Q -> Q).  Without that, it's just an
arbitrary tautology.  That's the part I'm not getting here; how does
"the Pineapple Partnership is not not a person" imply "the Pineapple
Partnership is not a person"?

-root

Re: DIS: proto: better VLOP balance after wins

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  The voting limit on democratic proposals (VLDP) is one for a
  player who is a natural person, and zero for any other entity.

  The voting limit on ordinary proposals (VLOP) is variable.  The
  default VLOP is 5 for a player who is a natural person, and zero
  for any other entity.


My previous comment stands:  why do we need to pollute the rules with
a multitude of "player who is a natural person" requirements when we
can just legislate (or adjudicate) that only natural persons may be
players?

-root

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/31/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ian Kelly wrote:
>how does
>"the Pineapple Partnership is not not a person" imply "the Pineapple
>Partnership is not a person"?

It would if the PP's judgement of CFJ 1623 were appealed and reversed
by the appeal board.


Oh, right.  In retrospect, that seems obvious.

-root

Re: DIS: proto: better VLOP balance after wins

[Ian Kelly]

Would you object less if we defined the phrase "natural player" to mean
"player who is a natural person", and used it?


No.  I would object less if the rules were organized such that when we
eventually get tired of partnerships and repeal them, we won't have to
amend all the high-powered rules just to remove all the references to
them.

-root

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: yin & yang

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


root wrote:
> My keyboard hereby registers as a player, and none of you can judge
> otherwise.

Your keyboard is a pineapple.  Now we've come full circle.

Also, can you prove you have the consent of your keyboard to bind
em to an agreement?  Or to act on eir behalf?  Otherwise you've
violated one of eir rights by forcing em to try to claim another one.
Ha!


Of course not.  But my keyboard has my full consent to act through me.
The fact that my keyboard shares my email, signs off as me, and
chooses to refer to itself in the possessive third person and to me in
the first person is pure coincidence.


Besides, the point of this thread was that, while a CFJ "called"
by the entity itself would not be decidable, one called by an
outside party (another player) and judged by another player would
give reasonable hearing to the player-ness of the entity, and
if e was not found to be a player to a certain standard of evidence
(probably "beyond a reasonable doubt" to suit the strength of the
R101 preamble), it would not be a violation of rights for em to be
declared a non-player.  Rights are a sliding scale, not absolute,
and Facts are Facts.


Fair enough.


If you really want to test this, find a new email address and
send in "I, root's keyboard, hereby registers."  You might want
to do this before misrepresentation comes back!


As it happens, my keyboard was just pondering this while I was away at
lunch.  Fortunately for everyone involved, my keyboard is more
interested in spending its time flirting with my mouse.

-root

Re: DIS: phew!

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/31/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Just barely lost out to April 2005;  April 2005 had a April Fools
joke that resulted in posting repeated copies of most of the
ruleset in discussion forum, so maybe that's not a measure of
discussion volume.  On the other hand, current archives
seem to have more html junk so maybe it's not a fair comparison.
In my day, we posted pure text and were *lucky*.


We also had a rather large spike in activity around that time, as I recall.

-root

Re: DIS: phew!

[Ian Kelly]

On 5/31/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I've heard Annabel mentioned several times. Is there someplace I could find
a synopsis of this crisis?


I don't think that anybody has ever written up a thesis on the
subject, so your best bet is probably just to go digging through the
archives from January/February 2003..

In a nutshell, a player named Annabel played for a few months in 1999
and again for a couple of weeks in 2001.  A couple of years later, it
was revealed that "Annabel" was in fact an illegal dual registration
and was never an actual player, throwing the game state into a morass
of uncertainty, which was somewhat complicated by a lack of archives
from before 2000.

Some contend that the fall-out from the Annabel crisis was never
properly resolved, and that we are no longer playing Agora as a
result.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Knuts!

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/1/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Proto-Proposal:  Knuts!


I like it.  But I don't think a proposal this short should be creating
two offices; couldn't the Gnome and the Shopkeepor be the same office?

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Mother, May I?

