DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > 7941* Alexis 1.0 HTML Scrubbing Alexis 1 sh. > > This does not make any rule changes. I will, however, take it on myself as > Prime Minister to contact the Distributor to make the request. Having received such contact - done. Please let me know if there are problems. I'm sorry that I ran away from actually playing again (and especially sorry to G.) :( - The Distributor
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956
*test*
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Proposals 7931-7947, 7954-7956
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Is it possible to configure Mailman to pass through messages with text/html > parts but to strip them, instead of rejecting them outright? Well, that's odd. According to the logs, you had two messages rejected with the message "The message's content type was not explicitly allowed". Looking at the Mailman code, it seems you only get that error if the *outer* message content type doesn't match the whitelist, as opposed to one part of a MIME multipart/alternative message. By contrast, with the "test" message I just sent - which I composed as a rich-text message - Gmail encoded it as multipart with text/plain and text/html parts, and Mailman discarded the text/html part and let it through. I guess you probably sent a pure text/html message with no text/plain alternative. Mailman is capable of forcibly converting those to text/plain (probably badly), but for some reason that happens after the whitelist check… Well, I just disabled the whitelist altogether, while keeping the "collapse multipart/alternative" and "convert text/html to plaintext" options enabled. I think that should mostly do the right thing: I don't see any particular reason to ban attachments in general, so there's no need to special-case signatures.
Re: DIS: Status of the rules
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > Not sure how it works on a-o but a-b has a 500K limit. > > I sent omd an email about the stuck email, just in case. Yeah, it was caught in the queue due to being over 500K. I approved it and changed the limit for all lists to 1500K. Sorry. (Now if only Mailman supported *synchronously* rejecting messages, so rejections could be reported to the sending SMTP client: that way there could be a proper rejection notice without worrying about backscatter spam…)
Re: DIS: hmmm?
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 11:50 PM comex wrote: …okay, last time I thought I just forgot to change my sender name to 'omd', but I definitely did so for this message; it seems Gmail is just bugged. Looks like it works after switching back to the old Gmail.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3642 judged FALSE
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 6:34 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I don't know how mailing lists work. Is a "separate" message sent from > the list to each individual recipient? If so, is there any chance the > stamps on each individual copy of the same message would vary? > (obviously this might fall under "game-changing delay" that you cite > as being rare, but I'm curious if it's a regular thing). If you look at the full headers, each message has quite a few timestamps on it. There's the Date header, which is set by the sender: the mailing list doesn't change this when it forwards messages, so it should be consistent for everyone. But it can easily be an arbitrary "unreasonable" time if, say, the sender has their clock set wrong, if they send the message while offline (or some other issue delays it from reaching the list server), or if they outright forged it. In addition, there's one Received header for each SMTP server the message passes through, noting the name of the server and the time it received it (according to its own clock). There used to be a precedent that the Received header set by the list server (vps.qoid.us) should be considered the "date stamp" to use, though I vaguely remember there may have been a conflicting judgement later on…
DIS: Re: OFF: agora-official should be working again (with subscriber list cloned from agora-business)
(CCing a-d in case someone actually didn't get it.) On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 7:06 PM, omd wrote: > Hi, > > I've been a bit busy since my last message, but in lieu of objections, > I've gone ahead and replaced the lost config.pck file for > agora-official with one copied from agora-business. I fixed up the > list name, description, and subject line prefix, and I don't see any > other settings that need to be changed, but let me know if you see > something wrong. > > As I said, the config.pck file includes the subscriber list and > per-subscriber settings, so if for some reason you had (intentionally) > different settings between the two lists, you'll have to fix your > settings for agora-official: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-official > > The list should now be working again, so let me know if you don't get > this message. ;) > > Also, I've fixed the configuration issue that was breaking automatic > backups on my server, plus I've set up some basic monitoring so > hopefully I'll know if it breaks again in the future. > > - The Distributor
Re: DIS: Non-email public fora
I've been a regular user of a Discourse forum for a few years, since the Rust language community deprecated their mailing list in favor of a Discourse instance. Discourse has the interesting property that it actively seeks to allow users to use it *as* a mailing list: receiving one email per post, and able to reply via email. That sounds nice in theory, and in practice I'm indeed able to use Gmail as my primary means of reading the forum. But there are quite a few issues: - Emails tend to be delayed by tens of minutes, so pure email users will fall behind in real-time conversations. - Formatting tends to get munged when replying by email (for this reason I only use Gmail to read, and visit the website when I want to reply). - Discourse allows editing posts, but there's no email update when a post is edited, so editing is very unfriendly to email users. - By default there's a limit on max emails per day (so email users just randomly miss messages), though admins can change the setting. - Incoming email is HTML and surrounds the actual post with a big header and footer. At least Gmail automatically hides the footer. On the other hand, custom hosted instance may be able to mitigate some of those issues. (Discourse is open source; Rust's instance is hosted by Discourse itself, but you can also run your own.) For example, emails being delayed is probably fixable, post editing could be forbidden, and the header/footer format could be changed. And Discourse's web interface is *quite* nice, nicer than any other web forum I've seen... But I wish there were an option that took mailing list support more seriously, while having a similarly nice web interface. By the way, I tried years ago to migrate Agora's lists to Mailman 3; its web interface is nowhere near comparable to Discourse, but it's at least significantly nicer than the current Mailman 2, including allowing users to send messages from the web. Example instance: https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/mailman-us...@mailman3.org/ But some people replied at the time saying they liked the existing archive interface... and while it should be technically feasible to keep both as an option, I didn't have enough energy to set that up. Maybe I could do better if I tried again.
Re: DIS: [Draft] Refactoring IRV
A few issues with the wording: > > b. The option with the fewest valid ballots specifying it as the first > > entry on the list is identified, and the outcome is the outcome of an > > Instant Runoff decision as if that option had been removed from each valid > > ballot that contained it. It's odd to create a new, hypothetical decision to base the outcome on. If there's a tie in a round after this step, the vote collector would arguably have to identify that e's removing an option from a hypothetical decision rather than the actual decision; e may not even be able to do so, since that decision is never actually resolved. > >If there are multiple such options, the vote collector for the decision > > can, and must, select one to remove, specifying that they did so in the > > message resolving the decision. Could be clarified; "must" is presumably supposed to mean that the vote collector cannot resolve the decision without doing so, but it could be interpreted as MUST.
DIS: Ruleset history error
Just a quick note - The FLR credits Proposal 7778 (in various places) as: Amended(21) by P7778 'Instant Runoff Improved' (Alexis), 14 Aug 2014 But in fact I submitted it: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2015-July/033799.html And it was actually adopted on 14 Aug 201*5*: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2015-August/08.html Confusing things further, the resolution message incorrectly lists the author as yet a third individual – scshunt – and it would have self-ratified under rule 2034... though I'm not sure whether self-ratification would affect the type of historical annotations involved here.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux wrote: > It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify > without any claim of error, then the information therein will be > retroactively accurate... I think? Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation.
Re: DIS: Score Voting
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:20 PM Bernie Brackett wrote: > it feels like there's a discussion going on involving what exactly single > transferable vote means, so I feel like I should bring up that Score Voting > has mathematically been proven to be better. Is there any reason not to > switch to it? What proof are you referring to? Instant runoff certainly has its downsides, but so does score voting. For example, per Wikipedia [1], the optimal strategy for score voting is usually to give each option either the minimum or maximum score, which then disadvantages voters who score the options based on their actual relative preferences. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Score_voting#Strategy
Re: DIS: Ruleset history error
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 3:19 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > Having looked into the matter further, I can safely say that mistakes > were indeed made. The following is my analysis. Thanks for looking into it :) I... never realized that Alexis (aka alercah) was the same person as scshunt, despite having interacted with em under the former names on occasion. :\
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:41 PM James Cook wrote:
> For (a): I think it depends what "gamestate" means. It's never really
> defined. But personally I was assuming the gamestate covers all the
> facts invented by the rules, and not realities, e.g. what happened in
> the past. But I'm not sure about this. Anyway, my assumption would
> imply (a) is false.
