Henri Bouchard | 25 Oct 02:10 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7694-97

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:46 PM, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Voting results for Proposals 7694-97:
>
> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
>  following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
>  Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).]
>
> Whoa, we have voters.
>
> Special note: 7697 was distributed with the wrong text: a comment at
> the end was chopped off.  Since I am publishing this more than a week
> after the distribution, the distribution is still valid, and since the
> error was only a comment, not part of any rule changes, the
> recently-popular clause of Rule 105 is not involved.  Therefore, I
> think the proposal passes without issue.  I have corrected the text in
> this message.  (I'm curious whether Rule 105 would have prevented
> adoption if the error were substantive, despite players having an
> opportunity to review the proposal when it was originally posted...)
>
> *7694  omd        1.7  Case at the statement
> x7695  omd        1.0  Useless recruitment fix
> *7696  omd        1.0  Black Card fix
> *7697  omd        1.0  Non-timed duty accuracy
>
>             7694  7695  7696  7697
>
> ais523      F     F     F     F
> aranea      F     A     A     F
> G.          F     F     A     F
> Henri       F     F     F     F
(Continue reading)

Jonatan Kilhamn | 24 Oct 20:02 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Province?

On 24 October 2014 19:36, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:


On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I create a Province character called Redgroat. Redgroat looks around.

La la la.  I am a Bard.  La la la, you don't know my name,
you can just call me the Bard.  Or "that $##$%#$ Bard".  La la la.

La la la.  I am a Bard.  I'm the kind of Bard that over-roleplays
until you just want to punch me in the face (both the character
and the player).  La la la.  I am a Bard.

La la la.  I assume I'm standing somewhere that Redgroat can see
me, but I might be wrong.  Hopefully, e can *hear* me, because
that's what matters to me.  After all, La la la, I am a Bard.


I punch the Bard in the face.
Alex Smith | 24 Oct 19:09 2014
Picon
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: voting and status

On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 12:03 -0500, Chester Mealer wrote:
> I deregister and vote yes on all matters which I am able.
> Chester Mealer
> 
Were you a player /before/ doing that?

If not, this is hilarious.

If yes, this is also hilarious, but for a different reason.

--

-- 
ais523

Tanner Swett | 24 Oct 19:04 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census

On Oct 4, 2014, at 2:39 PM, woggle wrote:
> 
>  Warrigal, the        tannerswett at gmail.com             5 Aug 14

Belated thanks.

—Warrigal, the

Benjamin Schultz | 24 Oct 18:28 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Province?

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Alex Smith <ais523 <at> bham.ac.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 09:36 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
> I create a Province character called Redgroat. Redgroat looks around.

The Rulekeepor ruled that you couldn't do that because the proposal that
would have created that rule was ambiguous.

Still, at least it gives me something to report on.

The following is the status of the Province of Agora, including any
recent changes to it:
{{{
There are, most likely no entities in the Province of Agora. Warrigal
has attempted to send a character named Redgroat into the Province, but
there is serious doubt as to whether e actually arrived.
}}}

--
ais523



If the character Redgroat successfully arrived in the Province, I create a Province character named Oscarosaurus, which is a Titanoceratops.

--
OscarMeyr
Jonatan Kilhamn | 24 Oct 16:29 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Has it really been two months already?

On 24 October 2014 16:18, Tanner Swett <tannerswett <at> gmail.com> wrote:
I submit a proposal, titled "Deplatonification", with an adoption index of 1.1:

Change the power of Rule 2436 "The Province of Agora" to 1, and amend
it to read as follows:

      The Province of Agora is a subgame whose state comprises the
      imagined state of an imaginary region.

      Each player controls exactly one imaginary player character in
      the Province.  (If this character dies, a new one is created.)
      Whenever a player announces that this character takes an action,
      the Dungeon Master SHALL announce the imaginary result of the
      action in a timely fashion.  E MAY state that the result is
      anything whatsoever (subject to other rules), but e SHOULD
      choose a result that follows common sense, precedent, and Agoran
      consensus.