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/3/07, quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proto-Proposal:  Mother, May I?
> (AI = 3, please)
>
> Create a rule titled "Mother, May I?" with Power 3 and this text:
>
>   The following terms are defined.  These definitions MUST be used
>   when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when
>   a rule includes a term otherwise.  Earlier definitions take
>   precedence over later ones.  If a rule specifies one or more
>   players in connection with a term, then the term applies only to
>   the specified player(s).
>
> 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID:  Attempts to
>perform the described action are unsuccessful.
>
> 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED:
>Performing the described action violates the rule in
>question.
>
> 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED:  Before performing the
>described action, the full implications of performing it
>should be understood and carefully weighed.
>
> 4. CAN X ONLY IF Y:  Equivalent to "CANNOT X unless Y".  Similar
>for (MUST, MAY, SHALL, SHOULD) X ONLY IF Y.
>
> 5. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY:  Failing to perform the
>described action violates the rule in question.
>
> 6. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED:  Before failing to perform
>the described action, the full implications of failing to
>perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.
>

What about mustn't, shan't and can't?


As long as they're capitalized, I would argue that contractions fall
squarely under R754(1).

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: power law quorum

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/3/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I honestly don't feel that quorum serves much of a purpose other than to
slow the pace of the game now and then and make it difficult to pass
anything during periods of low activity. What is the benefit?


It prevents scams wherein a small minority of players pass any
proposal they want by conspiring to be the only ones who vote on it.

I would support a compromise here.  A multi-part formula with the
values (e.g.) ceil(0.66 NEV) for NEV <= 6; ceil(0.5 NEV) for 6 < NEV
<= 12; ceil(0.33 NEV) for NEV > 12 would be identical to the current
formula in the limit but would yield more reasonable values in the low
range.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Democratic and AI 1

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/6/07, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Otherwise I think that the threshold for ordinary/democratic proposals
should be raised (e.g., a Proposal with an Adoption Index less than 2 is
Ordinary). Hard to explain, but it almost seems to be a contradiction
to allow AI=1.1 democratic, but not AI=1.0 democratic proposals. For me,
either AI=1.1 should be ordinary, or AI=1.0 democratic proposals should
be allowed.


I would support this.  This is the system we used to have, and I'm not
sure how we got to the present situation.

The point of the distinction, as I see it, is to allow interesting
play for the low-powered proposals, but to require democratic votes
for the presumably more important high-powered proposals.  Permitting
low-powered proposals to be democratic lets them avoid the
"interesting play" scenarios, thereby making them less interesting.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Bob's Quality Cards

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/7/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Bob's Quality Cards is a partnership and binding agreement created under the
laws of the state of Colorado. The partners of Bob's Quality Cards are
myself (BobTHJ / Roger Hicks) and a close personal friend John Chapman. The
terms of our partnership agreement permit me to act on behalf of the
partnership freely without the authorization of the other partner.


The www.bobsqualitycards.com website appears to be broken.

Also: you live in Colorado?  I'm in Boulder, myself.


Bob's Quality Cards hereby registers as a player.


Okay, I don't really see how the recent change to R1724 makes any
difference as to the legality of this.  The new rule says that persons
may make agreements among themselves, but we've never needed an Agoran
rule to do that before.

My view of R1724 is that the substantial portions of R1724 (i.e., all
but the first paragraph) refer and always have referred to all
agreements, not just those made between players, to the extent that
Agoran law is capable of enforcing them.  So, assuming that agreements
can create legal persons in the eyes of Agora (which I still do not
accept, since Agora has no legal concept of personhood), this should
have been equally possible under the old R1724.


Bob's Quality Cards creates an infinite number of Primo Corporation shares.


Which infinite number?  In any case, R1023 defines "number" to mean
"real number", and there are no infinite real numbers.

FWIW, I don't really believe that my previous announcement of creating
shares had any effect: "I say I do, therefore I do" fallacy and all
that.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bob's Quality Cards

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/7/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Parachutenear Grand Junction on the west slope. It's a great state to
live in :)


Ah.  My girlfriend is currently working as an intern for the Palisade
Tribune, so I'll be passing through that area next weekend.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bob's Quality Cards

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/7/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Since you're new here, you probably don't know this yet, but
attempting to duplicate a scam that has already been attempted is Not
Done.


