Thanks for reviewing! You make some very good points, I'll be sure to address some of them in my resubmission. You use a unique criterion to determine your nomination. I'm curious to what degree you think this qualifies for once it does get resubmitted. Is it an Art degree for the opinion and the weird ideas? is it Philosophy due to the brief mentions of philosophy? Is it history for the cited sources? And further, what level? Does it match what you expect from an Associates, Bachelor's, etc? is this level based on prior theses or just general expectations? And, did you properly take into account that I'm the Referee and I WILL collect your taxes?! PONDER FURTHER YE MORTAL AND PERISH YOUR PRIOR THOUGHTS TO THE REALM OF SHADOW!
(OOC: no really, thanks and I was planning to resubmit anyways) On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 11:01 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I'll grade based on the following marks: > > 30 marks, Introductions: How well-presented the main topic/s are, the > rationale for the thesis, the background, etc. > 30 marks, Body: How well the topic is argued, researched and discussed. > 30 marks, Conclusions: How reasonable the conclusions are based on what has > been presented and their utility and relevance to Agora. > 10 mark, Originality: How novel and different it is. > 0 marks, My personal opinion on the subject matter: > > For a grand total of 100 marks. If you get 50% or more, I'll vouch for the > relevant degree. > > > -- Introductions: 10/30 > Part 0 and the TL;DR is useful, but terrible. It's short and could be > expressed much better, imagine how a player reading this 20 years in the > future would read it. What's the context? What are you going for? Its > presentation isn't great either. You could've put the chapter titles in > there too and introduce the chemistry theme shebang earlier. > > Later on, even if you don't back up your claims with much evidence, I think > quite a lot of the stuff you later talk about is pretty self-evident to > most player's experience on Agora (or nomics in general) anyways, so it's > not as much of a problem as it could be. > > > -- Body: 15/30 > You make up new vocabulary and creatively assign words to different > concepts, like having certain things be "ideas" or "opinions". I'm largely > OK with it, because I understand what you're referring to even if I don't > entirely agree with the specific word you've assigned to it, but others > might not have the same comfort with something like that. > > I have to address that there's a lot of other kinds of literary showmanship > in the thesis as well: > "Even time cannot escape the grasp of triggers, as officers must make their > reports weekly or face the wrath of disgruntledness." > I'm not giving or removing any marks for those specifically, because I feel > like it's mostly a matter of aesthetic preference. > > You highlight some very compelling issues, like how people really want > their own opinion to matter, which I appreciate. However, I felt like it > was missing more discussion and contrast, like how Agora specifically has > them in comparison to other nomics, for example. > > I think 2) is interesting but probably goes too far into overexplaining a > simple input-output mechanism and "memory". > > 3) and 4) are fine. A lot of literary acrobatics as mentioned before, but > the poetic style is readable (and fun). > > 5) I don't know enough about these events, but as far as I understand, you > would've preferred a quicker solution rather than the more methodic and > calculated one. I'm honestly not sure which would be better, but that > doesn't matter, because what does is how well you argue what you do - and > you leave us hanging and just get into speculation instead. I wasn't too > happy about it. > > > -- Conclusions: 0/30 > There's a very serious problem in that you don't really connect your > solutions much to the rest of the thesis. You offer up nice things, sure, > but why would they work? Why those things and not something else? How do > they relate to the things you've spent most of the thesis talking about? > It's jarring. > > > -- Originality: 10/10 > I don't think there's anything written yet in a style that is this > eccentric, it felt to me like a like a cult acolyte explaining religious > arcana which, behind the veil of metaphors and meaning, it artistically > traces the silhouette of some really hard-hitting nomic matters. You get > full marks for it. > > > -- My personal opinion on the subject matter: 0/0 > You get the minimum, shame on you for not agreeing with me. Rejecting > bugfixes? Madness. To the guillotine with you. > > > -- Final marks: 35/100 > Which is unfortunate, but it needs quite a lot of work still. But I > wholeheartedly support its style and look forwards to a revision. > > REVISE & RESUBMIT > > On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 6:59 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 9:44 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > In response: > > > I had written this thesis with exactly as you say also in mind. We take > > > conclusions to their logical extremes without first testing and > > confirming > > > via CFJ or otherwise if the Truth that we'd found ACTUALLY holds up in > > > court. And we therefore move through the motions of accepting and > > adopting > > > bugfixes that may not actually be necessary. For example, in Time B > Safe, > > > it doesn't make ANY sense at all whatsoever, to me, in most scenarios, > to > > > interpret that Agora would stop Time Itself before becoming ossified, > as > > > this actually feels like a paradox to me: Agora would still be ossified > > > that way, since time would be stopped and that itself would ossify > Agora > > > just as much, even if the interpretation of time were different. > > > > Just on the minor point of Time B Safe, this was in fact the result of > > a CFJ. The judgement could always be wrong/reconsidered etc., but it > > was "CFJ-tested" (albeit via a fairly hypothetical CFJ statement) in > > the sense you're describing and the proposal was a direct, if delayed, > > result: > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3580. This isn't to > > take away from your overall point of our tendency to fill the rules > > with too many edge-case and hypothetical "bug" fixes. > > > > Also, culturally, several of us lived through the demise of B Nomic > > some years ago, a well-established and popular nomic which died > > precisely because it came up with a way to stop time and not restart > > it. > > > > -G. > > > -- 4st Referee Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