I searched the archives a bit, and the situation seems to be more
complex than I remembered.
In CFJ 3337, G. ruled that statements about the past *could* be
ratified, but that it wasn't in that particular case because the scope
of what was actually ratified was limited by self-ratification:
> I agree with scshunt that history CAN be subject to ratification, but
> *not* that it is subject to self-ratification. That is, the self-
> ratification of a report fact ("as of this date, scshunt was a player")
> does not ratify the state of play the instant before that report was
> made. In particular, R2139 explicitly only governs the set of players
> at a particular instant (the instant of the report), and R2138 only
> governs the older of each office at a particular instant. The strict
> wording of *exactly* what is self-ratified (state) precludes any
> ratification of when or how that state came to be, historically.
>
> An explicit ratification process could do so, by (e.g. without
> objection) ratifying that the statement in question was true at an
> earlier date from the report.
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3337
...However, in retrospect, I'm not sure that judgement actually makes
sense. Rule 1551 states (and stated at the time):
When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if,
at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had
been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and
accurate as possible; [...]
The self-ratifying statements were about the current state at the time
they were published, but when they were ratified, the gamestate was
set to "what it would be" if publishing them had changed things to
make them true. If the gamestate includes the past, "what it would
be" necessarily includes the fact that they were true when they were
published (or at least immediately afterward).
Not sure what to take away from that. I don't see any more recent
CFJs about the issue.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM D. Margaux wrote: > and, therefore, any attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE. ...wow, that's strange. Why the heck is rule 2531 designed to make the gamestate (whether fines are EFFECTIVE, and thus indirectly people's voting power) depend on so many "soft" factors? Including the legality of actions, whether someone "more likely than not" performed an action (according to whom?), and even whether or not a fine is "blatantly and obviously unsuited".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > On the subject of community size - welcome back, o and omd!!! Thanks :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8177
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:05 AM D Margaux wrote: > Additionally, I do not think the conditional vote “required the report > ratification to go through before the voting period ended”; did it? If the > empty reports self-ratify tomorrow, wouldn’t your vote still resolve to FOR? > That is because, upon self-ratification, the Clork and Astronomor switches > would revert to their default values at the time of the report publication, > which would be before the end of the voting period. > > So I could have waited until report self-ratification and assessed the votes > the same way on Wednesday (but didn’t have to because of my ratification > without objection). That's another case that depends on whether ratification creates a legal fiction about the past. If it does, that would work. If it doesn't... well, it depends on whether you read R2127's "a conditional vote is evaluated at the end of the voting period" as (a) "a conditional vote is evaluated at the time of resolution based on circumstances at the end of the voting period", or (b) literally "a conditional vote is automatically evaluated at the end of the voting period, and that value is then stuck into the gamestate, waiting to be used when it's resolved". In the latter case, it also works, because ratification would change that value stuck in the gamestate. In the former case, ratifying after the end of the voting period but before assessment wouldn't work; ratifying *after* assessment would work if not for the prohibition on ratification implicitly modifying the ruleset.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8178-8179
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:12 AM David Seeber wrote: > I vote as follows: > > 8178 - FOR > 8179 - FOR > > I declare null and void any other votes cast on my behalf. I'm afraid you have to do this in the opposite order. The "null and void" bit presumably successfully retracted the ballots cast on your behalf, but your attempt to cast new votes didn't work because the existing ones hadn't been retracted yet (see Rule 683).
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:57 PM James Cook wrote:
> > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> > compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):
>
> I'm guessing R1551's complex language about "what it would be if, at
> the time..." is more about making sure it's clear how the consequences
> play out.
FWIW, that language originated with this proposal. Based on the
proposal comment and the wording itself, I think ais523 *was* trying
to have it avoid amending the past – though e didn't necessarily
succeed, considering the later judgements (including the current
ones).
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 6930 (Ordinary, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by ais523
Fix ratification
In rule 1551, replace
{{{
When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is minimally
modified so that the ratified document was completely true and
accurate at the time it was published.
}}}
with
{{{
When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified to
what it would be if the ratified document had, at the time of its
publication, minimally changed the gamestate to make that document
completely true and accurate (ignoring, for the purposes of
calculating the results of that hypothetical change, restrictions
on the document's abilities to make such changes applied by the
rules or similar documents).
}}}
[In other words, this proposal causes ratification to calculate an
effect in the past and apply it to the present, rather than the other
way round, which is rather dubious. Additionally, avoids issues with
things like Power in the past preventing the change happening; and
making it clear that the "minimally" does not exclude knock-on effects.]
Re: DIS: (Attn omd) mailman.agoranomic.org HTTPS certificate error
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 6:54 PM James Cook wrote: > When I try to load https://mailman.agoranomic.org/, I see a certificate error: Sorry about this! Despite the "Attn omd" in the subject, my eyes saw the "DIS:" and jumped over the rest; I was putting off reading Agora list messages so I didn't see it until now. (Even though you also added me directly as a recipient, Gmail only shows a single message, and it includes the DIS: prefix even though I imagine the copy you sent directly didn't have it.) In fact, I already fixed the issue but was too lazy to make an announcement about it. Sorry about the outage. Why it failed: I've long had a cron job set to try to renew the cert monthly; the Let's Encrypt certificate period is three months, so I guess this time it just happened to fail three times in a row. (Looking at the logs, at least the most recent failure was a 500 error on Let's Encrypt's end.) That simplistic schedule was inherited from when I was using acme-tiny. At some point I switched to certbot, but I kept the cron job the same and used --force-renewal to mimic the old behavior. Now I've fixed it to just run certbot daily, but using the (default) option that only tries to renew the cert if it's expiring in less than 30 days. That way it won't constantly be renewing, but still has ~30 chances to succeed before the cert expires, making it unlikely to let a cert expire due to random failures.
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:21 PM Rebecca wrote: > > We do interestingly have a clause that says "The Rules SHALL NOT be > interpreted > so as to proscribe unregulated actions.". I suppose under my > interpretation, anyone who so interprets the rules in any circumstance will > be criminally liable, whereas under the contrasting interpretation, only > the Rules themselves are liable. > > This clause, I suspect, should be changed in some way. SHALL NOT seems like > the wrong term. I searched my mail and found CFJ 3403: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg26252.html It's quite an ironic clause, at least if you read it literally.
Re: DIS: Fake Zombies
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:15 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > As a person, you possess one and exactly one Citizenship switch. Sending > messages from fake emails stating intent to register when you already > have registered would not change the value of your personal Citizenship > switch. For some fun precedent: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2048 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3106
Re: DIS: On Cleanliness
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:36 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Given that Rule 2221 ("Cleanliness") permits correcting the
> capitalization of a rule, would that, for example, permit changing a
> rule from saying "shall" to "SHALL" (or vice versa)?
>
> Note: I'm not planning anything, the question just crossed my mind.
Possibly. Though if the change to capitalization would change the
meaning of the rule, you could argue that it doesn't count as a
"correction".
Re: DIS: DMARC bounces (attn Murphy)
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:30 PM James Cook wrote: > (I'm not suggesting we use Discourse, just that maybe similar options are > available with the current software.) It seems Mailman does support something like that: https://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC https://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/sender-filters.html ...Okay, I've gone ahead and set dmarc_moderation_action to "Munge From" on all three lists. Changing the From address is annoying (sorry Murphy), but it only applies to messages from domains with p=reject DMARC entries, and the alternative is for those messages to not be deliverable properly. Incidentally, Gmail seems to accept such messages but send them to Spam. I set my Agora filter to never send to Spam, so I get a banner saying "This message was not sent to Spam because of a filter you created."