Apparently this doesn't include the "Deregister and Lurk Dourly" scam. =)

-root

DIS: Proto-judgments of CFJs 1659 and 1660

[Ian Kelly]

==  CFJ 1659  ==

   The phrase "by announcement" and similar phrases used by the
   charter of Primo Corporation, when qualified by the additional
   phrase "to the Corporate Forum", are not bound by the standard
   Rule definition of the phrase "by announcement".

==  CFJ 1660  ==

   The words "Office" and "Officer" used by the charter of Primo
   Corporation, when qualified by the additional phrase "of Primo
   Corporation", are not bound by the Rule definition of the words
   "Office" and "Officer".



I proto-judge CFJ 1559 FALSE and CFJ 1560 TRUE.

Judge's arguments:

Rule 754/6 reads in part:

 (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted
 as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language
 synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules.

The term "by announcement" is explicitly defined by Rule 478/17:

 A player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that
 e performs it.

Thus, it is clear to me that the phrase "by announcement" must be
interpreted according to its Rule 478 definition, regardless of any
qualification or decoration.

However, I find that the term "Office" is not explicitly defined by
the rules.  Rule 1006/15 provides that "The Rules may designate
positions to be offices" and goes on to lay out some regulations
concerning offices.  As such, R1006/15 merely references the common
definition of "office" as provided for by Rule 754/6, Section 4; it
does not constitute an explicit definition of "office" any more than a
hypothetical rule governing the legalities of goose ownership would,
in so doing, define geese.

Similarly, the rules do not provide any explicit definition of the
term "officer" or of its synonym "officeholder" despite using them
frequently.

-root

DIS: On partnerships

[Ian Kelly]

I've just noticed a clause I hadn't paid much attention to before.  As
I understand it, the prevailing argument that an R1742 agreement can
be a person stems from transference of the partnership's obligations
to the comprising members.  But consider the first sentence of the
penultimate paragraph of R1742:

 If a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that
 agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed.

This seems to indicate that a partnership's obligations are only
enforceable to the extent that the partnership's members desire them
to be enforced.  Any thoughts?

-root

Re: DIS: On partnerships

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/8/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ian Kelly wrote:
>This seems to indicate that a partnership's obligations are only
>enforceable to the extent that the partnership's members desire them
>to be enforced.  Any thoughts?

Erk.  I'd say we need to fix that.  In real-world contract law there
is the concept of third-party rights in contracts: typically, one who
is not a party to a contract can sue to enforce the contract if e is
adversely affected by a breach in some way.  I don't think we need
any restriction on this, which would be difficult to codify anyway.
Let's just get rid of that sentence.

On reflection I don't think this problem affects the personhood of
partnerships.  Obligations on the partnership still become obligations on
the partners, in such a way that Agoran law recognises them as binding
obligations.  The lack of an effective enforcement mechanism doesn't
change that.


All but the first paragraph is about enforcement.  And as Goethe
recently pointed out, the current reading of the first paragraph is
just a truism.

-root

Re: DIS: On partnerships

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/8/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

All but the first paragraph is about enforcement.  And as Goethe
recently pointed out, the current reading of the first paragraph is
just a truism.


As, presumably, was the previous reading, since the current reading is
just a generalization of the same.

-root

Re: DIS: On partnerships

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/8/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ian Kelly wrote:
>recently pointed out, the current reading of the first paragraph is
>just a truism.

I don't read it as a truism.  I prefer a reading that gives it
significance.  It seems to me that it is defining a class of Agoran
entity: the binding agreement.  We have often referred to these as
"R1742 agreements".  The paragraph is certainly unclear on this point,
leaving important parts implicit.  However, its general structure is
used sufficiently often in clearly definitional rules that it makes more
sense to interpret it as a definition than any other way.


Should I then be expecting a refutation of my proto-judgment of CFJ 1660?

-root

Re: DIS: On partnerships

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/8/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ian Kelly wrote:
>Should I then be expecting a refutation of my proto-judgment of CFJ 1660?

