Sean Hunt | 29 Aug 19:03 2015
Picon
Picon

DIS: Newspaper

Based on the recently-adopted proposal, the next issue of ZOMBIE NEWS
will cover from the last issue up to the end of August, as part of our
uninterrupted coverage of Agoran affairs.

-scshunt

Sean Hunt | 29 Aug 08:54 2015
Picon
Picon

DIS: Scripts out of order

Hey everyone,

My Assessing scripts are out of order so if someone else wants the
job, they can take it. Otherwise I'll try to do things manually for a
bit, and I should be fine unless activity picks up in the next week or
two really heavily.

-scshunt

Kerim Aydin | 24 Aug 19:30 2015

DIS: dealing with disappearing rules?


This Rule:
>      Whoever omd has publicly specified should win the game as a
>      result of the proposal "Mammon Machine" does so upon the
>      enactment of this rule.  Then this rule repeals itself.

appeared and vanished, so I can't publish it as part of the 
Ruleset.

Any suggestions on how to make it part of "the Rules record"?

-G.

Brian Greer | 23 Aug 03:44 2015

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3449: Tekneek recused, assigned to G.

Sorry about missing this assignment. My laptop had a logic board failure and I, unfortunately, had a bit of
an adventure getting it replaced. Catching up on about 18 days of backlogged emails now.

> On Aug 17, 2015, at 17:58, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ==============================  CFJ 3449  ==============================
> 
>    I possess the patent title "Head of the Agoran Ceremonial Mint".
> 
> ========================================================================
> 
> Called by scshunt:                                  15 Jul 2015 22:58:07
> Assigned to aranea:                                 21 Jul 2015 15:55:44
> Judged FALSE:                                       28 Jul 2015 12:36:44
> Reconsideration requested by scshunt:               28 Jul 2015 12:50:17
> Reconsideration requested by omd:                   28 Jul 2015 16:20:27
> Reconsideration requested by aranea:                29 Jul 2015 07:59:18
> Reconsideration initiated by G.:                    29 Jul 2015 15:36:03
> aranea recused:                                     06 Aug 2015 01:45:32
> Assigned to Tekneek:                                06 Aug 2015 01:45:32
> Tekneek recused:                                    now
> Assigned to G.:                                     now
> 
> ========================================================================
> 
> <1437011890.18328.20.camel <at> adf.bham.ac.uk>
> Exhibit by ais523:
> 
> I think you can plausibly argue that the referent of "its" in rule 106
> is ambiguous; if it refers to the decision rather than the rule, nothing
(Continue reading)

Benjamin Schultz | 21 Aug 19:54 2015
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: A growing ruleset


On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:



Create the following Rule, The Olive Tree, Power=1:

       Every existing Rule (every Child) has an existing Rule as a
       Parent.  The lowest numbered existing Rule is the Root. The
       default parent for all children is the Root.


I think this needs an EXCEPT clause.  Something like:

The lowest numbered existing Rule is the Root.  Every existing Rule except the Root has an existing Rule as a Parent, and is a Child of its Parent.  The default parent for all children is the Root.

Otherwise the Root is its own Parent.  And as this is intended to be a tree growing upwards, one cannot go Below the Root.

OscarMeyr, making an obscure reference.

Alex Smith | 20 Aug 01:30 2015
Picon
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Perfect Failure Detection

On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 04:34 +0000, woggle wrote:
> WHEREAS the yoyo mailing list appears to have died, and
> 
> WHEREAS the only way to be sure it is dead is to kill it yourself,
> 
> I intend, without objection, to change the Publicity of the Public Forum at
> nomic at yoyo.its.monash.edu.au to Foreign.

Technically, I don't think you have to send the intent to every list;
that's only for the resolution, and only when making a forum public (not
when making it non-public). This is how the ##really-a-cow scam worked
(although it was obvious that the forum had become public, it had by
that point become too late to object). The actual requirement is that
the intent is sent via a public forum (or to each player individually),
and to the forum in question. (Good thing that there's no requirement
for sending the intent via the forum in question, or we could be in
trouble.)