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comptrollor nerf
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Ah, here's the protection I was looking for: > > R2350 (power=3): > Once a proposal > is created, neither its text nor any of the aforementioned > attributes can be changed. Hmm... it may still be possible to destroy the proposal, or remove it from the Proposal Pool. Wasn't the Pool once secured? Who removed it? *rummages* It looks like it was me, in 2012, in Proposal 7239. Oops. I wonder if I did that on purpose as a scam; it's too long ago for me to remember.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 2:24 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > I bid TWO UNITED STATES DOLLARS. (This fails because it does not "specify[] the amount of the Auction's currency to bid" [R2550], since the currency is coins.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Income
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:59 AM Rebecca wrote: > > This exact thing was tried in about June of 2017 or 18, soon after the new > "boom and bust" money system came into effect (written by nichdel). I think > it was agreed by all that a duty was a duty imposed by the rules or > something of that nature. Hmm... I've just spent a few minutes searching the archives. I see CFJ 3551, which is somewhat relevant, but nothing specifically on point here. Do you have a link?
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Can The Ritual be banished?
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 4:50 PM Rance Bedwell wrote: > > I want to attempt to banish The Ritual, but I do not believe it is currently > possible to do so. For this reason I Call For Justice for this statement: > > "The value of N Agoran Consent currently required to banish The Ritual (Rule > 2596) is indeterminate, because it is not possible to know if The Ritual was > performed in the week that began on May 27." Evidence: Rule 2125/10 (Power=3) Regulated Actions An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor. A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules,and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:56 PM D. Margaux wrote: > It's really interesting to me, because within my discipline (law), those > sorts of hyperliteralist interpretations simply wouldn't work. Lawyers would > just intuitively know somehow that this kind of interpretive move would be > out of bounds--I'm not really sure why. But it's not necessary out of bounds > in Agora, and I'm not sure why that is either. I think it's no coincidence that despite the rules being styled like a legal system, Agora's actual playerbase has (I think) been composed largely of programmers. The game of Nomic itself was invented by Peter Suber, a philosopher of law, in a book which claims that law and logic are irreconcilable, and remarks on actual lawyers from an almost anthropological perspective: > One task that earlier scholars have not undertaken is to show that > self-amendment has frequently occurred despite all contradiction and paradox. > It is commonplace and, in fact, not even controversial in legal circles. By > all legal tests of lawfulness, self-amendment in the most illogical sense is > lawful. Nor have past explorers of these themes asked what law, legal change, > legal reason, and legal rules are such that they can tolerate this kind of > contradiction while forbidding many other things in the name of consistency. (To indulge myself in a digression, I think this is wrong. We humans do not have powers that exceed the scope of mathematics; if humans can reason consistently about something, then there must be *some* mathematical model describing the rules with which we do so, and so it cannot be called truly logically contradictory, even if it is contradictory under a simplified model. At worst, those rules may be too complex for humans themselves to understand – e.g. you can never fully understand someone's psychology or emotions – but they nevertheless exist in theory. And the self-amendment issue is not even close to that league of difficulty; I think it is paradoxical only in an overly literal interpretation of propositional calculus, though I may be arrogant in saying so.)
DIS: Idea: Notice and comment
Idea: Create a Rules-defined "notice and comment" process for judgements. Since I became active, there have been two judgements in CFJs about minor scams I attempted (3728 and 3833). The first one I had a minor quibble with, so I moved for reconsideration, but nobody bothered to support it. I think there's a bit of a stigma against supporting reconsideration, perhaps because it seems to suggest that the judge did a bad job. Adding to that is apathy: deciding whether to support reconsideration requires taking time to examine the original judgement and the counterargument, while ignoring it is free. Perhaps some people did examine my quibble and just decided it was bogus, but if so, nobody cared enough to make the point in writing. In the second one, as it turns out, I found every point to be completely reasonable and well-justified. Indeed, if someone else had tried the scam and I had been the judge, I might have reasoned similarly, though probably not as elegantly. (I wouldn't have attempted the scam if I didn't think it had a decent chance of being upheld as valid, but that's a lower standard than thinking it definitely should be.) Yet while I was reading the judgement, it occurred to me that it was making quite a lot of points that were now in some sense "set in stone" – deciding the case itself as well as setting precedent – without anyone having had the chance to critique them first. Of course, if I had had any objections I could have moved for reconsideration again, but the same stigma/apathy combo as before would likely be an obstacle, especially if my objections were minor. Which makes me wonder if we could change the rules to make judgements a bit more of an interactive process. Something like: - The judge files a proto-judgement; - There is a week (or maybe four days?) during which any other player can file a formal counterargument; - When the week passes, if there are no counterarguments then the judgement becomes final. If there are counterarguments, the judge has another week to publish an updated judgement which must briefly address each of them. There's no pressure for em to change eir outcome or reasoning if e doesn't find them compelling, but e should briefly explain why e disagrees. Comparing to the U.S. judicial system, judges do typically file written opinions without first circulating drafts, and they're free to include novel theories in those opinions which none of the parties had a chance to address. But in my understanding, they usually don't, largely because of a few differences: First, every real-world case has at least two parties who file thorough briefs arguing for their side and responding to the other side's arguments; collectively, the briefs tend to explore the issue thoroughly. In Agora, thanks to apathy (and the pay scale), CFJs often have only brief comments from the caller, or sometimes no arguments at all, by the time they get to a judge to rule on. Now, that's not the judge's fault. It's arguably the responsibility of all parties with a vested interest in a CFJ's outcome to file arguments in advance of judgement; personally, I'm not proud of neglecting to submit any arguments regarding either of the CFJs I mentioned before. Yet even when there is a decent amount of argument, it rarely gets anywhere close to the level of thoroughness with which lawyers address the issues in real-world cases, so it's inevitable that judges end up having to come up with more theories on their own. Second, real-world cases (at least the interesting ones) typically have oral argument before getting to the point of a written opinion. Especially in appellate court, but also in trial court when there are questions of law (rather than fact), this tends to involve the judge frequently interrupting the lawyers' arguments to ask questions, often pointed questions which amount to "how do you respond to argument X?". This effectively gives the judge an opportunity to try out eir reasoning on the lawyers before incorporating it into a written opinion. We don't have any equivalent of that. Third, binding precedents are only set by appellate court rulings, which are always decided by a panel of multiple judges, not just one. Fourth, since the real-world legal system has orders of magnitude more precedent, there just aren't many cases in the first place where the judge is expected to come up with a legal framework out of whole cloth, as opposed to deciding which of multiple competing precedents is most applicable to the circumstances, or how to apply a precedent to circumstances that are slightly different. So there's more of a roadmap as to what issues the judge is going to address. Anyway, I realized that while my idea is unlike the U.S. *judicial* system, it does resemble how notice and comment works in federal rulemaking. An agency first publishes a proposed rule; this starts a 30 to 180 day period during which interested parties can formally submit comments.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Oh, and [Attn. Arbitor]
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:30 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I'm sorry, what does this mean? Obsolete terminology for saying that I'm interested in judging cases. I figured it was okay since G. would understand it, but maybe I should have been less cute.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't > "cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The > only way to make it undoubted post-CFJ is to either just publish a > "new" document, or re-CoE the old one (which gives the publisher an > opportunity to deny the claim). Nit: Submitting a new CoE and having it be denied doesn't make the document undoubted, since the CFJ is still a doubt.
Re: DIS: report reward fixes
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:42 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing: > Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: > with: > Publishing a duty-fulfilling official report: So this would now read * Publishing a duty-fulfilling official report: 5 coins. For each office, this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report published in a week and the first monthly report published in a month. Seems a little redundant, since "duty-fulfilling" overlaps with the second sentence. Perhaps simplify to something like: * Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report for the first time in a given week or month (resp.): 5 coins. Though I suppose my wording is ambiguous as to whether you can claim the reward if a previous officeholder published the office's report in the same week/month.
