I like a lot the new vocabulary that the thesis introduces as well as the
themes that it tackles, and I'd like to give a response to its conclusions.
This isn't intended to be a review, just a reply.
- "Firstly, let's experiment with holistic offices and gameplay (...)": I'm
very open to experimentation, but I think that resorting to our "code
libraries" isn't a bad idea. Not using switches or established mechanics
seems fine to do for fun to see what happens, but I don't think that
routinely ignoring them is a better approach than just simply using them.
We also don't have infinite time and effort to write cod- I mean ruletext,
and it's often much more economical to just use what already exists and
seems to work well.
- "Secondly, reject bugfixes when you can. (...)": I don't think that this
is a good idea, because bugfixes are fun - for me at least. Proposals
currently have a negligible cost and seeing the rules tinkered around and
observing the attempts to improve them is entertaining for me. It might not
be entirely required or practical, but neither are most things that
people do for fun. I also don't see how this point emerges from the
previous ones in your thesis.
- "Thirdly, be clear and unambiguous in your statements when YOU interpret
it. Your opinion matters, don't get rolled over by Agora. (...)": This
seems important for any nomic, although I understand the motivation as to
why traditionalists or other kinds of factionalism may emerge. There's
power and safety in being in a group (and we instinctively know this at an
unga bunga ape level, as social animals), and because of the arguments in
the third paragraph in "Agoran Chemistry", people want power. In any case,
it's reassuring to see this hammered down in a thesis, because I'm a bit
anxious sometimes about it as a newer player.
- "Fourstly, play a role in this game.": If that's what's fun for you,
sure, although I wouldn't prescribe it to everyone in general. I don't
think everyone would benefit as much from feeling like they fit into some
kind of archetype, some just wouldn't care and I think that's fine. I also
don't see how "playing a role" emerges from your main body of arguments.
- "Fifthly, express your opinion, and express it hard.": I feel like this
was already covered in the third point.
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 1:01 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following horribly long thesis specifically to qualify for a
> degree, AND, AS REFEREE, also because I am a great antagonist that hates
> you all, especially the people who signed up to read thesises! MWAHAHAHAHA!
> <3
> (Maybe I should change my registered name to Sithrak... Hmm...)
>
> (OOC: Just kidding, y'all are great, and thanks for being here and coming
> to my TED talk.)
>
> {
> Agoran Particle Physics:
> A collection of Agoran Theories
> and A case against Platonism
>
> (AKA one big pointless opinion)
>
> 0) Too Long, Didn't Read!
>
> For those of you uninterested in specifics:
> 1 posits that Agora is a game of expression, but it is also pretty
> platonic. (Yes, this is completely in contrast to nomic being a game of
> Self-Amendment.)
> 2 elaborates on what could be some basic atomic categories of a completely
> platonic system.
> 3 builds upon 2, and I attempt to identify all potential atoms of those
> categories.
> 4 is a whole section is probably garbage I decided to keep in, and
> therefore, represents my namesake. :D
> 5 argues we shouldn't strive for total platonism, so I present some
> theories on why it currently is that way.
> 6 has my opinions on ways to fix the current situation based on the prior
> evidence. Arguably the most contentious part, so the only one worth
> reading.
> 7 has some summaries of other theses (and drafts), and links to sources.
>
> 1) Agoran Chemistry
>
> Proposals are one of two things: most are expressions of opinion, and some
> are expressions of idea. Expressions of opinion tend to fix something:
> either the game wasn't working, the game wasn't working as intended, or the
> game's intentions were misaligned. And yes, these are all opinions: the
> first two are opinions of the majority of players in alignment: that the
> game's text is completely wrong, and something to be formally fixed. This
> is generally a platonic view of things: the rules' text is the rules text.
> And I've heard many Agorans agree: if the ruleset were to be ossified in a
> way that couldn't start again, even if all other players were to agree to
> unossify it, rewind time, what have you, that this would no longer be a
> game worth playing, despite this being the pragmatic approach to nomic.