That said, there's a reasonable argument for sending something as large
as a forum publicity change to every list anyway.

--

-- 
ais523

omd | 18 Aug 09:16 2015
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Discussion Redirection

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Gaelan Steele <gbs <at> canishe.com> wrote:
> Proposal “Discussion Redirection” with AI 3 {
>     Create the rule “Discussion Redirection” with Power 1 {
>       If a message is sent to a Discussion forum that is clearly intended to be sent to a Public forum, it SHALL be
treated as if it were sent to a Public forum. Players SHOULD NOT send message intended for Public forums to
Discussion forums.

If such a policy were to be enacted, there would then be no point in
having separate public and discussion fora in the first place - you
could just flip agora-discussion to Public.

Also, the wording is buggy.  The rule 'Mother, May I?' gives all-caps
terms more strict definitions than in standard English, and the
meaning of "SHALL" is:

      7. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY:  Failing to perform the
         described action violates the rule in question.

Therefore, the clause as written would most likely be interpreted as
requiring players to *pretend* that the relevant messages were sent to
public fora, without affecting the actual platonic validity of any
actions in them.  (And such a requirement would likely fall afoul of
the freedom-of-speech clause in Rule 478.)

>     If the above rule would not function properly with a power of 1, change its power to 2.
>     If the above rule would not function properly with a power of 2, change its power to 3.

With corrected wording, it could only really work (as expected,
anyway) by taking precedence over Rule 478's definition of "public
message", which requires power 3 and most likely an explicit statement
of precedence, but it would be better to just put the clause in that
rule - that is, if for some reason the flip-to-public approach would
be unsuitable.

Sprocklem | 18 Aug 08:30 2015
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Discussion Redirection

On 2015-08-18 00:22, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Proposal “Discussion Redirection” with AI 3 {
>     Create the rule “Discussion Redirection” with Power 1 {
>       If a message is sent to a Discussion forum that is clearly intended to be sent to a Public forum, it SHALL be
treated as if it were sent to a Public forum. Players SHOULD NOT send message intended for Public forums to
Discussion forums.
>     }
> 
>     If the above rule would not function properly with a power of 1, change its power to 2.
>     If the above rule would not function properly with a power of 2, change its power to 3.
> }
> 

I'd be inclined to vote against this. It seems too scammable to save the
small effort of forwarding a message.

--

-- 
Sprocklem

Jonatan Kilhamn | 18 Aug 08:13 2015
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: could agora be nearly web 2.0?

On 17 August 2015 at 07:21, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:


comment, please:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/agora/rules/




Neat!

Not searchable by ctrl-f. Could that be arranged?

--
- Tiger
Sean Hunt | 18 Aug 00:22 2015
Picon
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3452 assigned to scshunt

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:01 PM, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> ==============================  CFJ 3452  ==============================
>
>     The text of Rule 1728/33 contains exactly 14 paragraphs.
>
> ========================================================================

G., why is the presence/absence of a blank line significant here? It's
entirely possible to separate paragraphs using indentation.

-scshunt

omd | 18 Aug 00:11 2015
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3452 assigned to scshunt

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:01 PM, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Rule 2429 puts special status on "paragraphs" when considering
> whitespace.  However, paragraphs are not defined.
> Rule 1728 consists of several nested lists.  Some list items
> are separated by a blank line, some list items aren't.  The
> first block list (items 1-4) seems like a single paragraph,
> while later lists in the Rule seem like multiple paragraphs.
> So how many paragraphs are in Rule 1728, among multiply-nested
> lists?  (This is so I know my flexibility as a Rulekeepor for
> formatting lists).

The rule's vague, but I'm pretty sure the paragraph break bit is just
meant to prohibit merging items intended to be separated by newlines
onto the same line... not changing the amount of vertical space.
(That is, some sequences of whitespace are nonequivalent in the case
of paragraph breaks, but others implicitly still are.)


Gmane