Amend Rule 2437 "The Dungeon Master" to read as follows:

      The Dungeon Master is an office.  The Dungeon Master's weekly
      report includes a summary of what has happened in the Province
      of Agora since the previous report.  The Dungeon Master's
      monthly report includes a summary of the entire publicly known
      state of the Province.  These summaries MAY be anything
      whatsoever (subject to other rules), but they SHOULD follow
      common sense, precedent, and Agoran consensus.

—the Warrigal


Under these rules, I would stand for Dungeon Master; at least for a period.

--
Tiger
Tanner Swett | 24 Oct 15:52 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Province?

On Oct 24, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 09:36 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote:
>> I create a Province character called Redgroat. Redgroat looks around.
> 
> The Rulekeepor ruled that you couldn't do that because the proposal that
> would have created that rule was ambiguous.

But the rules that were successfully enacted don't say that I *can't* create a character. Although my
announcements have no rule-defined effects, the Dungeon Master decides the appropriate response to them.

—the Warrigal

Kerim Aydin | 24 Oct 05:32 2014

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Brief for Moot on CFJ 3429


On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> I hereby retract my brief, recommending TRUE as part of the retraction.
> I publish the following brief: "I recommend FALSE.
> I hereby retract my brief, recommending TRUE as part of the retraction.
> I publish the following brief: "I recommend FALSE.
> I hereby retract my brief, recommending TRUE as part of the retraction.
> I publish the following brief: "I recommend FALSE.
> I hereby retract my brief, recommending TRUE as part of the retraction.
> I publish the following brief: "I recommend FALSE.
> I hereby retract my brief, recommending TRUE as part of the retraction.
> I publish the following brief: "I recommend FALSE.
> I hereby retract my brief, recommending TRUE as part of the retraction.

H. omd,

Are the unterminated "'s a copy-pasted error, or is weird string 
termination part of your fiendish scheme here?

Kerim Aydin | 24 Oct 00:00 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: 4 CFJs


Linked, you think?  -G.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> At this point, the present Moot is clearly not going to end with
> resolution of the issues involved.  Therefore, I call:
> 
> CFJ: The original version of Rule 2437 (The Dungeon Master) generally
> allows/allowed the Dungeon Master to set properties of the rule
> itself.
> CFJ: If the Rules unconditionally allow someone to perform a certain
> rule change by announcement (not as the result of, e.g., a dependent
> action), then it is generally possible for the "general player review"
> clause in Rule 105 to be satisfied (e.g. through a formal but
> non-Rules-specified process).
> CFJ: For the purposes of Rule 105, "general player review through a
> reasonably public process" requires a process whose formal details are
> known in advance.
> CFJ: For the purposes of Rule 105, "general player review through a
> reasonably public process" cannot be achieved with a process which (a)
> is completed in any fewer than 96 hours, and (b) does not inform
> players in advance about the amount of time it will take to complete.
> 
> Should cover a decent portion of the interpretation space, although
> not all.  I present no arguments, because this has been discussed to
> death already.

Kerim Aydin | 23 Oct 23:15 2014

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A little briefer than hoped


On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:

