Re: DIS: Ugh!
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 16:09 -0400, comex wrote: > An instrument is any entity that is generally capable of > communicating, at every point in time, a (usually empty) ordered > list of changes it intends to apply to the gamestate. Power is > an instrument switch whose values are the non-negative rational > numbers (default 0), tracked by the Rulekeepor. Instruments > with positive Power are said to be in effect. At every point in > time, each instrument attempts to make each of the changes it is > communicating; each such change is then made if and only if it > is not forbidden by the Rules. If we continue wording proposals like we normally do, each of them will take effect continuously. What you probably want is for proposals to implicitly take effect only at the moment they're adopted. Or still better, take a leaf out of PerlNomic's book, and have a rule make the change, following instructions in the proposal. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Team distribution
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 15:01 -0400, Warrigal wrote: > My comment got cut off up top, but you can still see it down at the > bottom. Team 3 now consists of ehird, G., omd, and woggle; Team 4 > consists of ais523, Sgeo, and Yally. > > —Distributor (in a sense) Tanner L. Swett Heh, thanks for relieving the duty from me. -- ais523 who added the "anyone can, and I must unless someone else does first" clause simply to reduce the risk of being accused of scamming, and didn't expect anyone to actually /use/ it
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Ribbon Report
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 10:35 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I announce my intent to ratify the current ownership of Ribbons as > follows, Without Objection: Don't asset reports in general (and ribbon reports in particular) self-ratify anyway? -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: court merry go round
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Warrigal wrote:
> I submit the following Urgent Proposal, titled "The List of No Doubt",
> AI = 2, II = 1: {In Rule 2314, replace "eir position on the list is
> found by judicial declaration to be unknown or ambiguous" with "eir
> position on the list has been found to be unknown or ambiguous by a
> judicial declaration that has been continuously undoubted for one
> week". Set the List of Succession to what it was at 22:00 UTC on 10
> September 2010.}
^^^
Please don't do this. It will freeze any list activity for the
next 8 days. And it may not be possible when it gets there, if
for example someone now on the list becomes speaker.
Please just say "the list as of immediately after (time of these
messages) is set to be what it was immediately before those
messages."
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Ribbon Report
I say if the report was published at time T, and it does not say it's a report from time S, then it's a report from time T. —Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assumed Fearmongor] Change is Nigh!
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 10, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Keba wrote:
> Proposal "Trade Capacitors" (AI=1, II=0)
> {{{
> Amend Rule "Capacitors" by replacing
>
>Capacitors are a class of fixed assets
>
> with:
>
>Capacitors are a class of assets
> }}}
Dupe.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: court merry go round
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 10, 2010, at 6:27 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > Judicial declarations are only self-ratifying if their publication is > required, and these certainly were not. I'm trying to use the "found by judicial declaration to be unknown or ambiguous" clause, not self-ratification.
DIS: Re: BUS: court merry go round
On 09/10/2010 06:21 PM, comex wrote:
As judge of CFJ 2857, I publish the following /incorrect/ judicial declarations:
{ G.'s position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ coppro's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ omd's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ woggle's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Wooble's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tiger's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Taral's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ehird's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Sgeo's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tanner L. Swett's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ais523's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Murphy's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Yally's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
Assuming that announcement is a valid way to publish a judicial
declaration (no particular mechanism is specified in the rules), I
don't know whether that succeeded in doing anything. In CFJ 1971 it
was ruled that actions like posting a report don't work with excessive
disclaimers (presumably that would include explicitly calling it
incorrect), and in the "five lights" scam it was held (I think?) that
you can't post a NoV without being Truthfulness-liable for its
contents, but we do allow ratifying incorrect documents, and I don't
see a clear distinction between that and this-- both are attempts to
submit incorrect documents to the Rules.
