Re: DIS: Re: OFF: A Report on Everybody

Benjamin Schultz wrote: >I'll rephrase: Which did you want done first -- the Herald's Report >to include something new and with no current effect, or the hour + of >effort to log all the VC changes, proposals, and contribute to >meaningful activity? You were of course correct to concentrate

Re: DIS: Proto Cursing

quazie wrote: > Curse of Blindness - a player may expend 2 vc and indicate 1 player >and 1 proposal currently within its voting period. That player may not >place any votes upon that proposal. This curse wears off at the end of >the proposals voting period. Mm. Limit it to Ordinary proposa

DIS: Proto Cursing

quazie wrote: I curse Goethe and Zefram. I contemplate how curses can be incorporated into agora. Proto-Proposal "I curse thee!" *I want some interesting play mechanics, but i don't think that VC will allow the idea i have. As chromodynamics failed we have no real currency. I will gladly

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1631 assigned to OscarMeyr

Benjamin Schultz wrote: >(Had comex simply >said "hi" in the message body, I would've taken that as at least SOME >indication of a clear intent to register.) I disagree with this part. I think "hi" alone is insufficient to convey "I register".

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: A Report on Everybody

On Apr 29, 2007, at 10:29 PM, Zefram wrote: Benjamin Schultz wrote: Which is more important, Zefram -- the Herald's report or all the VCs and proposals? What does my opinion matter? Let us consult the ruleset. The rules don't appear to judge importance per se, but if we take Power to be a m

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Voting Limits

Benjamin Schultz wrote: >Kindly RTF follow-up. Yes, I saw that (and Quazie's claim of error) immediately after posting. Sorry. Your correction was not to the PF, btw. Don't think that makes much difference, now that we don't have the formal COE procedure any more. -zefram

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: A Report on Everybody

Benjamin Schultz wrote: >Which is more important, Zefram -- the Herald's report or all the VCs >and proposals? What does my opinion matter? Let us consult the ruleset. The rules don't appear to judge importance per se, but if we take Power to be a measure of importance then VCs (R2126, Power=3

Re: DIS: There's GOT to be a Nomic History degree in this somewhere

Zefram wrote: Benjamin Schultz wrote: I think that the past week's activity has been the most truly Agoran activity I've seen in a couple of years, even more fun than the card- based rebellion I instigated in late 2005. There should be enough material in all of this for someb

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Voting Limits

On Apr 29, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Zefram wrote: You missed the registration of Human Point Two, around 23:05Z. For the record, in all other respects my real-time event log and tally concurs with your event log. -zefram Kindly RTF follow-up. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr, who REALLY want

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: A Report on Everybody

On Apr 29, 2007, at 10:12 PM, Zefram wrote: Benjamin Schultz wrote: What threats? These ones: Rule 1377/21 (Power=1) The Herald The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of the History of Agora and its players.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: A Report on Everybody

Benjamin Schultz wrote: >What threats? These ones: Rule 1377/21 (Power=1) The Herald The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of the History of Agora and its players. The Herald's report shall include the fo

Re: DIS: There's GOT to be a Nomic History degree in this somewhere

Benjamin Schultz wrote: >I think that the past week's activity has been the most truly Agoran >activity I've seen in a couple of years, even more fun than the card- >based rebellion I instigated in late 2005. There should be enough >material in all of this for somebody to write a Nomic Histor

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1631 assigned to OscarMeyr

On Apr 29, 2007, at 7:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: CFJ 1631 callied by Murphy: comex registered on or about Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:00:01 -0400. is hereby assigned to OscarMeyr. Caller's arguments: On or about the time in question, comex sent a message to agora- business with subject "I r

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1638-1645 assigned to Goethe

Michael Slone wrote: > but this particular exploit clogs up the Stare Decisis >and needlessly cranks up the CFJ number (just as the hundreds of CFJs >from ~1994 did). Ah come now, the effect is small in this case, and anyway it's not like we're going to run out of numbers, or fill up t

