omd | 21 Oct 03:39 2014
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Sean Hunt <scshunt <at> csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> I CFJ: {{omd withdrew an intent in the quoted message.}}
>
> Arguments: The rules do not specify a mechanism for withdrawing intents.

It was TtDF.

Incidentally, I don't think the rule actually works.  It refers to
"highest voting strength among adopted Competition Proposals", but
*voting* strength is "an integer between 1 and 5 inclusive, defined by
rules of power 2 or greater."  And regular strength is defined for
voting options, not proposals.

omd | 21 Oct 03:33 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:32 PM, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we need more gameplay.  Although the points won through a
> Proposal Competition are rather useless at the moment, still -
>
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to initiate a Proposal Competition.
> The objective shall be to create at least one new rule.

Okay, I just realized this was stupid.  Competitions prevent multiple
proposals in the set from taking effect, so there's no point having
such a general competition.

Never mind.

Kerim Aydin | 20 Oct 19:15 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: A little briefer than hoped


On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> You know what? I'm actually really concerned with the current Moot
> process. By making things into a vote, not a discussion, it's pretty bad
> at actually finding the truth.

There *is* no "truth" here.  Just several reasonable player definitions 
of what consists of reasonable review for a Rule.

This is actually most suited for a legislative fix.  You know, a vote.

> sure /what/ to think about this case. There are a lot of viewpoints and
> potential issues to consider, and we're not going to get a single
> judgement that considers them all. The final judgement is thus a word,
> and not something that should guide play (nor does it have any influence
> beyond R217).

Well, that's really the issue with the Statement as written.  It needed
linked statements or whatnot.  Unfortunately, we didn't know that at the
time.

> As such, I'm instead going to make a political/tactical move. This is my
> Brief on the ongoing Moot:

I wondered if tactical voting would develop.  Not sure yet what I think
about that.

> This hopefully serves its purpose of protesting our current CFJ system
> and making the resulting verdict unclear.

(Continue reading)

Kerim Aydin | 20 Oct 18:54 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: A little briefer than hoped


On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
> The second is a little more concerning.  The judgement of FALSE will,
> as things currently stand, be a composite of the following two
> opinions:

Assuming FALSE holds, but the Moot opinions aren't clear on which
type of FALSE, it will be settled by followup CFJ on ais523's attempt 
to change the rules with +4 days waiting.  I was waiting to call that 
CFJ so that it didn't jump ahead of the Moot process.  It would be 
similar, under the old Appeals process, if two judges gave an AFFIRM 
but for different reasons each.

> It's exactly the same text.  G. has argued - as I understand it - that
> moving it from Rule 101 signaled an intent to stop interpreting this
> clause (presumably along with the various other clauses based on the
> repealed bill of rights) in an abstracted, relatively informal manner
> (focusing on substantive outcomes rather than the precise terms the
> rules are using).  However, I have two problems with this.

My argument was more specific than this.  It was that removing the
Rules from the context of Agreements in general (of which the Rules
are an instance) changed the context very strongly.  When the clause 
governed agreements in general, it had to be read flexibly.  It no 
longer *has* to be.  Whether it *should* be is what the moot is about.

-G.

Eritivus | 20 Oct 08:45 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: A little briefer than hoped

On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 06:13 +0000, omd wrote:
> The second is a little more concerning.  The judgement of FALSE will,
> as things currently stand, be a composite of the following two
> opinions:
>
> - (G.) The prescribed method of "by announcement" does not include a
> review period and is thus inherently incapable of satisfying Rule 105.
> - (Eritivus) The rule has no bug because it is using a secondary
> definition of "pertaining".

Note: I have not submitted a Brief yet, because I was deregistered when
I attempted to do so.

I'm pondering whether to resubmit as is, expand, or abandon.

Kerim Aydin | 19 Oct 19:39 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Minister for Social Stratification


On Sat, 18 Oct 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Proposal: Minister for Social Stratification

Clean up the points mess first.

I will vote AGAINST any proposal that introduces an Office, but does
not explicitly install someone (presumably the proposal-writer) in
that office.  -G.

woggle | 19 Oct 18:45 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census


On 10/19/14 16:38, Eritivus wrote:
> D'oh.
> 
> If I am a Player, I _DO NOT_ initiate the following CFJ:

I recommend against issuing CFJs conditionally.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> CFJ: Ratification of the Registrar's 11 Oct report failed.
> 
> Arguments:
> 
> The Registrar's 11 Oct report did not include me on the player
> list. woggle implicitly claims that the minimal gamestate modification
> of ratification is my retroactive deregistration.
> 
> However, The Registrar's report also includes, by R2139:
> 
>     For each former player for which the information is reasonably
>     available, the dates on which e registered and deregistered.

This information is not self-ratifying. The list of players registered is as a
result of R2162(c).

- woggle

> 
> woggle's proposed gamestate modification only makes the Registrar's
> report more true and accurate if I deregister before the report. Thus,
(Continue reading)

Henri Bouchard | 19 Oct 01:02 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:23 PM, woggle <woggling <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                        Registrar's Weekly Report
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (all times UTC)
>
> Date of Last Report: 04 Oct 2014
> Date of this Report: 11 Oct 2014
>
> [...]
>
> Year of Deregistration                                Reg.        Dereg.
>
> Left in 1994:
>
>   Alexx               alexx at world.std.com          <unknown>    5 Apr
>
> 94<=
>   Andy Latto          andyl at harlequin.com          <unknown>    5 Apr
>
> 94<=
>   Douglas Jahnke      chaotic at ksuvm.ksu.edu        <unknown>    5 Apr
>
> 94<=
>   Jim                 jcs at zycor.lgc.com            <unknown>    5 Apr
>
> 94<=
>   Karl Anderson       karl at reed.edu                <unknown>    5 Apr
>
(Continue reading)

Ørjan Johansen | 18 Oct 23:27 2014
Picon
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: PROPOSAL: Credits

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014, Henri Bouchard wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> PROPOSAL: 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".
>
>     Replace every instance of the word "point" in the ruleset
>     excluding the instances of the word "point" in Rule 103 (The
>     Speaker) with "credit".
>
>     Replace any instance of the word "Scorekeepor" in the ruleset
>     with the phrase "Minister for Credits".

This won't be effective without an explicit adoption index, as Rule 2420 
has Power 2.

Greetings,
Ørjan.
omd | 18 Oct 05:27 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] MOOT begun on CFJ 3429

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> I plan to end the Moot:
>
> (a) at One Week if no more briefs are received; (b) if
> briefs are received before then, 48 hours after the
> last brief received, but (c) not to exceed 14 days.
> Approximately.

I will probably (finally) write one tomorrow, but probably not within
the 13 hours before One Week has passed.  A short extension, please?

omd | 18 Oct 02:22 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Call for Judgement: Rulekeepor Rule Violation

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Henri Bouchard <henrib736 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>      "Last change to this ruleset: ???"

??? would generally be interpreted as "unknown".  In this case, it is
unknown because the identity of the last change depends on, at least,
the outcome of a CFJ currently under moot.  While I could have written
this out in full, I didn't bother to because the last change is
neither a required part of the SLR nor particularly important (the
text is, but I added some explicit notation for that).

It is unclear to me how correctly stating that something is unknown
would be considered misleading.


Gmane