Re: DIS: Idea: Notice and comment
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM James Cook wrote: > Requiring notice and comment would make it a bit more complicated and > time-consuming to judge a CFJ, which might not make sense for simple > ones. Well, most simple cases shouldn't have any comments submitted, and in that case my design would have the judgement automatically become final after a week without requiring further action from the judge.
Re: DIS: Idea: Notice and comment
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:56 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > Would such a section become precedent just as the normal part of a > judgment would, or would it be purely informational? I'd say it shouldn't need to be a separate section at all. If the comment is unavailing, then sure, tack on an sentence at the end about why it's wrong. But if it convinces the judge to change eir reasoning, then e may want to integrate the response to the comment into a revised version of eir main arguments. So it's simplest to not legally distinguish the main judgement and responses to counterarguments, and just say that the revised judgement has to address the counterarguments. Ergo, responses to counterarguments would have the same precedential value. That said, I'd interpret the precedent system (as it exists today) as having the same concept of "obiter dicta" as in real law: if an argument made in a judgement is only marginally related to the case at hand, it should only count as weak precedent, regardless of what section of the judgement it's in.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:44 PM James Cook wrote: > Could you elabourate? Even if we should pretend zombies are assets, it's > not always true that an asset's owner CAN transfer it. E.g. if I had blots > and auctioned them off, I don't think anything would allow me to transfer > them to the winner of the auction. Well... the specific wording is whether e CAN transfer them "at will". Rule 955 is titled "Determining the Will of Agora", and its text explains how to determine the outcome of Agoran decisions, such as proposals. It's only a medium-sized leap to infer that Agora can do something "at will" if a proposal can cause it to do it.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:40 PM James Cook wrote:
> Ha, maybe. Here's another argument, though: Master is secured at a
> power threshold of 2. Rule 2551 ("Auction End") only has power 1. I
> doubt Rule 2551 can get around that by saying it's Agora doing it
> rather than R2551, but if it can, I guess that could be used as an
> escalation scam.
Good catch. And it wouldn't get around that. As far as I know, Agora
doesn't have its Power set, so Agora wouldn't have any more right to
flip the switch than R2552.
If Agora did have its Power set, then causing Agora to act would
likely fall under
3. set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument
with power greater than its own. A "substantive" aspect of an
instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's
operation.
...or if not, there's a big hole in general. I think there might
actually be precedent regarding this, since there have been a bunch of
Power escalation scam attempts in the past, but I guess it's a moot
point in this case.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on recordkeepors
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > I meant to ask about that. Is there a reason all of these terms use the > "-or" suffix even when normal English would use "-er"? Just a silly custom, though I don't know its origin.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > Hi omd, > > When a Motion to Reconsider is filed, I drop the old arguments > entirely from the case log, so the old judgement isn't mistaken for > precedent (there's no objective way of knowing whether motion-filers > are objecting to minor portions, or the whole thing, and keeping both > gets quite confusing). Your revised judgement below seems to depend > on some of that long original judgement though (references to CFJ 3425 > eg.) and I'd hate the detailed work to get lost - are there parts that > should be kept? Hmm... I guess you could keep everything in the original before "I'll honor the precedent here." Though I'll venture that, as a player, I think I'd prefer a policy of letting the case log serve as a full historical record, rather than dropping information even if it's outdated. If you're worried about judgements being mistaken for precedent, why not just add a note at the top saying that the judgement was reconsidered/overruled/etc.?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:23 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Recent habits, especially for self-filed motions, are "I self-motion
> to reconsider, and submit the entirely same judgement except for a
> couple clarifying paragraphs" (like I did for 3733) or trivial
> mistakes ("I wrote this long argument for FALSE that still holds, but
> accidentally typed TRUE instead of FALSE at the end, so it's all the
> same except s/TRUE/FALSE.") Under those circumstances, its much more
> of a chore for later reading to have two long versions of nearly the
> same thing, and preserving the trivial mistake adds nothing.
Yeah, I agree regarding those circumstances.
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 6:08 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > An action that is regulated by a requirement-creating entity CAN > only be performed as described by the entity, and only using the > methods explicitly specified in the entity for performing the given > action. The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe > actions that are not regulated by it. Combined with "Contracts CAN regulate actions that are defined in other requirement-creating entities.", doesn't this allow contracts to decide whether rules-defined actions succeed or not? > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a requirement-creating entity > CANNOT add or remove ways of performing actions that it does not > define, but it CAN forbid or require the performance of such actions. If we're going to be all explicit about what it means to define something, I feel like that should include gamestate in addition to actions. On the other hand, before I saw this thread, I was planning to propose simply repealing Rule 2125. The only part of it that seems necessary or useful to me is the "methods explicitly specified in the Rules" clause, and that could be handled a different way – say, in "Mother, May I?": 5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful. For game-defined actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends on the mechanism the rules define for performing the action. If no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to perform the action.
DIS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:40 PM David Seeber wrote: > I also cause myself to receive a Welcome pack since I have not received one > since I returned from being a zombie. Welcome back, by the way.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote: > In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the > case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is > prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it > says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same > formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the > formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is > properly considered a logical undecidability. FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is still based on the forbidden interpretation.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 PM Rebecca wrote: > I would like us all to informally vote TRUE, FALSE, PARADOXICAL, DISMISS or > IRRELEVANT on CFJ 3737, the subject of so much discussion in the other > thread. This would help to determine which option Agora as a whole stands > behind, so we don;t have to have actual moots or motions for > reconsideration or w/e IRRELEVANT or recuse.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:08 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > Recuse D. Margaux? What good would that do? Kick the can down the road until the rule can be fixed. > Also not really something we can force upon em... We can't force em to judge any particular way either.
