DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation for PM CFJs

Thanks for the timeline, but all of this is still giving me a headache. I believe that the intent wasn’t specific enough and that all of the interns are broken. How should I judge these? -Aris On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM D. Margaux wrote: > I CFJ: D. Margaux is the Prime Minister. > > I CF

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean quis metus a enim pretium vulputate porttitor sit amet justo. Maecenas et sollicitudin ipsum. Ut laoreet erat a nisi ornare pellentesque. Sed tempus lectus velit, non efficitur dolor feugiat eu. Proin pulvinar turpis et leo elementum s

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

Someone has to ask the inevitable question: to what extent should cleaning self-ratify? What if the clause that is to be cleaned shouldn't even exist? The reality is that some elements of rules are lost when applying rule changes. Is it fair to say that when a clause mistakenly left in the rule

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent actions otherwise tend not to cha

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

It’s a pretty intents situation. Sorry. Gaelan > On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > This is such a mess lol. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

On 2/18/2019 5:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: This is such a mess lol. Patent title suggestion for everyone involved in the mess: "Badge of the Best Intents". H. Assessor, when the dust has settled I'd also propose that Falsifian is a good candidate for our first MacGyver award (with this proposal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 5:22 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 20:18 -0500, D. Margaux wrote: > > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" < > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > Just to make sure you're aware: this can

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 20:18 -0500, D. Margaux wrote: > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" > > wrote: > > > > Just to make sure you're aware: this can't change the Rules > > (penultimate paragraph of R105), just the rest of the gamestate. > > > > This probably isn't a prob

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" > wrote: > > Just to make sure you're aware: this can't change the Rules > (penultimate paragraph of R105), just the rest of the gamestate. > > This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in > which case it still

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 01:07 +, James Cook wrote: > The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the > following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was > Satisfied with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, > rather than the text of what Rule

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

> Thank you for all this work you've put in to fixing this! I would give you > some karma, but I've already used my Notice of Honour for the week, and it's > only Monday so I want to save Corona's in case something truly astonishing > happens later on. It's my pleasure. I'm certainly getting wh

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

Potato gridiron Sasquatch alphabetical tangelo arthropod > On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > d8dcc8184c9160ce7f09a369127580b4 > > -- > Trigon > >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 17:22 Madeline > >> 347e6994e340b1887cb464eed0a980f5dd708170f25dd5eda31d318fdc >> >> 1aeb71e07bab1ed85

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

d8dcc8184c9160ce7f09a369127580b4 -- Trigon On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 17:22 Madeline 347e6994e340b1887cb464eed0a980f5dd708170f25dd5eda31d318fdc > > 1aeb71e07bab1ed854b51a9303d574f3bf086044146fcdfb8f8f4e82951d37eec0aa5939e458c490617 > 614c2970d08d161190fe0a50 > 2012c8d6da48df899382751889975ece9c334fc1

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

347e6994e340b1887cb464eed0a980f5dd708170f25dd5eda31d318fdc 1aeb71e07bab1ed854b51a9303d574f3bf086044146fcdfb8f8f4e82951d37eec0aa5939e458c490617 614c2970d08d161190fe0a50 2012c8d6da48df899382751889975ece9c334fc1b3222 1f7042dc25ecce54d6a5aed39f4024a95fa8e4f68e42c8 b2b4564793ce6ca10fd8323df9ec9239c6dbb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

I slightly mind, but I probably would have done the same thing so meh. Also, come to think of it, I also abused that contract to your detriment, so maybe this is just karma. Gaelan > On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:36 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > Good point! Based on his recent hashes, he probably is. T

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

Just in case too: 29B9A02A56E8A3E15EC1E0E5ABE816C27686A7B1A6A7E6C7D6A1F7059E48A688C96855481739012E592A8D65EAC7AD95F6D30E0EFFC6B27A2745B2A63BBF72E6 > On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

!!! > On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> >> 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA44

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

I think you need to retract the previous ballots first (though "changing" a vote is accepted shorthand) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:36 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > Good point! Based on his recent hashes, he probably is. Therefore: > > If Aris’s message ini

DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C > A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

Oh, I was thinking that the designation of a change as a convergence is itself a(nother) change. In any case, since this phrasing of the retroactivity clause doesn't rewrite the history of rule changes, I don't think it matters much either way. But I think "to the extent allowed by the rules" w

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

I vote {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}. (Following twg's logic, except bumping twg's up since it would have been pretty grave had it worked. All four are interesting finds.) On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 21:35, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > My vote is {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg} - ordered fir