But in any case, since I don't know whether the last action succeeded,
I can quite honestly publish the following judicial declarations (same
as above):
{ G.'s position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ coppro's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ omd's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ woggle's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Wooble's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tiger's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Taral's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ehird's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Sgeo's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tanner L. Swett's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ais523's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Murphy's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Yally's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
...As a certain person would say, in light of this, the issue between
Wooble and Tiger takes on a somewhat academic cast, but I judge FALSE.
Although the caller's arguments are tempting, out of the three
dictionaries I tried (Merriam-Webster, Google, OS X Dictionary.app),
only Google offers The Hierophant as a definition of "pope", and the
metaphors of court, church, and Tarot deck are a bit too confused to
accept that particular interpretation.
Judicial declarations are only self-ratifying if their publication is
required, and these certainly were not.
-coppro
Re: DIS: Ugh!
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:09 PM, comex wrote: > Proto: + this, to make "X state is IMPOSSIBLE" work: Amend Rule 2152 by replacing: 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the described action are unsuccessful. with: 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the described action or to effect the described state are unsuccessful. and by replacing: 4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful. with: 4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action or effect the described state are successful.
DIS: Ugh!
Proto:
[I think all this ambiguity about how proposals take effect is caused
by a cosmology of instruments that has evolved from simple to complex
without ditching some assumptions that now unnecessarily increase the
complexity. Take this paragraph from Rule 106:
Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change;
this does not apply to generally preventing changes to specified
areas of the gamestate, nor to a proposal preventing itself from
taking effect (its no-effect clause is generally interpreted as
applying only to the rest of the proposal).
What does that even mean? Preventing a proposal from taking effect is
only arguably a change, and in any case a lower-powered rule that
attempted to do so would conflict with the clause of R106 that says it
does. And the stuff afterwards is a very specific band-aid that, in
my opinion, fixes the symptom not the cause.
The original clause,
It does not
otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule
which would permit a proposal to take effect.
made sense in 2005, but now it's just confusing.
This bit also:
When creating proposals, the person who creates them SHOULD
ensure that the proposal outlines changes to be made to Agora,
such as enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other
explicit changes to the gamestate. When a proposal that includes
such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to
the gamestate. If the proposal cannot make some such changes,
this does not preclude the other changes from taking place.
It's nice to give some examples of what proposals should look like,
and the "it applies those changes to the gamestate" clause is
refreshingly explicit, but the presentation is strange-- the bit about
applying changes should go with taking effect, and the SHOULD clause
is a little bizarre considering that it's a no-op yet is located
between formalities and uses formal language. The original clause may
have been buggy but it was more logical:
A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,
including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making
other explicit changes to the gamestate.
It was downgraded to a SHOULD due to some ontological issue, and then
the SHOULD was changed to "players SHOULD", and then another band-aid
was added and now it's a mess.
In my opinion, the two separate fix proposals by G. and Murphy are
also band-aids that will add complexity without clearly accomplishing
all that much. On the other hand, the idea of an instrument, and the
generalization of Power to all entities, looks like (but isn't) a
generalized framework for entities causing gamestate changes, and, in
my opinion, changing it to actually be one is a better fix that will
prevent these kind of issues in the future.
This text is rough: in particular, the definition of an instrument
might be better as an explicit list rather than "any entity generally
capable", although it would be cool if someone scammed the rules to
increase eir personal power :p]
Retitle Rule 1688 to "Gamestate and Instruments", and amend it to read:
The game of Agora defines a gamestate, which consists of all
entities, values, and properties defined by the Rules, including
the Rules themselves. The gamestate changes only as specified
by the Rules.
An instrument is any entity that is generally capable of
communicating, at every point in time, a (usually empty) ordered
list of changes it intends to apply to the gamestate. Power is
an instrument switch whose values are the non-negative rational
numbers (default 0), tracked by the Rulekeepor. Instruments
with positive Power are said to be in effect. At every point in
time, each instrument attempts to make each of the changes it is
communicating; each such change is then made if and only if it
is not forbidden by the Rules.
Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) by replacing the first
paragraph with:
A rule is a type of instrument which has content in the form of
a text, and continuously communicates changes as defined by its
text. Rules also have the capacity to govern the game
generally, and are unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule
may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,
prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the
rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things in a
conditional manner.
Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing the first two paragraphs with:
A player CAN create a proposal by publishing ("submitting") a
body of text and an associated title with a clear indication
that it is intended to form a proposal, which creates a new
proposal with that text and title and places it in the Pr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
G. wrote: > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote: >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first >>> paragraph of R106: >>> >>> When a proposal that includes >>> such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to >>> the gamestate. >> >> Huh. I'm not convinced that proposal power isn't still broken-- this >> sentence takes precedence over Power Controls Mutability. > > Huh indeed. In particular, it's not the definition of "security" > that matters, but the fact that this overrules most Rule statements > that say Specific Quantity X is Secured. There may be enough wiggle room in Rule 106 to avoid this breakage: If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. ... Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change; this does not apply to generally preventing changes to specified areas of the gamestate, ... The first excerpt must be interpreted as "unless other rules would prevent it from taking it effect even after its power was set" (otherwise Power Controls Mutability would prevent all rule-change proposals due to evaluating proposals in their zero-Power state). Now we've noticed the ambiguity, though, it should definitely be clarified, along with a severability clause. Proto: If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and: a) If other rules prevent it from taking effect for reasons unrelated to its power, then it does not take effect. b) Otherwise, its power is set to its adoption index (or four, whichever is less), and it takes effect (to the extent that other rules do not prevent it from doing so). A proposal intended to be partly or even fully non-severable can achieve it by saying so. Rule 106 has already been amended to explicitly gloss over the paradox implied by "this proposal has no effect" (contrast "the rest of this proposal has no effect" which explicitly avoids said paradox): ... a proposal preventing itself from taking effect (its no-effect clause is generally interpreted as applying only to the rest of the proposal).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Rebellion Die roll
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > No, PD is was exactly at one point. The logic: "All of us non-rebels left > will move lower on the list if the rebellion wins. So we (collectively) > want the rebellion to fail, so we shouldn't rebel (that's cooperation). > However, individually, I want to move the least-far-down, so I > (personally) should rebel before the others do (that's defecting). Even > if that means we non-rebels collectively get a worse outcome, at least > I beat the other non-rebels." Ah, yes, you're right. —Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Ribbon Report
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I announce my intent to ratify the current ownership of Ribbons as > follows, Without Objection: Unnecessary; by R2166, reports on asset holdings are self-ratifying.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote: > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first > > paragraph of R106: > > > > When a proposal that includes > > such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to > > the gamestate. > > Huh. I'm not convinced that proposal power isn't still broken-- this > sentence takes precedence over Power Controls Mutability. Huh indeed. In particular, it's not the definition of "security" that matters, but the fact that this overrules most Rule statements that say Specific Quantity X is Secured. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
Sent from my iPhone On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first > paragraph of R106: > > When a proposal that includes > such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to > the gamestate. Huh. I'm not convinced that proposal power isn't still broken-- this sentence takes precedence over Power Controls Mutability.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first > paragraph of R106: > > When a proposal that includes > such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to > the gamestate. Ah, there we go: I (and Murphy responding) over-generalized the arguments to instruments, when it's Proposals alone that can do it. Thanks. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Rebellion Die roll