> When we delve even further on how these fixes work, and how CFJ's work, we
> even see this difference of interpretation despite having the same
> conclusion: for example, a recent discord conversation about how paying
> fees works: it works, but people had different theories about how it
> worked.
>
> Expressions of idea happen less often, but they happen from time to time.
> Instead of living in the realm of Agora proper, they're thinking about what
> could be. These kinds of proposals don't come from nowhere, and I'm sure
> there's much discussion, either externally or internally, before such
> proposals come to light. And I find it sad to see them go away, and for
> them to go away for good. Since they are relatively infrequent, I'll be
> mostly leaving them out. (And sometimes these two are combined: an
> expression of idea becomes an infectious opinion. Something that once
> worked, now works no longer.)
>
> We want to express our opinions and ideas to the sky. We want to have our
> proposals adopted, our votes matter, our judgements to be seen and
> regarded, and slights against us to be punished. A game of drama. However,
> (in discord), I also see the opinion that Agora is strictly platonic, that
> what the rules say, goes. That the rules are the formal system, and when
> you break them, the rules don't care, and that things stop working. For
> example, proposal 8639 was brought up as not working, despite, at the time,
> everyone had thought it had worked, and now that it is time to Ratify The
> Ruleset, we can't accept this slight against "da rules". So we layer these
> opinions, pretending that they aren't opinions because some things are what
> they are, and that they are platonic and Truth. Harkening back to the
> thesis "Pragmatic vs Platonic", this is exactly what e reviewed then as
> well. This isn't new. But we treat this level of Platonism as Truth, yet we
> still accept CFJs on these most trivial matters.
>
> Some exceptions still exist, as not everything is deeply expressionate.
> Sometimes, people just want to win, and others just like to see how things
> unfold in this great drama. Despite this, it is still true that everyone is
> here ultimately for that expression, so that game can continue to churn.
>
>
> 2) Subagoran Particles
>
> From the prior theory, we see that these quibbles can even happen over the
> same word, and even happen across the same phrasing, same dependencies,
> just the temporal context changes. So words and collections of words are no
> longer basic units. So what ARE basic units, then? This is difficult to
> define, as we, as a group, are trying to communicate our opinions to
> eachother, and to take this a step further, agree on those opinions.
>
> I have thought about this, and I baselessly propose that building blocks
> are these things (and I am likely biased by being a coder):
> 1) Cause
> 2) Effect
> 3) Variables
>
> Triggers are the building block of "autonomous action" or "cause and
> effect". They are the bane of officers and the foundation of emergent
> gameplay. Something happens, and then something else happens, or something
> changes. They are the cognitive cycles we spend. Sometimes it seems simple
> enough "I expunge a blot", but even that entails checking some things: you
> hadn't done so this week, so now you have 1 less blot, and oh look, now
> your voting strength has increased, oh, and someone just decided to base
> their action on your voting strength.... Even time cannot escape the grasp
> of triggers, as officers must make their reports weekly or face the wrath
> of disgruntledness.
>
> However, triggers aren't a basic unit, and are created from cause AND
> effect. Starting with Causes, causes are an opinion of occurance. Did
> something actually happen? Did it meet some criteria? Is the cause actually
> A or is it actually B? Causes are players and their interactions with
> rules. So consider that a player publishes "I support all intents" compared
> with "I support each and every intent". Are these different in cause? Do
> they create the same effects? Do they have the same conditions for
> occuring? These are all evaluated, under the context of the current ruleset
> and CFJ history, in order to come to whatever conclusion may be. Causes can
> be even more miniscule as well: what variables changed, when, in what
> order, and why?
>
> Compare this with effects, which are tightly coupled with causes. The
> effect is more straightforward: we have already considered the precise
> cause, so what effect does it have? For example, if "I support all intents"
> is the cause, does this support a single intent "all intents"? Does it
> support multiple intents? Does it support only a subset of intents? This
> effect can be even more miniscule: what variables does the effect, in what
> order or simultaneously, and how?
