BUS: Nomicbot Proposal
It seems good (thanks for the input!) so, I create the following proposal and then pend it with Paper: Title: Nomicbots Minigame Co-Authors: Gaelan, ATMunn, Trigon, Kenyon AI: 2 Content: Create the following rule with Power = 2.0 and title "Nomicbots": - Nomicbots are an asset. Each Nomicbot has Instructions, a Name, a Banner and a Memory Capacity. A Nomicbot's Instructions is a text document with instructions about its behavior. A Nomicbot's Instructions is blank by default. A Nomicbot's name is a string, defaulting to "Nomicbot". A Nomicbot's Banner is a switch with values of Risen or Lowered, defaulting to Lowered. A Nomicbot's Memory Capacity in a numerical switch, which defaults to 100. Any player CAN create a Nomicbot in eir possession by announcement by destroying 1 ore. A Player can change their Nomicbot's Name or Banner by announcement. A Player CAN destroy X of their corn and stone to cause modifications to the text of the Instructions of one of their Nomicbots which involve adding or removing up to X*3 characters (e.g. adding A characters and removing B characters, where A+B < X), by announcement, unless this would cause its Instructions to have more characters than its Memory Capacity, in which case its INEFFECTIVE. A Player CAN destroy 1 of their fabric per 50 Memory Capacity a Nomicbot they own has, to increase the Memory Capacity of that Nomicbot by 50, by announcement. Nomicbots can Battle, and there is a Battle at the Main Arena among all eligible Nomicbots at the start of each Month, hosted by the Botmastor - this is the Monthly Battle. A Nomicbot is eligible if they are the only Nomicbot belonging to a player with a Banner with a value of Risen. If a Nomicbot wins the Monthly Battle, their owner earns 1/Z Merit (a non-transferable and indestructible asset), where Z is the amount of Nomicbots which won that Battle. When a player has 1 Merit, they win the game and lose all their Merit. Nomicbot Battles are games of Nomic, played according to the Arena they take place at along: - With the players being the Nomicbots - All Judge and interpretation requirements specific to the Battle defaulting to the Botmastor. - If the result of a Nomicbot's Instructions at a situation is not unambiguous or determinate, or overly rely on external information, that Nomicbot crashes at that moment, and is then removed from play from that Battle. - If the Battle would never end, it instead ends with nobody as the winner. Arenas are rulesets of Nomic, tracked by the Botmastor, and Arenas have a Status switch of Main or Secondary (defaulting to Secondary). The Botmastor CAN add or remove a Secondary Arena with 2 Agoran Consent. The Botmastor CAN set the Status of an Arena to Main with 2 Agoran Consent. Doing this sets the Status of all other Arenas to Secondary . The Botmastor is an Office. The Botmastor shall publish a report within the first week of each month with: - The results of the Monthly Battle and their processing of it (and CAN and SHALL do this manual processing). - The Instructions, Name, Banner, Memory Capacity and owner of each Nomicbot. - Then, add Peter Suber's original Nomic Initial Ruleset as a Main Arena.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8016-8022
I change my votes on 8019 and 8020 to AGAINST per G's arguments. Gaelan > On Feb 27, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > I vote: > >> --- >> 8016* Alexis 2.4 PCOF [1]Alexis 3 sh. > FOR > >> 8017* Alexis 3.0 RTRW Cleanups Alexis WO [2] > FOR > >> 8018* Alexis 3.0 Random Bad Rule CleaningAlexis WO [2] > FOR > >> 8019* Alexis 3.0 Crime ReformAlexis WO [2] > AGAINST. Good starting blocks for punishment reforms I just protoed. > >> 8020* Aris, Ørjan 2.0 Office Restructuring v2 Aris3 sh. > AGAINST. An interim person shouldn't have a time-out on that. I think > it's better for process to require an election (if uncontested, it's > a minor 4-day process now). > >> 8021* G. 2.0 Limit Numerical silliness G. 3 sh. > FOR > >> 8022* G. 1.0 Anyone can balance KarmaG. 3 sh. > FOR > >> 8023* G., Aris 2.0 Zombie Lots G. 3 sh. > FOR > >
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8016-8022
I vote: > --- > 8016* Alexis 2.4 PCOF [1]Alexis 3 sh. FOR > 8017* Alexis 3.0 RTRW Cleanups Alexis WO [2] FOR > 8018* Alexis 3.0 Random Bad Rule CleaningAlexis WO [2] FOR > 8019* Alexis 3.0 Crime ReformAlexis WO [2] AGAINST. Good starting blocks for punishment reforms I just protoed. > 8020* Aris, Ørjan 2.0 Office Restructuring v2 Aris3 sh. AGAINST. An interim person shouldn't have a time-out on that. I think it's better for process to require an election (if uncontested, it's a minor 4-day process now). > 8021* G. 2.0 Limit Numerical silliness G. 3 sh. FOR > 8022* G. 1.0 Anyone can balance KarmaG. 3 sh. FOR > 8023* G., Aris 2.0 Zombie Lots G. 3 sh. FOR
BUS: punishment reform
