omd | 25 Nov 00:16 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: testing some informal arragements

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Edward Murphy <emurphy42 <at> zoho.com> wrote:
> For each proposal decision for which the voting period is in progress
> and omd has cast no votes (except possibly on someone else's behalf),
> I vote on omd's behalf: (endorse ais523).

Too late.

Kerim Aydin | 20 Nov 20:02 2014

DIS: making semi-trusted dice?


Hey folks,

If I put up a (in programming sense trivial) dice server tailored
to Agoran needs, are there folks out there who know a little bit
about security who can advise on a way it can be "trusted"?
(E.g. Hash of the source code mailed with result; source code is
available on site to confirm inspectable source's hash matches).

I suspect you might say that as long as I have (minor) control 
over the server there's no trusted method, but it's not my area...
suggestions to get to an agora level of trust welcome...

-G.

Kerim Aydin | 19 Nov 22:17 2014

DIS: random text


Proto: Random is as random does

[V 0.1 - Used R1079/4 (2005-Nov) as a base.
       - Numbered notes are for proto-version only.
]

Enact the following rule, "Randomness":

      When a Rule requires that a player (the "Shooter") make a random 
      choice (a "roll"), then the roll shall be made using whatever 
      probability distribution among the possible outcomes the Rules 
      provide for making that roll. If the Rules do not specify a 
      probability distribution, then a uniform probability distribution 
      shall be used.  A roll is not considered made until it is 
      announced.

      When making a roll as required by the Rules, the Shooter may 
      rely on any physical or computational process whose probability 
      distribution for the final[1] outcome among the possible outcomes 
      is reasonably close to that required by the Rules.  The Courts are 
      the final arbiter of whether a method's probability distribution 
      among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required 
      by the Rules.

      If a roll requires multiple steps[2] to complete the process, and 
      the Shooter allows a materially significant time[3] to pass 
      between steps, then the roll is invalid and the Shooter commits 
      the Class-6 infraction of Hiding the Dice.

(Continue reading)

Alex Smith | 19 Nov 11:34 2014
Picon
Picon

DIS: Proto: Organizations

So, recently, there's been a bunch of people (including me) deciding
that we need some substitute for Contracts/Promises, and a bunch of
people (including me) deciding that we need an economy. So this is my
proposal for a proposal for Organizations, which are designed to work as
a Contract substitute /and/ an economy!

The basic idea is that players can fund Organizations; the funds aren't
"spent" in that you get them back once you stop funding the
Organization, and act as a limit on how much funding you can do at once.
(Each player has the same ability to fund; the economy comes down to how
efficiently you can spend your funds.) If you're funding an Organization
to any positive extent, the Organization itself can force you to fund it
more, or allow you to fund it less; this is the Contract-like behaviour
(you can create an Organization that punishes you for performing certain
actions by tying up more of your funds). You SHALL NOT allow yourself to
become oversubscribed in terms of funding, and bad things happen if you
do (in addition to any criminal penalty, and the fact that you've broken
the rules).

Meanwhile, the more heavily funded an Organization is, the better the
chance that it becomes able to grant wins. So, you (perhaps with
co-conspirators) can run an Organization for your own benefit in the
hope of gaining a win, if you like. However, the most likely
Organizations to grant wins are ones which are widely funded by
everyone; most likely, these will be ones that act like Contests used to
(nothing's forcing them to be fair or balanced, but if they aren't, they
may have trouble attracting funding).

You can destroy an Organization by underfunding it (and currently, by no
other means, although as an Organization can adjust its own funding,
(Continue reading)

Kerim Aydin | 17 Nov 22:35 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: testing some informal arragements


On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > I withdraw my votes on all Agoran Decisions currently in their
> > voting periods.
> >
> > I, being of as sound mind and body as could reasonably be expected
> > of an Agoran, hereby grant the player known as omd a strictly limited
> > Power of Attorney[*] for the sole purpose of casting Votes on
> > Agoran Decisions on my behalf, by announcement, from now until the
> > end of Nov 30, 2014 UTC.
> >
> > If mutual agreement is required, either a clear statement from omd
> > indicating acceptance of this PoA, or an attempt on omd's part to
> > vote on my behalf, shall be considered an acceptance of terms on
> > omd's part.
> 
> I do the same two actions, but granting the PoA to Murphy to cast
> votes on my behalf.
> 
> I vote on G.'s behalf: 7726 AGAINST, 7727 PRESENT, 7728 AGAINST, 7729 AGAINST.