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protection Racket

On Apr 29, 2007, at 7:59 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: I remove "Proposal Racket" from the pool. As Zefram noted, there is no such proposal in the pool. Proposal: Protection Racket To tell apart the two proposals, this proposal has been entered as Protection Racket (2). - Benjamin Schultz

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: A Report on Everybody

On Apr 29, 2007, at 7:09 PM, Zefram wrote: Benjamin Schultz wrote: Your Privacy Invaded: A Report on Everybody (Combined reports of Herald, Registrar, and IADoP) What about the list of Threats, required in the Herald's Report by R1377 item b? Current ruleset is up at

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Voting Limits

Benjamin Schultz wrote: Voting Limits and Credits Date of this report: Mon 30 Apr 2007 Date of last report: Wed 25 Apr 2007 VLOP is for the week starting 30 April 2007 VLOP-nw is projected for the week starting 7 May 2007 PlayerVLDP VLOP VLOP-nw VCs -

DIS: There's GOT to be a Nomic History degree in this somewhere

I think that the past week's activity has been the most truly Agoran activity I've seen in a couple of years, even more fun than the card- based rebellion I instigated in late 2005. There should be enough material in all of this for somebody to write a Nomic History thesis. - Benjamin Sc

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Voting Limits

Correction. I went through the VC changes so much, I missed the new partnership. Here's the corrected Voting Limit list. VLOP is for the week starting 30 April 2007 VLOP-nw is projected for the week starting 7 May 2007 PlayerVLDP VLOP VLOP-nw VCs --

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protection Racket

OscarMeyr wrote: On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Zefram wrote: Oh, this seems a good time to point out: the would-be Oligarchs could have avoided the whole VC race by simply distributing the Oligarch proposal last week, so that it would be contested under that week's unchangeable VLOPs. We certa

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protection Racket

Zefram wrote: Eep, here's another message with datestamps crossing midnight. (I just CFJed about this concerning Quazie's VC spending.) Headers: I think the "normal domain of technical control" argument should continue to hold. I remove "Proposal Racket" from the pool. It was titled "Pro

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1638-1645 assigned to Goethe

Ed Murphy wrote: >They don't even need to be linked - the CotC merely needs to not do >anything about the excess ones. The benefit of using linked CFJs is that a set can be all assigned to one judge, who then reaps all the VCs. Unlinked CFJs have to be assigned evenly, due to turning, so the VCs

DIS: Re: BUS: VC spending

On Apr 29, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Zefram wrote: I hereby spend 3 VCs to increase Goddess Eris's VLOP by 3. I hereby spend 2 VCs to increase Maud's VLOP by 2. I hereby spend 5 VCs to increase Goethe's VLOP by 5. I hereby spend 5 VCs to increase the Pineapple Partnership's VLOP by 5. In the abov

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protection Racket

On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Zefram wrote: Oh, this seems a good time to point out: the would-be Oligarchs could have avoided the whole VC race by simply distributing the Oligarch proposal last week, so that it would be contested under that week's unchangeable VLOPs. We certainly couldn't have

DIS: Re: BUS: Spending

Kerim Aydin wrote: >(I can't remember how many I have, the last ones probably didn't work). By my counting, Goethe had 9 VCs immediately before this message. E therefore increased by VLOP by 4 and Eris's by 5, and the final three attempted spends failed. To help the Promotor to check eir calculat

DIS: Re: BUS: Spending

On Apr 29, 2007, at 7:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I spend one VC to increase Zefram's VPOP by 1. I spend one VC to increase Zefram's VPOP by 1. I spend one VC to increase Zefram's VPOP by 1. I spend one VC to increase Zefram's VPOP by 1. I spend one VC to increase Eris's VPOP by 1. I spend one VC