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

Hold on, are we sure G. isn't in on it? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > Like Gaelan, I do the following, and I cause ATMunn to do the following: > > - object to any intents announced in the quoted message. > - if quoted messa

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:15, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook > wrote: > > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in > > accordance with the rules" in R214. > > I think this part of R106 accounts for that: > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

I am tempted to suggest that we insert something that says: “notwithstanding the foregoing, Agora is never satisfied with an intent to activate the Protocol, which is of no force or effect whatsoever.” > On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:05 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Can a proposal designate a change as a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook wrote: > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in > accordance with the rules" in R214. I think this part of R106 accounts for that: Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that takes

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanliness

Because it's spelled as "Judgement" everywhere else in the rule. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:12 PM, James Cook wrote: > I object to the below-quoted intention. > > (Based on some brief research, both spellings are common. For example, > I think Judgmen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in accordance with the rules" in R214. Is there anything wrong with D. Margaux's latest suggestion? I like the fact that it doesn't try to retroactively change the rule's history. (Though the retroactive rule change might be harmle

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3718 assigned

On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 17:30 -0500, D. Margaux wrote: > Proto judgement: > > FALSE, by application of the ISIDTID ruling of CFJ 1774 (Judge G. > presiding) The quang precedent does not compel a TRUE judgement. > Quang is a shorthand for a particular action, and that shorthand > arguably has entered

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

My vote is {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg} - ordered firstly by whether or not it actually works (ruleset glitches notwithstanding), and secondly by how serious the implications are. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > VOTE

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

AFAIK that you have no reason not to deny the CoE right now. Gaelan > On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, D. Margaux > wrote: > >> CoE—My blots were ratified to 0 without objection. Of course, intents are >> broken, but I need to

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

Isn’t this ISIDTID? > On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Herald’s Weekly report >> Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018 >> Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019 > > I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced report.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

I was starting to be concerned tbh lol. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:32 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 2/18/2019 12:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > > dada... > > (that dada thing was meant to be silly, not angry - i realized

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

Kinky. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:33 PM D. Margaux wrote: > I point my toes at G. and cuddle beam for Faking. > > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > > maah uyntz asee as myself and sunt Dictatorship, also, the game is now > > Ossified and nobody can perform any game actions,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

On 2/18/2019 12:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada... (that dada thing was meant to be silly, not angry - i realized afterwards that it sounded kinda shouty like what the dadaists did - sorry).

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

> On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it >> works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID. >> >> For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to >> the below-referenced report. Here's a a more ca

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic acceptability, beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying something and exp

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > CoE—My blots were ratified to 0 without objection. Of course, intents are > broken, but I need to put in this CoE so that ratification of this report > won’t overwrite the retroactive effect of any fix. Can you not just play _normally_

DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

I diagnose pressing Fn+S instead of Ctrl+S. :P Fixed for the next report. I think the intended meaning is obvious enough that nothing unpleasant self-ratifies. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:18 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > "34    CuddleBeams": First time I'v

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

On 2/18/2019 11:12 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > I vote {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CB}, and cause L to vote the same if we are > counting zombie votes which probably we shouldn’t. Erm... here's me trying to decide if "zombie votes" are in the category of "reasons to not strictly abide by the decision re

DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

"34CuddleBeams": First time I've been referred to as CuddlebeamS (I think all of my Agoran aliases so far are Cuddlebeam, CuddleBeam and Cuddle Beam, lol) I don't know if that's a big enough issue to CoE or not. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:13 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Date of this weekly

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

I vote {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CB}, and cause L to vote the same if we are counting zombie votes which probably we shouldn’t. > On Feb 18, 2019, at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > VOTE! > Who had the best loophole, bug, or scam during Read the Ruleset week? > VOTE! > > Here starts an UNOFF

Re: DIS: Re: More Politicking

That’s fine. Honestly better for me for it to be INEFFECTIVE, because part of the idea was to invest some more influence before e became host, which ended up not happening. > On Feb 18, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yes, I think it does make it INEFFECTIVE, per 2579's "must

DIS: Re: BUS: Registration

I don’t think I was in the latest Report either.. 😲 Baron von Vaderham -Original Message- From: agora-business On Behalf Of Timon Walshe-Grey Sent: 18 February 2019 18:20 To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org Subject: Re: BUS: Registration I act on Corona's behalf to Point eir Finger

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Read the Ruleset week - summary of entries

Oh, good point lol. Ignore me. :P -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 1:47 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > AFAICT it wasn't submitted during Read the Ruleset Week? > > On 2/17/2019 4:36 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > Ooh, in that case can we count my assertion t

Re: DIS: Re: More Politicking

Yes, I think it does make it INEFFECTIVE, per 2579's "must state the correct set of assets for the fee". But feel free to CFJ. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 12:39 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:04 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com w

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

I would say that the reading of the proposal in question would imply an override of all the amendments since 7815. I haven't been following this thread so I don't know what a better solution would be. On 2/18/19 9:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote: The gamestat

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

Compare this: A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. For a Notice of Honour to be valid, it must: [...] If some bit of text is labeled a Notice of Honour, but doesn't have one of the other properties right, is it an "invalid Notice of Honour" or just a mislabeled string of text?