I just realized that voting may be a poor test case, as it could
be argued (barely, but perhaps within the bounds of reason) that these 
amount to Endorsements.

omd | 16 Nov 20:18 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7728-7729

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Joe Piercey <joerpiercey <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> My votes:
>
> 7725 present
> 7726 against
> 7727 present
> 7728 for
> 7729 present

You're too late for 7725; others should be good.

Edward Murphy | 15 Nov 21:22 2014

DIS: [IADoP] Metareport

Offices and Reports

Date of this report: Sat 15 Nov 14
Date of last report: Sun  9 Nov 14

Rule  Office          Holder        Since      Last Election
------------------------------------------------------------
  991  Arbitor         G.            15 Oct 14   7 Apr 14
2137  Assessor        omd            8 Jul 14  12 Jul 14
2437  Dungeon Master~ the Warrigal  30 Sep 14  30 Oct 14
  649  Herald          woggle        11 Nov 14  30 Oct 14
2138  IADoP*          Murphy        11 Nov 14  30 Oct 14
????  King Azaz       omd           10 Nov 14    never
2435  Minister GNP**  Eritivus      18 Oct 14    never
2423  Prime Minister  Henri         11 Nov 14  30 Oct 14
1607  Promotor        aranea        26 Oct 14  13 Jul 14
2426  Referee         Eritivus       4 Nov 14^ 30 Oct 14
2139  Registrar       woggle        30 Aug 14  31 Aug 14
1051  Rulekeepor      omd            4 Feb 14   3 Jun 14
  103  Speaker***      omd            1 May 14  21 Apr 14
2438  Tailor          aranea         4 Nov 14    never
------------------------------------------------------------

*   Interstellar Associate Director of Personnel
**  Minister for GNP Evaluation
*** Imposed
~   May not exist (reason unknown)
^   Iff any rule violation occurred between 3 Nov 00:00 and 4 Nov
       00:01. Otherwise 11 Nov. One possible such violation was
       determined not to have occurred (CFJ 3440).
(Continue reading)

Edward Murphy | 15 Nov 19:11 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes on Proposals 7698-7710

G. wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Edward Murphy wrote:
>> omd wrote:
>>
>>>> Proposal 7701 (AI=2) by Henri
>>>> Credits
>>>>        Replace every instance of the word "points" in the ruleset
>>>>        excluding the instances of the word "points" in Rule 1023 (Common
>>>>        Definitions) with "credits".
>>>
>>> Fails due to lack of specified order.
>>
>> CFJ, disqualifying omd:  The adoption of Proposal 7701 replaced at
>> least two instances of the word "points" in the ruleset with "credits".
>>
>> Caller's arguments:  Rule 105 (Rule Changes) says
>>
>>        Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
>>
>> and
>>
>>        Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
>>        change to be void and without effect.
>>
>> However, the order of changes is arguably not an ambiguity in the
>> specification of a rule change, merely an ambiguity in the specification
>> of a set of rule changes.  There is no obvious substantive difference in
>> the overall effect on the gamestate from applying these rule changes in
>> one order versus another; in particular, note that Rule 2420 defines
(Continue reading)

omd | 15 Nov 17:04 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Expedition] Word Card fixes

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Luis Ressel <aranea <at> aixah.de> wrote:
> Why the hurry?

Mainly because I wanted to test out Expeditions.

Nich Del Evans | 15 Nov 15:59 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7728-7729

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Luis Ressel <aranea <at> aixah.de> wrote:
> 7728  Tiger      3.0  Even More Restricted Distribution

Endorse G.

> 7729  aranea     1.0  Zombies die hard

Endorse Eritivus

> 7726  omd        1.0  Word Card fix

FOR

> 7727  omd        1.0  Word Card nerf

FOR

Eritivus | 15 Nov 00:07 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Expedition] Word Card fixes

R1607:

      Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the
      Promotor.

Was this not violated when omd distributed proposals without ID
numbers?

Were the proposals distributed, given that they did not have ID
numbers?


Gmane