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protection Racket

Oh, this seems a good time to point out: the would-be Oligarchs could have avoided the whole VC race by simply distributing the Oligarch proposal last week, so that it would be contested under that week's unchangeable VLOPs. We certainly couldn't have voted it down under those circumstances. What

Re: DIS: Proto-judgement (Was: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1627 assigned to Maud)

Michael Slone wrote: >As I read it, rule 101 preserves the right to *invoke* judgement. But >this does not require that judgement be returned. I interpret this differently. If I call a CFJ and it is then refused by an Oligarch, then no judgement has occurred, and my actions have thus failed to i

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protection Racket

Eep, here's another message with datestamps crossing midnight. (I just CFJed about this concerning Quazie's VC spending.) Headers: >Received: from yzma.clarkk.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by yzma.clarkk.net (Postfix) with ESMTP > id C2BBC8067E; Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:00:03 -0500 (CDT)

DIS: Proto-judgement (Was: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1627 assigned to Maud)

On 4/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: == CFJ 1627 == The text in exhibit A, if enacted into a Rule, would conflict with Rule 101. =

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1638-1645 assigned to Goethe

Michael Slone wrote: >I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Murphy the holder of the office >of Clerk of the Courts. I object. I think Goethe is doing a fine job as CotC. E is assigning CFJs briskly, keeping the game flowing. I was unhappy about eir three trivial CFJs, but it is the calling an

DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1638-1645 assigned to Goethe

Maud wrote: > It does seem to be standard practice (although I'm not entirely happy > about that), but this particular exploit clogs up the Stare Decisis > and needlessly cranks up the CFJ number (just as the hundreds of CFJs > from ~1994 did). Zefram and I did talk about that... I apologize for

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1638-1645 assigned to Goethe

Goethe wrote: Fair enough. But the point was, when Zefram and I were looking at if we could block Murphy et al.'s proposal, we noticed that a CotC could legally mint an unbounded number of VCs, by an as-long-as-you-want list of linked, trivial CFJs. Instant, overpowering voting, worse than the

Re: DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1638-1645 assigned to Goethe

On 4/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am sorry I offended. I thought pointing out a bug by acting on it in a restrained way was standard practice. It does seem to be standard practice (although I'm not entirely happy about that), but this particular exploit clogs up the Stare De

DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1638-1645 assigned to Goethe

Maud wrote: > This is too much. Fair enough. But the point was, when Zefram and I were looking at if we could block Murphy et al.'s proposal, we noticed that a CotC could legally mint an unbounded number of VCs, by an as-long-as-you-want list of linked, trivial CFJs. Instant, overpowering votin

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1638-1645 assigned to Goethe

On 4/29/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You'll have to contend with Rule 1450, though. Ah, I hadn't noticed that you were Speaker. -- Michael Slone

Re: DIS: BUS: Set of CFJs (a paradox found)?

On 4/29/07, quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wish there was the ability to bar yourself from types of CFJs like there used to be. I have been slacking on the judging front at the moment i realize (i will make sure to judge future CFJs promptly) but I would like the ability to bar myself fro

Re: DIS: BUS: Set of CFJs (a paradox found)?

Kerim Aydin wrote: Quazie wrote: no i should be good for judging, just not that one. Well, I fulfilled your request :). I'm happy to fulfill such requests for not doing specific CFJs as long as I'm allowed (e.g. if you're not the only one eligible). -Goethe I wi

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Turning

Maud wrote: > You are supposed to list at least one such player. O. In this phrase: The Clerk of the Courts shall only do so when all open CFJs without a Trial Judge have no players eligible to be assigned, and at least one of them has at least o

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1638-1645 assigned to Goethe

quazie wrote: >is this you calling and assigning the CFJs? I called them in the message "CFJ on interpretation of amendments". -zefram

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1638-1645 assigned to Goethe

Kerim Aydin wrote: I assign the following linked CFJs to Goethe. CFJ 1638: where a proposal contains the form of words "Amend rule by XXX. Amend rule by YYY.", this constitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both attempt to amend the same rule CFJ 1639:

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Turning

On 4/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At least one player is ineligible solely due to being turned. You are supposed to list at least one such player. I am aware of the ``failing to meet these requirements does not deprive the Notice of effect'' clause, but I don't consider this t

DIS: BUS: Set of CFJs (a paradox found)?