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Warrigal wrote: > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I was also thinking towards the end that it's a pretty good Prisoner's > > Dilemma situation set up. Towards the end (when chance was pretty > > near 50/50) there were a few people who could better their position by > > one by rebelling; then there were some folks who would worsen their > > position by one if they rebelled, but lose by much more if they didn't > > rebel and the rebellion worked... etc. This presupposed people were > > paying attention which not everyone was, but it was interesting to > > analyze and guess whether I'd rebel in their shoes. > > Not every game theory situation is a prisoner's dilemma. The > prisoner's dilemma is when there is one option (defecting) where, for > each player, defecting is better than not defecting, but it's better > for both players if neither player defects than if both players > defect. This, however, is pretty much a game of guess-the-most-popular > option. No, PD is was exactly at one point. The logic: "All of us non-rebels left will move lower on the list if the rebellion wins. So we (collectively) want the rebellion to fail, so we shouldn't rebel (that's cooperation). However, individually, I want to move the least-far-down, so I (personally) should rebel before the others do (that's defecting). Even if that means we non-rebels collectively get a worse outcome, at least I beat the other non-rebels." That's pretty classic PD, except for the fact that players could try to communicate if they wanted. The fact that the outcomes could be probabilistically weighted to come up with the reward matrix (based on expected outcome) doesn't change the dynamics. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: >> 2855: TRUE >> 2856: TRUE >> >> A substantive aspect of a rule pertains to /how/ a rule governs, not >> /what/ a rule governs. With that argument eliminated, a low-powered >> proposal is just as capable as a low-powered rule (they're both >> instruments and they're both effective) of changing holdings whose >> existence is defined by a high-powered rule (if the high-powered rule >> doesn't attempt to prevent it, then there's no conflict). > > Question: where does it actually say in the rules that an Instrument > can change a regulated quantity? > > The rules say: > An instrument has positive power. (R1688) > An instrument CANNOT affect something secured at a power greater than > its own. (R1688) > An instrument CANNOT affect the operation of a higher-powered > instrument. (R2140). > An instrument CAN make rule changes (R105). > > Nothing in here actually says that an Instrument can adjust regulated > things generally. Now, the counterargument is exceptio probat regulam, > that the fact that the Rules state that an instrument CANNOT make > secured changes implies that it CAN make unsecured changes. > > However, this regulam is not in fact written, and it IS implied through > R2125 and R101(i) that regulated actions CANNOT be done except as > actually described by the rules. > > So where is it described? Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first paragraph of R106: When a proposal that includes such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to the gamestate.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Hawkishness (Rule 1871) of active players > - > > Hovering: Tanner L. Swett > Taral > > All other active players are hemming-and-hawing. CoE: this is no longer defined. —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Rebellion Die roll
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I was also thinking towards the end that it's a pretty good Prisoner's > Dilemma situation set up. Towards the end (when chance was pretty > near 50/50) there were a few people who could better their position by > one by rebelling; then there were some folks who would worsen their > position by one if they rebelled, but lose by much more if they didn't > rebel and the rebellion worked... etc. This presupposed people were > paying attention which not everyone was, but it was interesting to > analyze and guess whether I'd rebel in their shoes. Not every game theory situation is a prisoner's dilemma. The prisoner's dilemma is when there is one option (defecting) where, for each player, defecting is better than not defecting, but it's better for both players if neither player defects than if both players defect. This, however, is pretty much a game of guess-the-most-popular option. —Promotor Tanner L. Swett
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: > 2855: TRUE > 2856: TRUE > > A substantive aspect of a rule pertains to /how/ a rule governs, not > /what/ a rule governs. With that argument eliminated, a low-powered > proposal is just as capable as a low-powered rule (they're both > instruments and they're both effective) of changing holdings whose > existence is defined by a high-powered rule (if the high-powered rule > doesn't attempt to prevent it, then there's no conflict). Question: where does it actually say in the rules that an Instrument can change a regulated quantity? The rules say: An instrument has positive power. (R1688) An instrument CANNOT affect something secured at a power greater than its own. (R1688) An instrument CANNOT affect the operation of a higher-powered instrument. (R2140). An instrument CAN make rule changes (R105). Nothing in here actually says that an Instrument can adjust regulated things generally. Now, the counterargument is exceptio probat regulam, that the fact that the Rules state that an instrument CANNOT make secured changes implies that it CAN make unsecured changes. However, this regulam is not in fact written, and it IS implied through R2125 and R101(i) that regulated actions CANNOT be done except as actually described by the rules. So where is it described? -G.