> On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 09:46 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I think about judgements like House Rules.
> > 
> > For any boardgame, when the Rules are unclear, you have to figure out how 
> > to play.  So everyone argues, and either you come to some consensus, or some 
> > way of deciding ("the owner of the game decides" or whatever).  Nomic just 
> > codifies that part (and in doing so, makes it self-referential, but that's 
> > not an issue here).
> > 
> > So the point of a House Rule is (1) it lets you get on with playing, and
> > (2) when the same thing comes up again, the House Rule doesn't change
> > (wouldn't be fair to stop one person from doing something, then allow the 
> > next person).  That's the role of precedent.  Although precedent always
> > loses to rules... if a player finds an obscure clause that everyone missed
> > that answers the question, bye-bye house rule. (Or you may say "let's
> > finish this game the wrong way because that's how we've been playing, and
> > play the right way next time".  Nothing wrong with that - that's more or 
> > less what ratification does!)
> > 
> > But for precedent to work, you can't just say "this move doesn't work 
> > because I own the game and I say so".  You need to supply enough reasoning 
> > so that players will accept that it makes sense and move on.  Otherwise, 
> > you don't know how the House Rule applies to other situations, and also 
> > it makes people grumpy.
> 
> Well, a CFJ is fundamentally different from a rule. Rules (and
> proposals) don't have any effect before they're enacted; they can change
> the gamestate to simulate the effect of a change having been made
> retroactively (e.g. when we ratify something), but they don't actually
> change what was going on in the past.
> 
> A CFJ, meanwhile, doesn't change what was going on in the past, but it
> does clarify. The aim of the CFJ process is to determine /what actually
> happened/. Anything that politicises CFJs simply makes them less good at
> determining what happened, but it doesn't actually change the past.
> 
> I mean, if it did change the past, it'd be pretty trivial to get a
> paradox out of it.
> 
> 
> Using the mechanism in Rule 2437, I cause rule 2437 to set the
> recommended judgement of every Brief in the current Moot to TRUE. (Such
> Moots are, unless you're using Eritivus' interpretation, entities
> pertaining to the PoA; and the recommended judgement is a property of
> them.)
> 
> 
> There are a few possible interpretations of what that action just did.
> With my view on matters, what it does is to cause the CFJ to have to be
> decided TRUE, while its statement is actually FALSE; in other words, it
> simply causes us to have a gamestate that doesn't correspond to the
> judgement. And there's nothing wrong with that! Our current CFJ process
> is pretty bad at finding appropriate judgements in case of appeal.
> 
> If we treat this with the "house rules" intepretation, though, what I've
> just done is (when the CFJ is resolved) to cause a situation in which I
> retroactively caused omd's dictatorship to work, which will
> retroactively cause my action to fail, which will retroactively cause
> omd's dictatorship to fail, etc. The resulting paradox means that
> resolving the Moot is illegal (because it causes the result of the Moot
> to become indeterminate). Sadly, I no longer get a win, because we
> repealed wins for paradoxes. (Unless people would want to give me a win
> by proposal?)
> 
> I think I know which interpretation is more sensible.

No, the "House Rules" would not let us move on.  Another CFJ would be
called.  That happens when the result of a particular CFJ is corrupted.

If what you did is broken, it's because you've effectively pulled a
Lindrum:  since everything "pertains" to that CFJ, them whomever
controls that rule controls every interpretation, including any
disputes over that interpretation.  That's the problem with construing
"pertains" so broadly - I think I know for sure now that a narrow
interpretation is more sensible.

-G.

omd | 23 Oct 23:12 2014
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A little briefer than hoped

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alex Smith <ais523 <at> bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> There are a few possible interpretations of what that action just did.
> With my view on matters, what it does is to cause the CFJ to have to be
> decided TRUE, while its statement is actually FALSE; in other words, it
> simply causes us to have a gamestate that doesn't correspond to the
> judgement. And there's nothing wrong with that! Our current CFJ process
> is pretty bad at finding appropriate judgements in case of appeal.
>
> If we treat this with the "house rules" intepretation, though, what I've
> just done is (when the CFJ is resolved) to cause a situation in which I
> retroactively caused omd's dictatorship to work, which will
> retroactively cause my action to fail, which will retroactively cause
> omd's dictatorship to fail, etc. The resulting paradox means that
> resolving the Moot is illegal (because it causes the result of the Moot
> to become indeterminate). Sadly, I no longer get a win, because we
> repealed wins for paradoxes. (Unless people would want to give me a win
> by proposal?)

With the "house rules" interpretation I think there is an implicit
assumption that the judgement must actually have been made in good
faith, following a reasonable process, etc.  Your statement here
suggests that a judgement would have to be taken as law no matter
what, but that just leads to the kind of Lindrum World type scams
which were rejected long ago, and would kill the whole point of
leaving the CFJ system's effects outside the rules.


Gmane