On 2/11/23 16:06, nix via agora-business wrote: > Here is the current list of interested thesis reviewers. > > Reviewer Last Reviewed Thesis > -------- -------------------- > 4st > Aspen > Janet > juan > nix > > If you would like your name added or removed from this list, simply > notify me. > > > 4st has submitted a thesis, which is below. I assign the following > people to review it: myself, Janet, Aspen. I request the reviewers give > their verdicts within 1 week of this notice. If you are unable to do so, > let me know if you need an extension or would like someone else to be > assigned instead. > > Remember that the options for review are "UNSUITABLE FOR DEGREE", > "REVISE & RESUBMIT", or "NOMINATE FOR [DEGREE]". Please include your > reasons alongside your conclusion. Also, feel free to ask any questions > of the submitter. 4st, please try to answer any questions in a timely > manner.
I have concerns about granting this thesis a degree. Both prior theses receiving art degrees appear to have had significant consideration before drafting and being submitted, while this submission appears to have been created mostly as a joke and only submitted as a thesis as an afterthought on the basis of "might as well try?". This is not to say that I think it is impossible that a document not originally drafted as a thesis should receive a degree, but I do think it is a potentially problematic precedent and one that we should be careful about setting. When asked about the earnestness and historical significance of the thesis, 4st responded as follows on Discord: > Why is it not earnest? It has historical significance of providing > flavortext, and it will have historical significance based on whether > it is accepted. It has caused some discussion as well. It is also > explicitly Agoran, following the proposal format of the current time. > Finally, the social critique in this one is how necessary it is to > garner others' approval in the process of proposal making, just that > this approval gathering process is now more on the tin than behind the > scenes. This is not convincing to me. Many proposals have had flavor text in the past, and the pass/fail status of every proposal will (hopefully) be historically recorded. The social critique aspect also doesn't make sense to me. It is not a secret that proposals must have popular support to pass (voting strength games notwithstanding), and we have seen examples much more blatant than this (e.g. bribery proposals). The proposal itself also has a few (potential) bugs: > Firstly, when you own a FLOOP!, you form an bond with its Shiggy. > It's POSSIBLE that this bond allows its Shiggy to boop your FLOOPS! > by announcement to flip their Bees! It seems possible that a judge would not hold this to authorize any actions, as it is not clearly phrased as an enabling. > Thirdly, when you are Zamble to a FLOOP!, you CAN boop the FLOOP! > and add one word in the rule specified by the number of the Qander > to the FLOOP!'s Morpt once per week by announcement! This would not result in rule changes. Persons cannot directly cause rule changes as they are not instruments. This also ignores power, which would prevent most possible rules from being affected (though this may be intentional). > Finally, when enough FLOOPS! Bee's are True, the Jelly Bean > SHALL randomly order the FLOOPS! and combine their Morpts! > This combined Morpt will be interpreted as rules text at power 1! This is unlikely to actually result in the text having effect on the gamestate. Rules must be taking effect to do things, and Rule 2141 strictly defines what a rule is and when it is taking effect. > How much is enough? Well, lets just say that each True Bee reduces the > 3 Agoran Consent REQUIRED by 0.3. It's unclear what Agoran consent requirement this is referring to. > OH MY GOODNESS! I WANT ONE! WHERE CAN I GET ONE? > You can create one FLOOP! in your possession with > - the Candle being a unique name among all FLOOPS! > The Jelly Bean will set this for you! > - the Shiggy being yourself! > - the Zamble being any specified player, except yourself (defaulting to no > one)! The specification of the Zamble as "no one" may or may not be held to work, since "no one" is not a "specified player", even if it is a possible value for the switch. > However... if you have 4 or > more FLOOPS!, > you have to destroy ALL the FLOOPS! you own. Don't keep too many FLOOPS! in > one place! This would likely be interpreted as a SHALL, rather than automatic destruction, and since it doesn't have a time limit, it may not be possible to violate the SHALL, or it may be impossible to comply with the SHALL (i.e. one must destroy all FLOOPS! within the same instant as receiving them). > I almost forgot, Each FLOOP! CAN be transferred to a specified player > once per week by announcement! > The player you transfer your FLOOP! to doesn't even have to consent! This appears to allow transferring FLOOPS! owned by other players without consent. (This may be intentional, and I am somewhat confused by the statement that the recipient need not consent.) For the above reasons, UNSUITABLE FOR DEGREE. Addendum: additional remarks from 4st on Discord: > the reasons I submitted it are still those same reasons really, none > of your questions are something I thought about when I submitted it in > the first place, the only other thing I thought about when submitting > is just that the rules should be used, so I used them.... > > I saw ANA in the ruleset and was like "what's this?". overall, this > isn't a super serious submission, and it would've been very fair to > dismiss it. I didn't mean to get heated or get anyone else heated over > it, and I didn't want to disrespect others' work, especially since it > looks like the bar for theses is lowering as time goes on, based on > these other theses, which seem amazing overall, except for the ANA's > seem about the same. But the other ones are also degrees of a higher > caliber. 🤷 It could be just that theses are too formalized now, which > eases the process of earning them because they are formalized > gameplay, part of Renaissance wins and all that. Or my thesis is just > truly and utterly misguided from the intent of theses, and violates a > SHOULD, which it kind of does, as I wasn't reading about it too > carefully at the time of submission. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