Re: DIS: Proto: Timeline Control Ordnance
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > This proposal codifies a few common sense rules about timelines. For > instance, retroactive modifications are possible, but work by creating > a legal fiction, rather than by changing what actually happened. Overall: Seems quite well designed. Personally I'd prefer to just ban retroactive modifications, but this proposal would do a good job of codifying the existing precedent. Nits: > A timeline is a sequence of events, worldstates, and/or gamestates, > as entailed by the standard definition of the word "timeline". This is a bit wordy; I think you could remove the second line, or remove the whole paragraph. > Accordingly, it can be modified retroactively. Modifications to the Standard > Timeline other than by events or actions taking place as they actually > happen are secured at power 3. This could be simplified a bit – perhaps "Accordingly, it can be modified retroactively; such retroactive modifications are secured at power 3". > By default, any entity with a power less than the power of this rule that > refers to the past (or the future) is to be interpreted as referring to > events > on the Standard Timeline; however, entities may explicitly reference events > in a different timeline. Why exclude entities with high power? > "The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and legal > situation as they objectively existed at the time the inquiry case was > initiated, not taking into account any events or retroactive modifications > since that time. This could be shortened if you just reference the Objective Timeline by name.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be > sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include > conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs. This seems like it could allow contracts to create ambiguous game states through unreasonably complex conditionals or repetition... though that possibility may already exist. > Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in > other binding entities. To the extent specified by the Rules, > contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions that > meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any actions > that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by the contract. The last sentence seems to do nothing, since "these criteria" include "regulat[ing] other actions" "to the extent specified by the Rules", but it's true in general that you can only regulate things to the extent specified by the Rules. > A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except > that the performance of them must include at least one announcement: "at least one announcement" seems overly broad – e.g. "X CAN act on behalf of Y to deregister by announcing that e likes cupcakes." > An action is regulated by a binding entity if: (1) the entity > directly and explicitly defines, limits, allows, enables, permits, > forbids, or requires its performance; (2) the entity describes the > circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) > the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for > which the entity requires some player to be a "recordkeepor"; or (4) > the Rules state that the action is regulated by the entity. There are actions which are forbidden but not meant to be regulated, e.g. making a public statement that is a lie (which, given the definitions in R478, refers to the real-world action of sending an email). > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a binding entity CAN only > require or forbid an action that it does not define; it CANNOT > modify anything else about the action in any way. This arguably conflicts with the "CAN only be performed" clause below, in which case the latter would take precedence by R2240. > The set of actions that are regulated by an entity is the entity's > set of regulated actions. > > An action that is regulated by a binding entity CAN only be > performed as described by the entity, and only using the methods > explicitly specified in the entity for performing the given action. > The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe actions that > are not regulated by it. The SHALL-NOT-interpret clause really needs to go away; I'm pretty sure it was only added by mistake (i.e. it wasn't intended to use the definition implied by the capitalization). It makes no sense to attach criminal penalties to interpretations at all, let alone without saying those interpretations are wrong.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. > It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just > incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is > game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of some binding > entity." That obviously doesn't help in this proposal. I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e. which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the rules. I admit this could be made more explicit. On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas > here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified > somewhere. It would give us something to direct new players to, and > something to cite in CFJs when the principle comes up. Would you be > opposed to such an explicit provision? Hmm... you do have a point.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:26 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. In particular, > the new version of the rules leaves it unclear whether it's possible to > attempt to do something that's not defined by the rules but which would > change the gamestate. There should likely at least be a reference to > recordkeepor information. For the record, my intent is: If that something is a preexisting action that the Rules say has the *result* of changing the gamestate, like sending an email (in some circumstances), then the circumstances under which it can be attempted or performed are not within the Rules' scope to define. If that something literally *consists of* changing the gamestate, like "making omd a player", then... well, I guess I *want* that to count as a game-defined action, since I definitely want the "meaning of attempt" clause to apply to it. But on reflection, there's a fair argument that it does not.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:44 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined > > action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e. > > which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the > > rules. I admit this could be made more explicit. > > Without defining "game-defined", arguably contracts are part of the > game, and contracts can define actions, and thus actions defined by > contracts are "game-defined". Good point. The spirit of the clause is fine to apply to contracts, but there would be a problem if you treat "game-defined" as broader than what "the rules define" (from later in the sentence). This could be avoided by switching "game-defined" to "rules-defined".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > >> Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in > >> other binding entities. To the extent specified by the Rules, > >> contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions that > >> meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any actions > >> that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by the contract. > I put that "Any actions that do not meet these criteria are not > regulated by the contract." there to explicitly invoke the override > clause in the new Rule 2125. By the definition of "regulated", a > contract could still forbid/require/etc. actions that it defines, even > if it CANNOT define those actions. This clause prevents that. Oh, I see. I missed that "other actions" does not include "actions that are defined in other binding entities". This still seems a little questionable, since "define or regulate" makes it sound like contracts can regulate actions which they don't define (and which are also not defined in other binding entities). At least, I don't think there's any scenario where it would make sense for a contract to do that.
DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An action is regulated if it:
(a) consists of altering Rules-defined state (e.g. the act of
flipping a Citizenship switch), or
(b) is a Rules-defined term of art with no inherent meaning
(e.g. the act of "distributing" a proposal).
Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
the following:
For regulated actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends on
the mechanism(s) the rules define for performing the action. If
no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
perform the action.
[[[
More explicit than my last proposal; still a (slight) net decrease in
word count. I like this version.
The new definition does not explicitly address 'actions' that consist
only *in part* of altering Rules-defined state, e.g. "wearing a hat
and flipping a Citizenship switch". I think not addressing them is
actually correct. "Putting on a hat and then flipping a Citizenship
switch" has a ground-truth definition, which inherently determines
whether and when it possible to take that action: namely, it's defined
as {putting on a hat (which itself has a ground-truth definition)} and
then {flipping a Citizenship switch (which is defined in the Rules)}.
The Rules should not, and perhaps cannot, define it as something other
than the combination of those two things. Instead, they just
indirectly determine the possibility of the whole by defining the
possibility of the part.
]]]
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write > up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a > bunch of copies, and then start handing them out to everyone I know. > That seems like it would fulfill a natural language meaning of > "distributing a proposal". Indeed, this wording refers to, but is not itself meant to codify, the presumption that when the rules say something like "distribute a proposal", they are creating a term of art rather than adopting a natural language definition.
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > I think you’re making it worse rather than better. I’d drop the “with no > inherent meaning” bit; a judge could easily interpret it to forbid > "distribute" being a term of art, since distributing something has meaning. The point of that phrase is to exclude terms of art that refer to preexisting actions, such as sending a public message.
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > Also, the bit in Mother May I should still go in the regulated actions > rule. Let's keep all the regulated action stuff in one place. I really like > the current phrasing; it's extremely elegant (honestly, more so than the > one here), and no one has pointed out a breakage in it. It's the "A > regulated action CAN only be performed as described by the rules, and only > using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the > given action." part. The main issue with the existing wording is that it conflicts with any rule that says that an action CAN be performed without giving a method, yet it doesn't include a precedence clause, so it fails to work in some cases. This could be fixed by adding a precedence clause, but there would still be issues with rules which contain precedence clauses themselves for whatever reason (and have Power >= 3). I believe my wording is more elegant because it avoids the conflict.
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 9:58 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a > crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters the > Rules-defined "state" of whether or not they are guilty of a crime. Is > this a valid reading, and is this intended? I'd consider that a definition rather than state. But even if it was state, my intent was that "consists of altering Rules-defined state" (combined with the example) would limit the clause to the action of altering state itself, rather than any action that merely indirectly results in state being altered. However, the negative reception suggests that the new language is not as clear as I thought it was. Back to the drawing board...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except > that the performance of them must include at least clearly and > unambiguously announcing the performance of the action: What does it mean to "define" an action that already has a definition? > * Changing from being a non-party to being a party to the > contract > > * Changing from being a non-party to being a party to the > contract Duplicate bullet. > An action that is defined by a binding entity CAN only be performed > as described by the entity, and only using the methods explicitly > specified in the entity for performing the given action. Is this meant to imply that it CAN be performed as described by the entity? I would normally read "CAN only be performed" as equivalent to "CANNOT be performed except", i.e. it only makes otherwise-possible things impossible, not the other way around. But that seems to leave contracts without a way to make the actions in the bulleted list possible, unless I'm missing something.
DIS: Re: BUS: that pesky empty set again
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > CFJ: An Agoran decision to select the winner of the election has > a voting method of AI-Majority. > > Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices, Power=3): > Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran > decisions and proposals, whose value is either "none" (default) > [...] > For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the voting method > is AI-majority. > > This states outright that Agoran decisions have AIs, and any decision with > an AI has a voting method of AI-majority. The fact that the value of the AI > is "none" doesn't mean the AI is nonexistent. Gratuitous: Given the way that both this rule and R2162 (Switches) gloss over the differences between (a) switches, (b) types of switches, (c) instances of switches, and (d) values of instances of switches, I think it's no great leap to say that the text is unclear for R217 purposes, allowing it to be augmented with factors including common sense. Precisely because all decisions, by definition, have an instance of the adoption index switch (especially since that definition is in the very same rule), common sense suggests that "decision with an adoption index" should be read as something other than "decision having an instance of the adoption index switch". Evidence: Rule 2162/11 (Power=3) Switches A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, (Is it a type of switch or a switch?)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > So would I face prejudice if I were to open the exact same CFJs again > later once we actually get CHoJ fixed? Fine by me.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 7:52 AM James Cook wrote: > Withdraw Rule 2597 (Line-item Veto). Why that rule? It's only a few months old; there are a lot of other rules that are much more stale.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 5:27 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I point my finger at omd for failure to assign a judgement to CFJ 3752 > in a timely fashion. Apologies; I forgot I was assigned to this one. I'll judge it tomorrow.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:18 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I'll leave the CFJ up in hopes that it gets judged in a way that avoids > this whole mess (although I'm not sure that there's enough space to > bring in Rule 217 factors and get "best interests of the game"). Gratuitous: I get from my apartment to the grocery store by crossing the street. But it's not true that every time I cross that street I'm going from my apartment to the grocery store. Crossing the street is a *means* of getting to the grocery store, but not the entire definition of what it means to go to the grocery store. I'd also cite CFJ 2549: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2549
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:41 PM Rebecca wrote: > you absolutely can! we are not the typo police. Not that it matters, but it probably wasn't a typo. CFJ 1885 (called 26 Jan 2008): "AGAINT" is a variant spelling of "AGAINST", not a customary synonym for "FOR", despite its former private usage with the latter meaning.