I'm not entirely happy with your reasoning on those CFJs, but actually
I was pondering refuting your proto-judgement of CFJ 1659.  I think
prohibiting a word or phrase from having contextually-defined meanings
is an unreasonably strict interpretation of R754.  I haven't formed
an opinion yet on whether your judgement is wrong or whether R754 is
genuinely unreasonably strict.


I agree that it is unreasonably strict.  But R754 is quite clear,
which leads me to believe the latter.

-root

Re: DIS: On partnerships

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/8/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



root wrote:
> > All but the first paragraph is about enforcement.  And as Goethe
> > recently pointed out, the current reading of the first paragraph is
> > just a truism.
>
> As, presumably, was the previous reading, since the current reading is
> just a generalization of the same.

No, the previous reading ("under the rules") created a mechanism for
players to say "we make this agreement with the intent that the
courts of Agora are a legal, binding method of dispute resolution
for this agreement."


That's not the previous reading I'm referring to.  I agree that that
version of the rule was definitional in nature.

The only difference between the immediately previous revision and the
current revision is the replacement of the word "players" with
"persons".

-root

Re: DIS: Proto-judgments of CFJs 1659 and 1660

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/9/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ian Kelly wrote:
>Thus, it is clear to me that the phrase "by announcement" must be
>interpreted according to its Rule 478 definition, regardless of any
>qualification or decoration.

I think this is in error.  Even if it is forbidden to locally redefine
"by announcement" (which I will accept is forbidden by rule 754), this
CFJ is about the phrase "by announcement to the Corporate Forum".
Applying the standard definition of "by announcement" leads to a
nonsensical interpretation, that an "announcement to the Corporate
Forum" is an oxymoron.  There is a sensical interpretation available,
that "by announcement to the Corporate Forum" is a distinct term not
bound by the standard meaning of a subsequence of its words.  The latter
interpretation is, I believe, to be preferred.


I was going to address this subject in my judgment but chose to leave
it out as not apropos to the particular statement of the CFJ.
"Announcement to the Corporate Forum" is not an oxymoron; I believe
that a message sent both to a public forum (or to all players) and to
the corporate forum would meet the requirement.

"by announcement to the Corporate Forum" cannot be construed as an
independent phrase because it builds its meaning upon the phrase "by
announcement".  Consider by way of analogy the difference between the
phrase "white tie" and the compound "white-collar".  "White tie" is
dependent upon the word "white" for its meaning, as the phrase is
simply "tie" modified by "white".  However, "white-collar" is built
from but exists independently of the word "white".


Your logic would be correct for a qualified phrase such as "by
announcement in Basque", where the qualification does not conflict with
the standard meaning of the core phrase.


What makes "by announcement in Basque" any different from "by
announcement to the Corporate Forum"?  Both are saddling the usual
definition with additional restriction.


One might also consider the
recent instance of "infinite number" and compare it against "positive
number".  "infinite real number" is an oxymoron, so I'd argue that
"infinite number" implicitly makes our standard definition of "number"
inapplicable.  "positive real number" is perfectly meaningful, though,
so that's clearly what "positive number" means in Agora.


Absolutely.  Again, the word "positive" in this context adds
additional restriction to the usual meaning.


Also consider:
is R1023(a) a recursive definition?


No.  A "real number" is not simply a number that is real; the
adjective "real" as used in mathematics is derived from the compound
and not the other way around.

-root

Re: DIS: On partnerships

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/8/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

An example of the two tiers:  Zefram and root form a partnership,
it registers as a player, and the partnership fails to perform
some required action.  Anyone may bring suit against the partnership,
and the partnership as a whole is dinged.

But only Zefram can then allege in court "hey, the partnership
agreement stated that it was root's responsibility to do that for
the partnership, so the punishment should apply to root."


Why would Zefram choose to do this?  If there is no benefit for emself
or for the partnership as a whole (e.g. a vacation of the original
sentence), then eir only motivation for propagating the punishment to
the second tier would be eir own sense of honor.

In any case, I raised this as a secondary issue.  My original concern
stands: we cannot have legal persons without a legal definition of
person.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Knuts!

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/13/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ed Murphy wrote:
>  The Gnome is responsible for keeping track of Wheezes.  The
>  Gnome's report includes Wheeze holdings.

Frequency of report?


