Tanner Swett | 1 Aug 19:59 2015
Picon

DIS: Where did Win by Paradox go?

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 I couldn't find any proposals which repealed the rule.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?

(I don't miss it, and I would oppose any attempt to put it back.)

—the Warrigal

Sean Hunt | 30 Jul 19:11 2015
Picon
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Arbitor] CFJ 3449 assigned to aranea

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Luis Ressel <aranea <at> aixah.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
> Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> > I intend, with 2 support, to file a Motion to Reconsider on this
>> > case.
>>
>> I support and do so.
>>
>
> I haven't changed my opinion on this CFJ. Is there any way to assign
> another judge to this cause (other than intentionally missing the
> one-week deadline or deregistering)?

A motion to reconsider is just that. It doesn't mean that you need to
change your mind, but if you don't, you should elaborate more into why
the arguments presented are wrong. If we still disagree after your
second judgment, we'll attempt to bring it to Moot.

-scshunt

Luis Ressel | 30 Jul 18:41 2015
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Arbitor] CFJ 3449 assigned to aranea

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:39:39 +0200
Luis Ressel <aranea <at> aixah.de> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
> Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 28 Jul 2015, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > > I intend, with 2 support, to file a Motion to Reconsider on this
> > > case.
> > 
> > I support and do so.
> > 
> 
> I haven't changed my opinion on this CFJ. Is there any way to assign
> another judge to this cause (other than intentionally missing the
> one-week deadline or deregistering)?
> 

Alternatively, I could reassign my judgement and then enter the CFJ
into Moot.

--

-- 
aranea

Sean Hunt | 29 Jul 22:57 2015
Picon
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Voting for the Silver Quill is now Open


On Jul 29, 2015 16:50, "Kerim Aydin" <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> CFJ, barring scshunt:
>       The announcement attempting to start Silver Quill voting on
>       or about July 26 did not clearly indicate voting options.

Arguments: Historically, it was required to include the set of eligible voters. It was included in the rules that a description of the eligible voters was sufficient. Similarly, I used a description of the eligible options, rather than a complete list.

> As a side note, while there's a few clear popular options, I do
> not feel it is fair at all this way - it's too easy for early
> voters to influence people not wanting to look back through the
> records.  As such, if this decision exists, I Protest this by
> not contributing to quorum - this is a tainted vote.

I already produced a list of eligible proposals, so I must disagree.

-scshunt

Sean Hunt | 29 Jul 22:18 2015
Picon
Picon

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: About Proposals 7773 and 7774

Just a note: please vote for these proposals as if they were correct and I'll submit a fixed version later.

-scshunt

On Jul 29, 2015 16:15, "tmanthe2nd ." <trstnbrdwg0 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
I Call for Judgement on this statement. "Proposals 7773 and 7774 will have no effect if passed"

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:11 PM, tmanthe2nd . <trstnbrdwg0 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
It was CFJ 1625. "Where a proposal specifies a rule to amend by both number and title, and the number and title given identify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies the attempted rule change."

That doesn't refer to when the other rule doesn't exist. But, the rules say, "An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does." I think this would fall under "any other variation".

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:



On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Tanner Swett wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:55 AM, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:43 AM, tmanthe2nd . <trstnbrdwg0 <at> gmail.com> 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.
>
> Though if you ask me, the phrase 'Rule 2455 "How to Pend a Proposal"'
> is completely unambiguous. There's absolutely no reasonable doubt as
> to what the intended meaning of the phrase is, so the error
> constitutes "difference in spelling" which "does not create an
> ambiguity in meaning".

A CFJ found differently IIRC, but I think in that case the mis-numbering
referred accidentally to a different existing rule.

As Rulekeepor, I wholly disagree that this is a different in "spelling",
though it *may* still be clear enough depending what the precedent
says...





Kerim Aydin | 29 Jul 21:18 2015

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: secured


On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I submit a proposal, with an AI of 3, titled "Secure, secures,
> securing, secured": In Rule 1688 "Power", change the phrase "A Rule
> that secures a change, action, or value" to "A Rule that makes a
> change, action, or value secured".

Well that's a nice simple fix :)

Kerim Aydin | 29 Jul 21:11 2015

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Voting for the Silver Quill is now Open


On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Alex Smith wrote:

> On Sun, 2015-07-26 at 16:04 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > The Agoran decision to select the winner of the Silver Quill
> > competition for July 14, 2015.
> > 
> > All Agorans are invited to cast their vote for an eligible proposal.
> > The eligible proposals are all of those adopted between 2 and 14
> > months prior to July 14, 2015.
> > 
> > At the conclusion of the voting period, in one week, the votes shall
> > be collected and tallied by the Herald, and the author of the winning
> > will be awarded a prestigious, unique Patent Title, to be recorded
> > forever on the Scroll of Agora!
> 
> I vote for "Ribbons 2014". (Wow, aranea has a lot of them already.)
> 
> -- 
> ais523
> 
>

Kerim Aydin | 29 Jul 21:09 2015

DIS: Re: BUS: Silver Quill Vote


On Sun, 26 Jul 2015, omd wrote:
> I like the following proposals:
> #1. Proposal 7693 (Revised Province of Agora)
> #2. Proposal 7728 (Even More Restricted Distribution)
> #3. Proposal 7722 (Silver Quill)

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.

tmanthe2nd . | 29 Jul 08:43 2015
Picon

DIS: About Proposals 7773 and 7774

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.
Tanner Swett | 29 Jul 07:53 2015
Picon

DIS: Eternal proto: Security groups

(I don't actually plan to submit a proposal along these lines any time
soon; this is just an idea.)

Create a rule with power 3, titled "Security Groups":

A Security Group is a certain type of entity. A Security Group with
power 0 cannot exist; if such a Security Group somehow exists, it
immediately ceases to exist.

Every Security Group contains some number of entities as members. The
collection of members of a Security Group is a substantive aspect of
that Security Group.

Create a rule with power 3, titled "Security Groups Control Mutability, Too":

A rule that makes a change, action, or value (hereafter the
controlling rule) controlled by a Security Group thereby makes it
IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change or action, or to set or modify that
value, except as allowed by an instrument which is a member of that
Security Group, or by an instrument with power 3 or greater.

As an exception, the above paragraph never prohibits an instrument
from adding itself to a Security Group whose power is less than or
equal to the power of the instrument.

----

An example of an intended use case: we might want to say that, say,
proposals can only be created or modified through specific
well-understood processes; and, in particular, proposals can't be
arbitrarily messed with by any ol' rule with power 2.5. You could just
say something like the following:

"There is a Security Group called "Proposal" with power 3. Altering
any substantive aspect of a proposal is controlled by the "Proposal"
Security Group. A proposal CAN, as part of its effect, cause this Rule
to add it to the "Proposal" Security Group."

Then add all relevant rules to the "Proposal" Security Group. Now it's
possible for a rule with power 1 to mess with proposals if it's in the
Security Group, and a proposal with AI 1 can amend such a rule, but
it's also impossible for a rule with power 2.5 to mess with proposals
if it's not in the Security Group, and it has no way of letting itself
in.

—the Warrigal

tmanthe2nd . | 29 Jul 00:36 2015
Picon

DIS: secured

So, I'm new here. When I read the rules, I noticed many mentions of things being "secured", but I couldn't find a definition for that. What does it mean?

Gmane