DIS: Re: BUS: Phantom Strike
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 3:43 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > Actually, everyone should destroy their spaceship. Then clause 3 has > equal standing for both. > > I destroy the spaceship in my possession. Me too.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3760 assigned to omd
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:48 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The answer may depend on whether "response to a CoE" is an official duty > > (R2143): > >An official duty for an office is any duty that the Rules > >specifically assign to that office's holder in particular > >(regardless of eir identity). Question: Are you thinking of any particular reason it would depend on this? I checked the Rules for clauses mentioning "duty" or "duties" and I don't see anything relevant.
Re: DIS: ATTN omd / Distributor (was Re: jobs)
On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 5:48 PM James Cook wrote: > Our H. Distributor tried in June to enable from-address-rewriting for > messages with this problem, but I'm not sure it worked. See for > example my 2019-07-01 message to the discussion list [0]. > > omd, do you have any insight on what is going on? > > [0] > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-July/054651.html Well, protonmail.com has p=quarantine, and Mailman is set to munge >From for both p=quarantine and p=reject, so it should be rewriting From... yet it isn't. Hmm. *sigh* I see. From munging is performed by the SpamDetect pass, and I had manually disabled that pass because – according to a comment I left at the time – it caused Python errors related to Unicode handling. So it never actually took effect. I just re-enabled the pass, and also upgraded Mailman to the tip of the 2.1 branch just in case it fixes the Unicode issue. If it doesn't, the list might start dropping messages fitting whatever pattern was triggering the issue in the past, in which case I'll have to actually find the bug and fix it. For now, though... I just sent a test message from a ProtonMail account, and From rewriting now seems to be working.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8253-8264
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 9:46 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > Oh, also, well you’re at it, could you change “correctly identified” to > “correctly and publicly identified” so that no one, like, hides the fact > that they’ve identified it and then still claims they’ve invalidated the > decision? I just submitted a longer proposal that effectively does that, though I'm not sure how it'll be received. It replaces the clause with a form of self-ratification. It also uses the wording "the notice must clearly specify" rather than "lacks a clear specification". I think that helps with your concern a little: the thing that has to be clear changes from 'some part of the notice' to the notice itself, so you can no longer say that "this thing is perfectly clear if extracted from the notice and read in isolation". I'm keeping this proposal around as well because the other one may not pass. However, I'm not convinced that "unobfuscated" is different enough from "clear" to make a difference. I'll think about the wording some more.
DIS: Re: BUS: (No Subject)
(...did this create a proposal? It was sent to business but doesn't say "proposal".)
DIS: test
Will Gmail deliver a list message if it's sent from a different IP?
Re: DIS: test
Testing my new address filter. On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 3:25 PM omd wrote: > > Will Gmail deliver a list message if it's sent from a different IP?
Re: DIS: test should fail
On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 7:37 PM James Cook wrote: > I got this one. Yeah... I was trying to send from an unsubscribed address, but I didn't realize that when sending from an alias, Gmail would keep my normal address in the envelope. Whoops.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to omd
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > === CFJ 3783 === > >Jason Cobb has more than 2000 Coins. > > == Proto-judgement: Hmm. I'm torn. I agree with the general thrust of G.'s argument: the idea of winning an election multiple times after it's ended defies the ordinary usage of the terms. I disagree with this argument, though: > Further, if the callers' arguments are accepted, it leads to a potential > problem. The term "in progress" isn't defined. By common definitions, if a > winner can still be declared, then the election is still in progress, even > if another part of the rule says it has "ended". As I see it, "in progress" and "ended" are something like antonyms. (They're antonyms if you ignore the third possibility, "not yet started".) They're not just mutually exclusive, i.e. it's not allowed or expected (in some sense) that something could be both "in progress" and "ended". Rather, to say that something is in both states is just a self-contradiction, unless you override the meaning of one or both of the terms. Of course, a rule can override the meaning of whatever terms it wants, but without some sort of indication (potentially implicit) that it intends to do so, we should assume that it uses standard meanings. In contrast, I think there's a bit more wiggle room in what it means to "win" an election – though I'm not sure how much. I'm actually not so concerned that someone could win an election after it's "ended", per se. After all, in the real world, one might say that an election has "ended" when voting is over, even though it will take time to count the votes and determine who won. It's not the best use of terminology, especially if your definition of "election" includes activities *before* the start of voting (as Rule 2154 elections do), but people would understand what you meant. On the other hand, the idea of winning the same election multiple times in a row is... very surprising, at least. It's not as clearly contradictory as the other example, but it might still be considered contradictory. At least in ordinary language. Now, this is Agora, where we have a long tradition of allowing players to "win the game" on successive occasions, including the same person multiple times. Shouldn't the same apply to Agoran elections? Perhaps. On the other hand, winning Agora also does not cause Agora to end, and that fact is arguably what justifies the existence of successive winners. It's still an unusual use of terminology, but it achieves a purpose: allowing the game to continue indefinitely while still granting people the achievement of "winning" it. In contrast, allowing successive wins of an election that has already "ended" has no obvious purpose. Ultimately, it may come down to the usual "consideration of the best interests of the game". Those are usually taken as weighing against scams. On the other hand, having scams be rejected is no fun for the scamster. In this case, e made a rather elaborate plan: > I had this idea for a scam back before I proposed emerald ribbons, but, > even if it had worked, all it would do would be to change the holder of > an office, and I didn't want to mess anything up. I proposed Emerald > ribbons because I legitimately thought it was a good idea, but then nch > submitted Proposal 8266, which, combined with Emerald ribbons, gives a > monetary incentive to do this. The defense against the plan would be for other players to carefully read proposals to check for loopholes like this one. Is this to be encouraged? It's arguably a form of interesting gameplay. Scam proposals themselves aren't too common, so it might be annoying to have to trawl through dense language on the off-chance there's a scam hidden in it (something that's definitely true for official reports). But sloppy drafting *is* common, and tends to result in the exact same kinds of flaws. Such flaws can sometimes be scammed by players other than the author, and in any case, fixing them improves the overall quality of the ruleset. Reviewing proposals to make the wording more clear and unambiguous seems like a core part of Nomic. Though if the flaws if are only identified at voting time, voting against the proposal can result in unnecessary delays... Perhaps there should be some mechanic where proposals can be amended during the voting period without objection. But I digress. I judge CFJ 3783... something. Not quite sure yet. :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: An economic/gameplay experiment
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > If you care about how close someone else is, you can track it yourself > (all the necessary information's public). It wouldn't surprise me if > someone started publicly tracking it unofficially; the difference is > that gameplay doesn't have to stop if nobody can be found to track it. On the flipside: it's one less "easy" office that a new player could feel comfortable taking. Given, we have one or two of those already.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Corrected List of Silver Quill Proposals
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > 7693 Revised Province of Agora I informally nominate this one for a Silver Quill, for causing an inordinate number of words to be shed scamming and counterscamming it, a situation which ended not when the issues were settled but when everyone got too tired of it to care about them! > 7711 Wordplay I nominate this one for an Ash Quill due to having had absolutely no meaningful gameplay (or even scams) before it was repealed. > 7742 Pending changes I like this one, but feel we haven't had enough time to judge its impact yet.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Corrected List of Silver Quill Proposals
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:25 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > That was just a proposal for tightening-up of language. It didn't try to > introduce any new mechanics. Oops. I meant to nominate the proposal which originally introduced the pending process, which is in fact 7728 (Even More Restricted Distribution).