R2143:
  Any information designated to be part of the
 officer's report without specifying which report shall be part
 of the weekly report.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On 6/13/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> >R2109 Agoran Contracts is repealed.
>
> Not planning to keep our one Agoran Contract on as a rule?

I have yet to see this elusive Agoran Contract...part of the reason why I'm
in favor of canning this rule.


http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-March/002859.html

If that's all you're concerned about, why not support Zefram's
proposal to require regular publication instead?

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/14/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



>
> If that's all you're concerned about, why not support Zefram's
> proposal to require regular publication instead?
>
> -root

Because I don't see the benefit of having more than one agreement that all
players of Agora must be bound by. The rules are broad and adaptable enough
that there is no need. If the best a contract can do is mimic a rule, why
not just make it a rule?


As somebody else pointed out recently, one of the original purpose for
Agoran Contracts IIRC was to house the list of cards, which had grown
long enough that it was just taking up too much space in the ruleset.
We had already created a set of subordinate documents called Cardbooks
for this purpose, but they lacked the authority of the rules, and so
we kept running into problems.  Hence the need for a generally
empowered subordinate document.

IIRC, we ended up repealing cards before we ever actually got around
to putting them into an AC, and so the Envoy was created mostly to
justify their existence.  I've always felt that the Envoy would be
better off in a rule, but I suspect that if we repeal ACs now, we'll
just end up bringing them back down the road.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/14/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ian Kelly wrote:
>   the list of cards, which had grown
>long enough that it was just taking up too much space in the ruleset.

Because, of course, it is physically impossible for an email message to
be longer than 347 kB.


The issue was neatness, not physical limits.  I didn't mean to imply
otherwise.  We had several different rules defining cards, each
defining several different cards.  It was getting to be an eye-sore to
anyone looking through the ruleset trying to read the actual rules, as
well as a headache to maintain.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/14/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

As the current Contracts rule requires proposals to amend contracts,
it doesn't offer that benefit.  Also, the current Contracts
rule doesn't allow much in resolving conflicts between
Contracts and Rules.  I think a compromise is hard-coding each
contract's relationship with the rules by name in its own rule, and
getting rid of generic contracts (in this case, the Envoy just
becomes a single rule).


That's a good point.  My main objection to repealing ACs is the
eventual possibility of having to repeat all the work we did on
Cardbooks, but the AC rule doesn't seem to contain much of that
anyway.  So I guess I'm not all that attached to the AC rule after
all.

-root

Re: DIS: proto: refactor the Herald

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

proto-proposal: refactor the Herald
AI: 1

{{{

Amend rule 649 by adding after "set out in the Rules." the sentence

  The Herald's report shall include a list of each Patent Title
  that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons
  Bear it.

Amend rule 1377 to read

  The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping
  track of marks of honour and shame relating to Agora.

[Moves the PT reporting requirement into the PT rule.  Incidentally
removes the "Threat" item, which we're not using, from rule 1377.
Also gives a more accurate overall description of the Herald.]

}}}

With rule 1377 diminished to such a minimal state, I wonder whether it
should be merged entirely into some other rule, most likely rule 649.
The Herald's report is not defined to contain anything other than PTs
(and Threats).


IMO, official duties such as report contents should mostly be kept in
the rule that defines the office.  This way a (potential) officer can
read one rule to find the duties required of em rather than having to
search the entire ruleset.

-root

Re: DIS: proto: Agoran arms in a rule

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[The blazon was given by proposal 4898, but not put in a rule, so that
proposal is probably ineffective in creating a lasting definition.


Game custom is that such changes are effective.  They were even
outlawed at one point by Proposal 4513.

-root

Re: DIS: proto: refactor the Herald

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ian Kelly wrote:
>IMO, official duties such as report contents should mostly be kept in
>the rule that defines the office.  This way a (potential) officer can
>read one rule to find the duties required of em rather than having to
>search the entire ruleset.

I think it is reasonable to expect a potential officer to grep the
ruleset (once) to establish the totality of eir duties.  It seems a
greater maintainability win to group together all the material on a
particular bit of game state, including reporting requirements.

