omd | 24 Aug 21:54 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] This Week's Penalties

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Alex Smith <ais523 <at> bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> omd, you have to publish the Rulekeepor report today (is it on a cron
> job, btw?)

It ought to be.  Sadly, it's not.

Alex Smith | 24 Aug 12:10 2014
Picon
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] This Week's Penalties

On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 05:15 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> There are six other offices; two are empty, Henri holds
> the other four, and all are missing reports.

My report crossed with Henri's (meaning that I guess I've violated the
rules in a trivial manner), but this means that we now have six vacant
offices, and they're six of the seven that have reports. This is
something of a major crisis, AFAICT.

I'm going to blame it on the lack of an economy (which in turn is due to
the lack of Scorekeepor reports, which is due to a bug). Perhaps we need
interim proposals to reduce recordkeepor load just to survive when we're
so low on officers. Apart from that, our main hope is to rely on
revitalizing the economy, and/or the usual spate of September
registrations (which may or may not happen; we should make sure we have
the website /very/ up to date over the next few days in order to
increase the chance it does).

--

-- 
ais523

Tanner Swett | 22 Aug 20:26 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: meh

On Aug 22, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I deregister.

Not quite the reaction I was hoping for.

(I assume you're actually deregistering because of the lack of activity, not because of the sheer
stupidity of what I'm attempting to do.)

—the Warrigal
Tanner Swett | 22 Aug 20:22 2014
Picon

DIS: What is it? Dragons?

Proto-proposal:

Enact a rule, titled "The Province of Agora":

      The Province of Agora is a subgame whose state comprises the
      imagined state of an imaginary region, and the informal
      regulations which govern this state.

      Every player controls exactly one player character in the
      Province.  (If this character dies, a new one is created.)  Any
      player can, by announcement, cause this character to attempt to
      take an action.  The results of the action should be determined
      by the rules of Agora and the informal regulations of the
      Province.  Where these rules and regulations are unclear, they
      are to be augmented by common sense, consensus, precedent, and
      the opinions of the Dungeon Master.

      The Dungeon Master is an office.  Whenever a player has eir
      character attempt an action in the Province, the Dungeon Master
      is responsible for announcing the result of the action in a
      timely fashion.

      Any player can alter any aspect of the state of the Province
      with Agoran Consent.  These alterations can be retroactive.

      The Dungeon Master's weekly report includes a summary of what
      has happened since the previous report.  The Dungeon Master's
      monthly report includes a summary of the entire publicly known
      state of the Province.

(Continue reading)

Benjamin Schultz | 13 Aug 17:54 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Salir y entrar

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Tanner Swett <tannerswett <at> gmail.com> wrote:
I register.

—the Warrigal

Warrigal, you're back!  Hi!

--
OscarMeyr
Tanner Swett | 5 Aug 03:53 2014

DIS: Re: OFF: [Minister of GNP Evaluation] The Weekly GNP Analysis Report

On Aug 3, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> |                        10 Week GNP Data                         |
> |            Week of May 05 2014 - Week of Jul 07 2014            |
> |-----------------------------------------------------------------|
> | Week of | Official PI | Business PI | Total PI | Percent Change |
> |---------|-------------------------------------------------------|
> | May 19  |           9 |          15 |       24 |     -  48.94 % |
> | May 26  |           3 |          17 |       20 |     -  16.66 % |
> | Jun  2  |          12 |          36 |       48 |     + 140.00 % |
> | Jun  9  |          15 |          19 |       34 |     -  29.17 % |
> | Jun 16  |          13 |          44 |       47 |     +  38.24 % |
> | Jun 23  |           2 |           8 |       10 |     -  78.72 % |
> | Jun 30  |          19 |          22 |       41 |     + 310.00 % |
> | Jul  7  |           9 |          12 |       21 |     -  48.78 % |
> | Jul 14  |           9 |          27 |       36 |     +  71.43 % |
> | Jul 21  |          20 |          41 |       61 |     +  69.44 % |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------|
>                          | Total Percent Change |     - 154.16 % |
>                           ---------------------------------------

The total should be positive, no?