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

I think the best solution to this is to get the Hash thing working, so the Astronomor can be the resolver even when e's a combatant (I had a proto for that, but it's been busy around here lately). Either that or tolerate much more error from the resolver since all a non-Astronomor resolver sh

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

Ah, well, an INEFFECTIVE Proposal submission then. On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 18:48, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 18:46 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > I’m pretty convinced about this but I’ve had people not believe it > > before > > in a similar c

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 18:46 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I’m pretty convinced about this but I’ve had people not believe it > before > in a similar case elsewhere so I figured I’d ask just in case: > > An INEFFECTIVE X, is not formally an X, right? > > For example, an INEFFECTIVE Proposal isn’t a

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

I’m pretty convinced about this but I’ve had people not believe it before in a similar case elsewhere so I figured I’d ask just in case: An INEFFECTIVE X, is not formally an X, right? For example, an INEFFECTIVE Proposal isn’t a Proposal. On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 18:37, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

Sorry, I keep forgetting you don't have an up-to-date Astronomor report to work off. I apologise. You are correct, but you need to say it to the public forum. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:40 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I was afraid you’d say that. I think t

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

I was afraid you’d say that. I think this reduces twg’s armor from 10 to 0 and Gaelan’s stays at 10? I confess I haven’t paid much attention to the space rules though recently. If this is accurate I’ll resend to official > On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:37 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > (Pssst! For

DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

(Pssst! For this to be EFFECTIVE I think you also have to say by how much each of our Armour was reduced by.) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:34 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > Resolved battle 003: > > Gaelan spent 11 energy. > > Twg spent 0 energy. > > I think th

Re: DIS: Impossible. Perhaps the archives are incomplete.

Apologies—will send now. Thanks for alerting me. Also if anyone else is waiting for me, please feel free to let me know. > On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > D. Margaux, > > Did you ever get around to resolving Space Battle 3 (Gaelan vs. me)? I have > an Energy valu

DIS: Impossible. Perhaps the archives are incomplete.

D. Margaux, Did you ever get around to resolving Space Battle 3 (Gaelan vs. me)? I have an Energy value privately sent by me to you in my outbox, and I think I recall Gaelan saying e'd sent you one as well, but I can't find any resolution message from you. Furthermore, going forward, can I req

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

An alternative is: "Change the gamestate [including the ruleset] to what it would have been if the below amendment had taken effect immediately after Proposal 7815, and if no further changes had been made to Rule 2124 since. Designate this change as a convergence." I believe this would allow the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

More generally, have we ever done a true retroactive rule change that overwrites known rules history? I'm wondering about a slight wording change to side-step making true retroactive rules changes: The rule is amended going forward, but "the rest of the gamestate" is set to what it would have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

To address G’s concern, what if the proposal were to say something like this: The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 08:21 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote: > > The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect > > immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been > > made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote: The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now as described in the amendment, since the Rules

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

On 2/17/2019 9:59 PM, James Cook wrote: On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: Here are the others since then: > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017 I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find the event. It's for cleaning rules. By design, I dou

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

What if we approach this from the other direction—i.e., what kind of a thing could this “Protocol” action possibly be? If this Protocol action isn’t somehow authorized (directly or indirectly) by the Rules, then it cannot be used to perform regulated actions and so there’s no reason for us to c

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:18 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > ais523 mentioned something about the original definition being NttPF - we've > already checked the a-d archives, but maybe there was once something in the > IRC channel? Or does anyone know of any other discussion forums that have >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

The closest thing I could find is this: which relates to UNDEAD, but to the best of my knowledge Aris registered well after UNDEAD was a major thing. My default assumption whenever something like this happens is that who

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

The Protocol seems like something that could be interacted with but it’s too obscure for uninformed people to properly react to (“if you remember” and whatnot, implying it requires some kind of past knowledge, and there’s nothing on the archives so I have no idea), I did the same lol. On Mon, 18 F

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:24 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I hngah 50 coins for Aris Merchant // Title: 50 coins Adoption index: 1.0 Author: CuddleBeam Aris Merchant