However, as rulekeepor I've been pondering adding annotations to the
office-defining rules giving cross-references to all the officers' duties.
Would that satisfy your concern about the difficulty of grepping?


Sounds reasonable.

-root

Re: DIS: proto: Agoran arms in a rule

[Ian Kelly]

In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think
invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for
something more substantial).


That's what I thought as well, but unfortunately I can't seem to find
the earlier proposal.

-root

Re: DIS: proto: Agoran arms in a rule

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Consequently, I don't think a proposal can directly
govern the game beyond making instantaneous changes.


What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?

   Upon adoption of this Proposal, the Scorekeepor shall as soon as
   possible group all registered Players into four Teams of 4-6 Players
   apiece.  The Scorekeepor shall assign an initial Team Name to each of
   these Teams.

-root

Re: DIS: proto: Agoran arms in a rule

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think
> invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for
> something more substantial).

That's what I thought as well, but unfortunately I can't seem to find
the earlier proposal.


This could of course have something to do with the fact that the
original version of the proposal was submitted on Nov. 21, 2002, and
the agoranomic.org archives only go back to Nov. 3, 2002.

-root

Re: DIS: proto: Agoran arms in a rule

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 6/18/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In any case, it's bad form and should be in the rules (I think
> > invisibilitating was a joke on someone who tried to do this for
> > something more substantial).
>
> That's what I thought as well, but unfortunately I can't seem to find
> the earlier proposal.

This could of course have something to do with the fact that the
original version of the proposal was submitted on Nov. 21, 2002, and
the agoranomic.org archives only go back to Nov. 3, 2002.


We may be thinking of proposal 4495, "Repeal Ohm's Law"
(http://www.periware.org/agora/view_proposal.php?id=4495).  However,
that proposal failed.

-root

Re: DIS: proto: B Agreement

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

proto-proposal: B Agreement
AI: 2

{{{

Amend rule 2147 by adding at the end

   Protectorates are permitted to register.  Any player may, with three
   supporters, cause a Protectorate to be deregistered or, with one
   supporter, cause a Protectorate to register, provided that no other
   rule restricts these actions.  A Protectorate is a person if and only
   if it is a player.  This paragraph does not apply to R1742 binding
   agreements.


}}}



Doesn't play nicely with Limited Partnerships, Take Fifteen, unless
the Protectorate also happens to be a Partnership (in which case it
allegedly can register anyway) -- both because it's not a Partnership
itself and because it screws up the recursive definition of basis for
Partnerships of which the Protectorate is a member.  It would be much
more elegant to come up with a definition of Agreements / Partnerships
such that Protectorates are naturally a subclass of Partnerships.
That way, anything that applies to Partnerships automatically applies
to Protectorates as well.

That aside, it seems odd that a Protectorate could be registered by a
set of two players who otherwise have nothing to do with that
Protectorate.  Also, why only Protectorates?  If we're going to allow
other nomics to register, we might as well let them register
regardless of Protectorate status.

-root

Re: DIS: proto: B Agreement

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Good points, although I was hoping to skirt the hazy definition of a nomic
and a player of a nomic.


R2147 already relies on both, so you don't gain anything by doing so.

-root

Re: DIS: proto: refactor the Herald

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ian Kelly wrote:
>IMO, official duties such as report contents should mostly be kept in
>the rule that defines the office.  This way a (potential) officer can
>read one rule to find the duties required of em rather than having to
>search the entire ruleset.

I think it is reasonable to expect a potential officer to grep the
ruleset (once) to establish the totality of eir duties.  It seems a
greater maintainability win to group together all the material on a
particular bit of game state, including reporting requirements.

However, as rulekeepor I've been pondering adding annotations to the
office-defining rules giving cross-references to all the officers' duties.
Would that satisfy your concern about the difficulty of grepping?


By the by, I just noticed this snippet from R1006:

 If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then
 the officer shall publish that information at least once a month,
 or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the
 information or the officer receives a request for the information.

Which means that the CotC is in fact already required to report on
Agoran Contracts.

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Open letter

[Ian Kelly]

On 6/18/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

You didn't give a title for the proposal.


Oh, bother.  For lack of a better title, let's call it "Recantus Cygneus".

-root