Re: DIS: archives?
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Hey omd, been getting 404s on the agoranomic archives for the > past couple days... -G. I think it's actually since yesterday, when I switched webservers... I tested http://agoranomic.org, but forgot the list stuff. Should be fixed now.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > I thought (and Wikipedia agrees) that IRV stages without a majority winner > (which includes any with a top tie) choose (one or more) losers, not a > winner. Ah, yes. Thinko.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:22 PM, omd wrote: >> (d) If the valid options are ordered lists of preferences, the >> outcome is decided using instant-runoff voting. In case >> multiple valid preferences tie for the lowest number of >> votes at any stage, the vote collector CAN and must, in the >> announcement of the decision's resolution, select one such >> preference to eliminate; if, for N > 1, all eir possible >> choices in the next N stages would result in the same set of >> preferences being eliminated, e need not specify the order >> of elimination. > > Is that "for some N > 1" or "for all N > 1"? I think it's pretty obviously "for some" in context. > Also, in IRV, the tied > preferences are all eliminated, rather than breaking the tie. The > exception is if all remaining options are tied. This isn't universal. According to http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting: -- ALL: Eliminate all tied candidates at once. Good for weak candidates (with less than 5% of votes), but can lead to strategic nominations, which cause IRV implementations using this method to not be spoiler proof -- I think vote collector abuse is vaguely more interesting than strategic voting. Because I'm dumb, I had to write a script to come up with a concrete outcome where the difference matters: Candidates: A, B, C Votes: C, C, A, B>A In the first stage, A and B are tied for last, at one first choice each (but C has more). If we eliminate them both at once, C obviously wins. But if we eliminate B, we're left with C, C, A, A, which is a tie that could be broken in A's favor. In other words, B is a spoiler candidate.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ proposals
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > If two people have expressed interest in judging but > have both been remitted, is the Arbitor prohibited from assigning > either one to the case? Good point. I will amend.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7758-7762
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I'll opine on the effect in Rulekeepor's Notes this week, at least (I > haven't reviewed votes so no idea if it's controversial or not at > the moment). -G. A quick check shows: voted FOR with pseudo-acronym (2): ais523 Warrigal voted FOR without pseudo-acronym (4): omd Tiger Tekneek Roujo G. attempted to be ambiguous about it, but either way, pseudo-acronym wouldn't hit 50%.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7758-7762
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > Do you really need special list admin powers for that? Testing... You don't, but a quick archive grep suggests that nobody tried this in a voting message. I also doubt it would work legally, any more than you can publish something by putting it in a header. (Protip: Raw, download-resumable archives are still available at http://agoranomic.org/archives/ - though the authentication has been broken for the last few days, which I just fixed.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7758-7762
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> What Ørjan means ("Testing...") is that e slipped it into a field of
> that last email...
Yeah, I know. But I checked the aforementioned archive to verify that
nobody did the same in a message actually containing a vote.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > no worries! I'll deputize to assign the CFJ if no one jumps into the > Arbitor role by tomorrow. -t. I'm willing to do it, but do you have a copy of the current state of your interested judge list? (t.?)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I announced a couple months ago that I was defining "interested" by > "voted at least once in the last couple weeks of Assessor's reports, > and hasn't explicitly said they *weren't* interested." In other > words, being interested enough to play Agora actively means being > interested enough to do judicial duty. > > I changed this because I had old "interested" people who hadn't > posted for a while, so I didn't expect them to return judgements. > > Haven't made a list from latest Assessor's report. Only opt-out > was aranea for specified vacation dates but those dates have passed > (I think!) Ah, thanks. In that case...
DIS: Re: BUS: Let's punish people again
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > proscribe a task for the Defendant to perform in a timely prescribe? > The defendant's performing of the apology or task is an act of > penance that has the effect of destroying one Red Card (if any) > in eir possession. What if e does it more than once? > If the Referee is the Penitant, the Arbitor shall assumee the assume
Re: DIS: About Proposals 7773 and 7774
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:43 AM, tmanthe2nd . wrote: > Proposals 7773 and 7774 gives the wrong ID number for the rule it amends. > Rule 2455 does not exist. So, the proposals don't actually do anything. So they do. Nice catch.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Silver Quill Vote
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Proto (I was thinking about this already) > > In the Silver Quill voting, each player picks eir > first (5 points), second (3 points) and third (1 point) > choices. Proposal with the most points wins. Well, this is a Borda count; I proposed instant runoff, but they should have fairly similar effects in a small election.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Voting for the Silver Quill is now Open
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > It's the degree of difficulty. Determining eligible players requires finding > a single > week-old report, which well within the realm of "clear". A report with the list of proposals (with ID and title, but not text) was published two weeks ago... I wouldn't say that's so much harder, considering that finding the text of a given proposal should be a matter of a web search (though of course it would be nice to have better automation!).
Re: DIS: Where did Win by Paradox go?
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > Rule 2358, which defined Win by Paradox, was present in the ruleset > published on 25 August 2013, but absent in the ruleset published on 17 > December 2013. I couldn't find any proposals which repealed the rule. > So where did it go? Proposal 7609: http://iw.qoid.us/message/%3Calpine.LRH.2.01.1312131214090.30888%40hymn02.u.washington.edu%3E
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Where did Win by Paradox go?
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I support. Why not? To vote, you'll have to wait for the proposal to be distributed by the Promotor.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7780-83
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:15 AM, omd wrote: > >> 7782+ the Warrigal 3.0 Power Always Controls Mutability > > AGAINST - this would prevent proposals from modifying Power>3 rules, > > because Rule 106 is Power 3 > > How would it do that? Never mind, I can't read. Still don't see the point.
DIS: Re: BAK: test
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Well my goodness, hi.CFJ: Quazie is a player. Arguments: I don't see any reason why "I attempt to leave" would be ineffective.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3450 assigned to Roujo
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > The intent is at least as clear as the preceding one. If neither are > sufficient, then Quazie never became a player. If both are, e briefly was > but then left. In both cases, the outcome is the same in regards to this > CFJ: TRUE. This argument isn't quite complete, because deregistering is by announcement, while registering has a considerably looser standard... (not that I think there was any lack of clarity in this case)
DIS: Proto: RFCs
Proto: RFCs (AI=1.7) [A new proposal mechanism for Ephemeral rules. Inspired by Asimov's short story "Franchise", where every year a computer picks a single "most representative" American as the Voter of the Year... Alternately, it could be seen as an inversion of the idea of Moots: they converted the CFJ system to work partially like the proposal system, so here is a proposal to make the proposal system work like the CFJ system (including, for possibly the first time ever, explicitly inviting written feedback on proposals rather than just up/down votes). I promise this is not a scam. Intended as my entry into the competition I just started, connecting the proposal and CFJ systems - "currently unrelated" is a bit of a stretch, given the above existing connection of Moots, but I think this is a more substantive bridge.] Create a new Power-1.7 Rule titled "Requests for Comments": Any player CAN submit a Request for Comments (RFC) by announcement, specifying a set of desired changes to the gamestate. E may optionally bar one person from the RFC. At any time, each RFC is either open (default), suspended, or assigned exactly one judgement. When a RFC has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign a player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a week. For this to succeed, e must choose that player randomly (with equal probability) from the set of eligible judges, using an adequate selection mechanism such that any player can readily verify the manifest impossibility of eir having influenced the outcome (including by selecting between purportedly independent selection mechanisms). The eligible judges for an RFC are all players who voted on the most recent decision to adopt a proposal to be resolved, except the caller and the person (if any) barred. If this would leave no one eligible, the base set is instead all players, with the same exceptions. Create a new Power-1.7 Rule titled "Judging RFCs": Starting three days after an RFC is called, if it is open and assigned to a judge, then that judge CAN assign it a valid judgement by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion after this becomes possible. E is strongly encouraged to accompany eir judgement with substantive arguments as to why the suggested changes would have a positive or negative impact on the game, and any other factors influencing eir decision. The valid judgements are APPROVE, DISAPPROVE, and REVISE. The last of these must be combined with a revised set of gamestate changes; when a judge assigns it, e SHALL design the revised changes to accomplish the same general aim as the originally submitted ones. RFCs are subject to reconsideration, Moot, retraction, and excess using processes identical to those of CFJs. A judgement on a RFC is final when it can no longer be subject to a Motion to Reconsider or entrance into Moot, and was first assigned at least seven days ago. When a RFC gains a final judgement of APPROVE or REVISE, its power is set to 0.9, and it attempts to apply the (possibly revised) specified changes. The Arbitor SHALL announce it has done so in a timely fashion afterwards. [Just to be clear, a RFC can't take effect after "three days"; that's the minimum before a judgement can be entered, but the judgement then has to stew for another seven. The restriction is just to make it more likely that people can raise issues before it's entered rather than using reconsideration/Moot - it would feel a little weird to me for a decision on a rule change, even a preliminary one, to be made before any significant number of players had a chance to look at it. The "seven days ago" clause is intended as a failsafe but redundant: once is resolved, a judgement can only become un-Mootable by either remaining un-Mooted for seven days or being AFFIRMED after a seven day voting period. An example of an adequate judge selection mechanism: the Arbitor could announce at a certain time a function used to determine the judge based on the hash of the sixth Bitcoin block to be mined thereafter, then wait a while and announce the result.]
