On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 3:13 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 7:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 6/3/2020 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > >>> A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do so > > in a > > >>> way primarily intended to affect popularity. Doing so is the Class-2 > > >>> Crime of Vote Manipulation. > > >> > > >> Notice of honour > > >> -1 Aris, for starting us down the road to criminalizing intent with that > > >> awful forbidden arts thing, and continuing the criminalization of intent > > >> by proposing penalties for the basic free act of voting. > > >> +1 D. Margaux, for being a generally good person. > > > > > > I retract Vote Manipulation. > > > > > > The forbidden arts thing doesn't even consider intent! Grumbles. This > > > one *does* consider intent though, and that's a fair argument against > > > it. I maintain that requiring people to at least *hide* what they're > > > doing could make it more interesting. Still, since it's you, and you > > > care this much, I'll retract the proposal. Next time maybe ask before > > > taking the honor? "Aris, I *really* think this is a bad idea", coming > > > from you, would have had the same effect. > > > > You're absolutely right. I've been too snippy lately. Maybe a little > > triggered this week with thoughts about "criminalization" of stuff. No > > excuse, you were clearly working in good faith there, I'm sorry Aris. > > > > And don't worry, your tone came across as mildly annoyed. :) > > > > [ > > As a side note, I've noticed recently there's a bit of divergence about > > how people treat the importance of Notices of Honour. I've mostly thought > > of NoHs as "expressing mild annoyance" rather than anything more serious > > (though sometimes I mis-judge the tone in the justification). But the > > term "Honour" makes it sound like something more worth defending and > > fighting about so it comes across as "escalation" rather than "let's > > diffuse things by blowing off steam in a silly honour fight"? Not sure > > it's anything that needs "fixing" but I'll keep that in mind, definitely... > > ] > > > Personally, I take honor not as something that needs to be defended but as > a measure of whether I'm doing the right thing or not. If someone is > decreasing my honor for X, that's a sign I shouldn't do X. If they're > increasing my honor for X, I should do more X. The reason I got mildly > peeved here is that I felt like I was just throwing around ideas. So it was > like... if my ideas are bad, just tell me that they're bad? It doesn't feel > like the sort of action that it makes sense to encourage or discourage. > > It is in fair part my fault for using proposals rather than protos for > ideas. Ideally, a proposal should signify "this is ready for voting" and a > proto should signify "this is an idea that is ready for discussion". I've > been basically ignoring that convention without communicating it, so shame > on me for that. On the other hand, is it even a good idea to discourage > people from producing unpopular or inadvisable proposals? A proposal, is, > at the end of the day, an option, and can always be voted down. > > -Aris
I think that as long as people aren't creating excessive proposals, there's no reason to discourage the production of unpopular proposals. I also have been thinking about the use of protos recently because it seems that proposals get much more attention, and therefore seem to be more effective as drafts.