—the Warrigal
Tanner Swett | 5 Aug 03:45 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: long way around, with added legalese

On Jul 29, 2014, at 4:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> ARGUMENTS
> 
> The intent to ratify the statement in question is enabled by
> R2202:
>       Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a public document,
>       specifying its scope.
> 
> At the time I attempted ratification, the notice of intent had a 
> single objection, and the time period had not yet passed.  So by 
> R1728, I was unable to accomplish the task.  Still, it was a clear
> attempt to do so.  Notice that R1728 (and R1729) do not use CAN 
> or CANNOT for regulating the action.
> 
> R2152 reads in part:
>       5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
> 
> I clearly attempted to ratify without objection.  Therefore,
> by R2152, the attempt was successful.

Called-for arguments: The phrase "without objection" obviously qualifies the word "CAN", thereby
limiting it to cases where the action is attempted "without objection". (This is like how if a rule said "If
a person possesses a hat, e MAY wear it", the MAY would only apply to persons who possess hats.) Since G.'s
attempt was not "without objection", the word "CAN" does not apply, and so, although the attempt was
attempted, the attempt was not successful.

A potentially more interesting question is that of whether Rule 2202 "Ratification Without Objection"
provides another mechanism (in addition to the Rule 1728 "Dependent Actions" mechanism) for ratifying a
document. I don't know of any reason that the Rule 1728 meaning of "without objection" nullifies the
ordinary-language meaning of Rule 2202. If this meaning is not nullified, then Rule 2202 seems to
essentially say that "any attempt by a player (without objection) to ratify a public document
(specifying its scope) is successful". This, in turn, seems to imply that any player can ratify any public
document as long as the ratification has not *already* been objected to.

I hereby object to every attempt (past, present, or future) to perform an action.

Given the above objection, I think the ordinary-language meaning of "without objection" is no longer
satisfied by any action. (Which was probably the case before anyway.)

—the Warrigal
Tanner Swett | 5 Aug 03:29 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3424

Gratuitous arguments for CFJ 3424: I would have considered "adoption index of a rule" to be an unambiguous
synonym of "power of a rule", since there's no other actual thing that it could refer to. (I guess it could
refer to a rule's hypothetical adoption index, even though there's no such thing.)

—the Warrigal
Chester Mealer | 30 Jul 22:27 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7688 and 7689

ID: 7689 Against
ID: 7688 Present

Chester Mealer


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:36 PM, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Henri Bouchard <henrib736 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> ID: 7688
>      Salary is a non-singleton Switch tracked by the IADoP.
Doesn't satisfy R2162 a) or b).
>      During the nomination period of an election, each candidate CAN
What is a candidate?
>      At the beginning of each month, the Scorekeeper is
>      impelled to award each officeholder a number of points equal to
>      the sum of the salaries of eir offices for which the officeholder
>      held the office for at least two weeks continuously in the
>      previous month.
What is "impelled"?  And should be Scorekeepor.

Against.

> ID: 7689

Against.

Jonatan Kilhamn | 30 Jul 06:45 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: long way around, with added legalese

On 29 July 2014 22:46, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, woggle wrote:
>> On 07/29/2014 01:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I intend, Without Objection, to ratify the following document.
>> > The document contains an error, as I have not met any winning
>> > conditions.  The reason for ratifying is clearly and plainly
>> > because I want to have won.
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >   G. won the game on 28-Jul-14, triggering the effects of
>> >   a win as per R2419.
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I object.
>
> I hereby ratify the above-indicated document.
>
>
> I CFJ on the following statement:
>    G. successfully ratified the document indicated in evidence
>    on 29-Jul-14.
>

I want to state that I am interested in the outcome of the case, but
not interested in judging it.

-Tiger

Henri Bouchard | 30 Jul 05:14 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7688 and 7689

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:36 PM, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Henri Bouchard <henrib736 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> ID: 7688
>>      Salary is a non-singleton Switch tracked by the IADoP.
> Doesn't satisfy R2162 a) or b).
>>      During the nomination period of an election, each candidate CAN
> What is a candidate?

Candidate - a person who applies for a job or is nominated for election.


Gmane