>
> Variables are the building block of "storage". They're what most officers
> are actually here for: to track the gamestate. They're the assets, the
> properties of assets. They're the players themselves: who is registered,
> who is active. It's the entirety of the ruleset, even. It's the recent CFJs
> and their rulings. Agora has so much gamestate when you consider how much
> history factors into decisions. Some of this history is contradictory even,
> but not paradoxical. New CFJs overwrite the old ones and all that.
> Variables store the "effect", and their value affects affects.
>
> Variables are also more meta: which data is permitted for use in Agora? How
> should data be stored and tracked? Which data is correct? Variables can
> also be more miniscule as well: for example, time is a variable, and there
> is no rule to increment it, but it does anyways. This is shown by the
> proposal Time B Safe: Agora would stop "time" itself over the smallest
> change to the actual ruleset or any other gamestate to fix it, and this
> data was fixed to point to a different source for time.
>
> 3) Standard Model of Agoran Particles
>
> However, not all blocks are created equal. To be perfectly platonic, we
> have to operate on the subagoran level, to assure us there is no confusion,
> no ambiguity, and perfect clarity. Since Agora is self-referential in
> nature, the blocks build on eachother, we have to find the agoran
> particles. Ideal agoran particles would leave absolutely no ambiguity in
> any of the 3 areas to formulate an agoracule: 1) It would have a clear and
> unambiguous cause in every situation and every context. 2) It would have a
> clear and unambiguous effect in every situation and every context. 3)
> Variables would have clear, well defined, and unambiguous values in every
> situation and context.
>
> To find elementary particles for cause, I look to the causes that already
> exist: Time, Players, Combination, and Variable Change. For each of these,
> we have almost codified, completely, these particles. My theory on that is
> that this eased work on officers, and reduced the amount of Judgement (IE
> agoracule collisions) required. Time is in UTC. For a player to be a cause,
> evidence must be supplied: Agorans typically keep this to messages sent to
> Public Fora, but in the past this wasn't always the case. For Combination,
> we take any 3 of the other causes, and combine them with basic logic
> operators. Finally, for Variable Change, this is the least codified
> element, and when we talk to elementary Variables, we'll see why.
>
> To find the elementary particles for effect, I look to the effects that
> already exist: Variable Change. Yes, there is only one effect, because
> everything that Agora can represent is simply a variable. Agora cannot
> change real-life, which has been codified and represented clearly: if it
> could, Agorans would simply leave the game. This posits a potentially
> menacing scam to deregister all players for failing to complete some IRL
> requirement, and this even has potential to ossify Agora, but so far, this
> black-hole particle has not been sought, and it should not be sought. To
> seek it is to break the implicit social contract that this is a
> free-to-play game. The only thing that this game has required is optional:
> time from officers to keep it afloat.
>
> To find the elementary particles for variables, I look to the variables
> that already exist: primary data and pointers. Primary data is
> straightforward and well defined: it is specific text, a number, the
> real-world Time, CFJ results. This is the text of the ruleset, the text of
> proposals, the text of CFJs, and is also otherwise primarily represented by
> switches. Pointers are a level above this: they are groups of variables or
> otherwise variables that point to other variables.
>
> Note: when we look at Variable Change as a cause, with these elementary
> variables in mind, we notice that variables are such a large, and nebulous
> class. To interpret variables change, we have to determine which variable,
> precisely, changed, and the value it had before, and the value it had
> after. Since variables are usually in motion, the uncertainty principle
> only allows some degree of precision, and CFJs allow us to make
> measurements.
>
> 4) Agoran Compilation and Simulation
>
> So we now have the pieces of the puzzle. Firstly, the game would like to
> become more platonic, as we see in the opinions of a few officers, and it
> would greatly decrease the threshold for agreement, which should
> theorhetically increase efficiency. Secondly, we have building blocks that
> can be perfectly platonic.