Quazie wrote: > no i should be good for judging, just not that one. Well, I fulfilled your request :). I'm happy to fulfill such requests for not doing specific CFJs as long as I'm allowed (e.g. if you're not the only one eligible). -Goethe

DIS: Re: BUS: Set of CFJs (a paradox found)?

quazie wrote: I'm not sure if the rules allow me to do this or not. I request to not judge the above linked CFJs. You're allowed to make the request, but it doesn't actually make you ineligible. Eris, now that you're back (well come!), can you comment on the [bracketed] portions of my "Stan

Re: DIS: BUS: Set of CFJs (a paradox found)?

Kerim Aydin wrote: Quazie wrote: I'm not sure if the rules allow me to do this or not. I request to not judge the above linked CFJs. I'm happy to turn you again w/o 2 objections so you don't have to judge this round, and keep turning you until you say you'd like to ju

DIS: BUS: Set of CFJs (a paradox found)?

Quazie wrote: > I'm not sure if the rules allow me to do this or not. I request to not > judge the above linked CFJs. I'm happy to turn you again w/o 2 objections so you don't have to judge this round, and keep turning you until you say you'd like to judge CFJs again... would you prefer that?

DIS: Re: OFF: A Report on Everybody

Benjamin Schultz wrote: >Your Privacy Invaded: A Report on Everybody >(Combined reports of Herald, Registrar, and IADoP) What about the list of Threats, required in the Herald's Report by R1377 item b? Current ruleset is up at . -zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: I'm baaack!

On Apr 28, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Taral wrote: I, The Goddess Eris, register. I, Promotor OscarMeyr, welcome you back. How was your vacation? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1628-1630 assigned to Zefram, Peter, Levi

Michael Slone wrote: >Uh... These should all pretty clearly be DISMISSED as irrelevant to >the rules. Or did we get rid of that? Actually as I read R1565 is doesn't *require* a judgement of DISMISSED, but merely *permits* it in this sort of case. I suggest that the calling of these CFJs forms s

DIS: Re: OFF: CFJs 1628-1630 assigned to Zefram, Peter, Levi

On 4/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CFJ 1628 statement hereby assigned to Zefram: > Zefram is wearing a hat. CFJ 1629 statement hereby assigned to Peter: > There are elephants to the left. CFJ 1630 statement hereby assigned to Levi: > We're all mad, here. Uh... These sho

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I register

On 4/29/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think in this case it conveys intent with sufficient clarity. Registration is regulated by rule 869, which permits a person to register by announcement. The rule does not mention intent. The only way that intent matters for public messages is th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I register

Michael Slone wrote: >I don't think the text in the Subject: line has any legal effect, I think in this case it conveys intent with sufficient clarity. >you might want to post a message to agora-business with body ``I >register'' to make sure. I agree. Clearer would be better. -zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement

Maud wrote: > Are you sure about this? I thought we had had cases before (not > necessarily brought to CFJ) where a rule change was implemented based > on the rule number mentiioned, even though an incorrect title was also > used. Not entirely sure... it seemed reasonable, but if there's an opp

DIS: Re: BUS: I register

On 4/28/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: comex, I don't think the text in the Subject: line has any legal effect, so you might want to post a message to agora-business with body ``I register'' to make sure. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) Holy cow! This means "This Time to the Public

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement

Since the ``Pineapple Partnership'' doesn't exist, as a person, player, or partnership, this response is addressed to Goethe, who in any case is the person who signed the message. On 4/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While intent is not evidence, it does suggest this to be a reason