DIS: Re: BUS: A rantlet
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > You know, I'm starting to feel like Agora really isn't the nomic for > me. Whenever we're faced with a choice between multiple valid and > justifiable interpretations of the rules, we seem to rarely simply go > with whichever option is most convenient or intended; we instead > interpret the letter of the rules as literally and mechanically as > possible. Rule 217 allows and encourages us to apply "common sense" > and "the best interests of the game" where the rules are ambiguous, > but we don't. The resulting messes and risk of failure are undoubtedly > fun for some. But for me, not so much. It's funny, just a few hours ago I was praising the exact same attribute on Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10057891 In other news, last night I was thinking about Nomic 217 (possibly for the first time since it was run), and while thinking, gained a sort of new philosophical appreciation for it. Only 7 years too late...
Re: DIS: Official rules?
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Travis Briggs wrote: > As someone who is thinking about registering, I was just wondering, what is > the canonical source of current rules? > > The link on the homepage points to a text file that says "go see > http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.txt"; which itself is dated 24 November > 2014. I responded about this on IRC, and also monologued a bit about infrastructure improvements that would be nice, including finally getting rid of the hassle for new players, which probably seems bizarre, of repeating the mailman subscription process 3 times in a row... I just did a barebones update to the links on agoranomic.org, but I think a somewhat more substantial change is called for. I might try to do this when I'm less tired, but if anyone else is interested, the homepage is on GitHub[1] and I will accept pull requests (unless there is any controversy, in which case maybe a proposal is called for ;p). Some ideas: - Really, a-d should be mentioned in the same section as a-b and a-o, with the backups by themselves: it doesn't really make sense to encourage new payers, even vaguely, to join a-b and a-o without a-d, and the current layout sort of makes it look like you have to join 5 mailing lists, increasing the abovementioned hassle (while in fact there's no /urgent/ need for new players to join the backups, one of which doesn't even work). - Mention that reading the entire ruleset is not a requirement for joining. - More generally, there should be a guide for new players. For inspiration, here is a 20-year-old(!) Agora Guidebook: http://agora.qoid.us/www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/agora_vanyel0/agora/guidebook.html - Putting a dynamic list of recent list posts right on the homepage would quickly demonstrate to any comers that the game is not dead (...or if it is). Somewhat related non-homepage-related ideas: - Non-fixed-width ruleset - Better rule browser - ... [1] https://github.com/comex/agoranomic
Fwd: DIS: Footnotes version
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Did a quick re-write of The Game of Agora category in the Less Logical >> Ruleset style. In terms of precedence, assume footnotes for each >> rule are appended to main text of rule. This re-write should preserve >> function & power, tho changes current Rule# order precedence. >> >> Worth pursuing at all? > > No feedback on the concept even? oh well, maybe not worth doing. You're not supposed to say that after only 16 hours :) I think emphasizing 'important' rules or clauses over the 'details' is an interesting idea in general. In 2010 (was it really that long ago!?), inspired by someone joining from BlogNomic, I tried more primitively categorizing/sorting the rules by importance[1]; your footnote idea seems like a better way to do that. That said, I think it might be difficult to split things up in a way that still makes sense without reading the footnotes - maybe partially solved by actively adding text to the new main rules briefly summarizing the new footnotes... [1] http://agora.qoid.us/old/alr.txt
Re: DIS: Official rules?
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, omd wrote: >> Somewhat related non-homepage-related ideas: >> - Non-fixed-width ruleset >> - Better rule browser > > - Searchable Case Database That's existed for a long time, I just haven't mentioned it much ;p Go to http://cfj.qoid.us and put something in the search box. '-foo', 'foo OR bar', '(foo OR bar) baz' work. You can even use regexes (indexed with a trigram index) by typing in /regex/, although it seems there's a bug related to queries that can't be filtered through that index... It also supports mailing list messages, all 450MB of stuff posted since 2002, but there's no 'homepage' because lol I lost interest. Starting to regain it recently. http://iw.qoid.us/message/?search=asdf > I should note, in general I prefer a database approach to the > git approach you prefer... I noticed you called me out in Hacker > News for not using git :p. I'll do the same for not having > searchable databases. Databases work too. Of course, for something mutable like the ruleset (as opposed to CFJs) there needs to be some robust history mechanism. As long as there's that, it can be converted to text for posterity anyway, while currently I'd have to either grab the web FLR every day (too late, I've already missed tons) or try to reconstruct the changes from the combination of published SLRs and FLR annotations (which I will do unless you have some history file lying around).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: $$$
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: >> For the first 30 days after this rule is first enacted, the first player >> during >> a UTC day to, by announcement, claim the day’s $$$, causing them to gain 50 >> $$$. >> Claiming a day’s $$$ CANNOT be automated. > > The first sentence is syntactically malformed. Also, what does "CANNOT > be automated", exactly? Is it an assertion that if someone attempts to > write software to send these messages automatically, then the software > will not work properly? Does it mean that, contrary to the previous > sentence, an automated announcement doesn't count as a claim? Or maybe > it does count as a claim, but doesn't result in a gain of $$$? It's also not the best mechanic since it assumes that 00:00 UTC will fall at a reasonable time in players' time zones, encourages spamming the mailing list with multiple attempts in the seconds leading up to then and such, and becomes essentially random if more than one player does that. Also, generally, since economic rules are not critical to the game's continued functioning and don't generally require taking precedence over or amending higher powered rules, they shouldn't be Power-3. I'm weakly positive on adding a currency back to the game, but the proposal doing so should include some more substantial use case for it to avoid it potentially just languishing there forever.
Re: DIS: Official rules?
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, omd wrote: >> - Mention that reading the entire ruleset is not a requirement for joining. >> - More generally, there should be a guide for new players. > > Honestly, rather than a guidebook, maybe we should strive to set up some > gameplay activity that can be jumped into with a New Player bonus. How about both? In the short-to-medium term, gameplay activity's nice to jump into, but Agora's been more meta in its priorities than most nomics for as long as I've played it, so a guidebook for that part would be good, and last pretty well in the long term (half of that 20-year-old one would still apply today).