>
> Historically, Agoran chemistry has operated on almost-platonic agoracules.
> Without a solid model, however, Agoran chemistry won't proceed too much
> further than it currently has: for now, we see that proposal and rule
> science has stalled, there was some experimentation with infection,
> mutation, and evolution, but those mechanisms fell out of favor. The only
> science we seek now is to keep Agora alive, but we should remember that
> Agora is a resilient being, with layers keeping it safe. This being said,
> that would be the perfectly platonic approach. Agora would become a
> self-modifying compiler of a game, much like many dead nomics based in a
> programming language in the past. THUS, this is a case against Platonism:
> becoming completely platonic will, based on previous nomics, result in the
> death of Agora. And even if it doesn't, would it be an Agora for anyone, or
> just the few who can understand the arcane beaurocracy?
>
> 5) Separation and Condensation of Agoracules
>
> However... is perfectly platonic what Agora should want? Arguably, it's
> not. A specific example would be the Banning of Madrid. It was, on the
> majority, clear that this is the appropriate response. However, the
> beaurocracy entailed to perform this activity resulted in a Cantus Cygnus
> from myself, and it took several weeks to enact the appropriate
> legislature. Contrarily, a pragmatic approach might have looked like a
> small proposal: "Ban Madrid". This may result in several judgements along
> the way, which take into account situational context. The way we currently
> operate with rules aligns with a Deontological point of view: the rules
> being perfectly suited to limit and qualify the means, and which ends they
> allow. (This means it also comes with all the problems in Deontology.)
>
> The most surprising aspect of this is that these Agoran Particle Physics
> are not new. The Propositional Nomic, Pragmatism and Platonism: Two
> Approaches to Nomic, and A Completely Formal Nomic are three prior theses
> that closely examine the idea that we can find this perfection somewhere.
> But I don't think we can, as Agora is terribly Philosophical, and such
> things are meant to make you think.
>
> So what happened to veer us into the territory of Platonism? I'm not really
> qualified to say; I haven't been here as long as other players, and I
> haven't caught up on the history. But I will posit some theories anyways.
>
> Firstly, I think players like feeling validated by the different voting
> processes. To garner more approvals, we try to keep things "platonic", and
> then we hide behind the rules. Describing how things happen, rather than
> the result, also allows someone to hide our intentions.
>
> Secondly, I think the referee and blots system has not been adequately
> exercised, and the CFJ system requires judges to look at things completely
> objectively: so to reduce stresses on these systems, we thought it'd make
> more sense to codify our concerns. I believe this has the opposite effect:
> it makes any judgements that have to be made even more intricate and
> detailed. (I don't doubt, however, that some of this is desired.) These
> judgement systems desire to be pragmatic: something bad has happened, and
> now we need to deal with the consequences, hopefully sooner rather than
> later.
>
> Thirdly, it is possible that pragmatism doesn't result in "interesting" for
> one reason or another. I'm not sure why this is the case, maybe there's
> historical reasoning for this, but it doesn't appear to be in a thesis
> anywhere, and this thesis has some argument that atomic platonism can be
> just as dull.
>
> Fourstly, I think the pragmatism was sectioned off into it's own domains.
> We have the Referee and Arbitor as judgement. We have Ratification Without
> Objection to handle when things become too complex, and to clarify all the
> history that needs to be examined to determine a platonic outcome. We also
> have ossification, sectioned off as a "necessity", yet a clear indicator
> that pragmatism is necessary. We still have officer regulations, which look
> to be an intended pragmatic solution to how an officer gets whatever it is
> completed. I'm sure there's other small subsets, but they are surely small,
> since we've battered down the switches and bugfixed our hows to Perfection,
> leaving little room for misinterpretation for the judgement system to
> handle.
>
> 6) A Quantum Model
>
> Some more Pragmatism would be better for Agora, as it would run smoothly
> and be easily understood, with little cause for concern about ossification:
> Pragmatism generally allows reinterpretation. Ossification is one of the
> few primary ways to Treat Agora badly. I proceed with the argument that we
> should find ways to become more pragmatic.
>
> Firstly, let's experiment with holistic offices and gameplay (perhaps
> again). Nextime you propose an office, do it without switches. Make it as
> short as possible. Instead of specifying how something happens, just
> describe the what. Escape from the imperative solutions and move towards
> functional purity.
>
> Secondly, reject bugfixes when you can. Either it works or it doesn't. Wait
> until it's truly determined that it doesn't work.
>
> Thirdly, be clear and unambiguous in your statements when YOU interpret it.
> Your opinion matters, don't get rolled over by Agora. Remember this is a
> game of expression, and you have power.
>
> Fourstly, play a role in this game. Get into character, have some fun, and
> don't be afraid to be punished. If you are acting in good faith but are
> still breaking the rules, then you may experience some negative side
> effects, but you won't be banished. Recently, I collected taxes, implying
> it was an officer duty, despite taxes not existing at all! Mwahaha! How do
> actions like that make you feel? They are thinkers! We need more of this
> pushing back against "da rules". Note that this also gives power back to
> the officers, the people supporting the game, doing their deeds, and
> supports vying for the offices they hold, campaigning, politics, and DRAMA!
>
> Fifthly, express your opinion, and express it hard. Disclaim it as you need
> to. This is a game of opinion, it's ok. It's only not ok when someone feels
> personally insulted or discriminated against for reasons beyond their
> control, and that is a system we need to work on. That's the other thing
> about Agora: it's about the evolution and perfection of an (endless) game.
> There could even be a circumstance in which Agora could end: at the time of
> writing, arbitrary proposals have to be able to be passed in a real-world
> four-week period, after all. In addition to expressing opinion, the
> bugfixes are also hinting that this is also a game of togetherness: Agora
> wants to be clear to our new players.
>
> 7) References
> Proposal analysis indicates (from a sample) that most proposals are
> bugfixes. (link is the draft)
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg55469.html
>
> Metamagical themas (Douglas Hofstadter) featured Nomic, and also notes in
> that article that Drama is part of the game.
> [I couldn't find a link]
>
> Metagaming vs roleplaying also notes that Drama is part of the game. In
> fact, it is a major part of the game, so much so that we often have already
> become the players we were playing as in the game, and we are personally
> affected by the shenanigans of those around us. A proper "oops-ouch"
> mechanism is once again missing from the referee system, that would
> encourage us to play up this drama and highlight it properly. This also
> highlights some problems with pragmatic plays: that they result in "bad
> feelings" when it is not clear that Agora is a game of Expression.
> https://agoranomic.org/Herald/theses/html/1998-XX-XX-Kolja.html
>
> Pragmatism and Platonism: Two Apporaches to Nomic illuminates the
> difference between styles of play, and the importance of including not only
> Platonic views, but also Pragmatic views, and the pros and cons of both
> styles. Specifically, Platonic assertions are great at addressing precision
> and correctness near the events that occur. Pragmatism is great for moving
> on when the effort to undo any issue is too large or impossible. It also
> provides a sample nomic ruleset to play with this dichotomy, and notes that
> conversion to pure Pragmatism or pure Platonism are both strongly rejected.
> https://agoranomic.org/Herald/theses/html/XXXX-XX-XX-Vanyel.html
>
> Deontology is somewhat associated with Platonism, whereas Consequentialism
> is somewhat associated with Pragmatism.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
>
> A Propositional Nomic provides a different atomic and platonic approach to
> playing nomic.
> https://agoranomic.org/Herald/theses/html/2009-11-23-Alexis.html
>
> A Completely Formal Nomic provides a different atomic and platonic approach
> to playing nomic, suitable for some sort of coding-style of nomic.
> https://agoranomic.org/Herald/theses/html/XXXX-XX-XX-favor.html
> }
> --
> 4st
> Referee
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>