proto-proposal, the Lesson of the Weevils Create the following Rule, Weevils, power-2: Weevils are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership restricted to persons. A person with 1 or more weevils is Impure, a person with 0 weevils is Pure. An impure unregistered person is a Fugitive. To Levy a Fine of N on a person, where N is a positive integer, is to create N weevils in eir possession by announcement. To Expunge a weevil is to destroy it by announcement. If expunging weevils would reduce a person's weevils to less than 0, their weevils are instead reduced to 0 but the cost of expunging, if any, is not reduced. Levying fines and destroying weevils are each secured with a power threshold of 1.7. The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for Weevils. Create the following Rule, Penalties, power-3: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an impure person CANNOT win the game. The voting strength of a player on an Agoran Decision is reduced by 1 for every 3 weevils in eir possession. Create the following Rule, Forgiveness, power-1.7: A player CAN spend X [PAotM Currency TBD] to expunge X weevils in eir possession, or to expunge 2xX weevils in another person's possession. At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each fugitive's weevils are destroyed. Amend Rule 2478 (Vigilante Justice) to read: A player CAN by announcement, but subject to the provisions of this rule, Point eir Finger at a person (the perp) who plays the game, citing an alleged violation of the rules by that person. When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation by: - Imposing the Cold Hand of Justice on the perp, as described elsewhere; or - if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it would be ILLEGAL to levy a fine for it, announcing the Finger Pointing to be Shenanigans. There is no limit on how many times a player may impose the Cold Hand of Justice per week. The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger Pointing. When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the investigation and thereby become the investigator. The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger. The Arbitor CANNOT Point eir Finger at the Referee. Create the following Rule, Sentencing Guidelines, power 1.7: When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the perp with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of the violation, within the following guidelines: - If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime, then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is the power of the rule that was violated, rounded up. - The fine is reduced to the degree that the violation is a minor, accidental, and/or inconsequential infraction. - The fine is increased to the degree that the violation is wilful, profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official position. Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable, specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology. If e does so, the perp CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge the value of the fine up to a maximum of 3 weevils from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words and including all the specified words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. Amend Rule 2479 (Official Justice) to read: The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine of up to 2 Weevils on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official proceeding. The Referee CANNOT impose Summary Judgement more than three times a week. Amend Rule 2531 (Referee Accountability) to read: Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if it does not include (1) value of the fine in Weevils, (2) the name of the person being fined (the perp), and (3) the specific reason for the fine, or if it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or inaction which e (more likely than not) did not commit, or if it attempts to levy a fine for an action or inaction
Re: BUS: Joining the game
I cause Kenyon to recieve a welcome package (in case that conditional breaks some of our retroactive magic). Gaelan > On Feb 27, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Kenyon Prater wrote: > > I join the game. > > If I have successfully joined the game and rule 2599 "Welcome Packages" > exists and is in effect, I award myself a Welcome Package. > > Sorry for the confusion, all.
BUS: Joining the game
I join the game. If I have successfully joined the game and rule 2599 "Welcome Packages" exists and is in effect, I award myself a Welcome Package. Sorry for the confusion, all.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Not a Switch Nuke
Well, I retract my latest CFJ. Keeping my contract tho. I could just have a mechanism for amending it but I like to "amend" it without actually amending lol. On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Aaand scrubbing my canvas clean: > > The following shall be the content in my Canvas Contract: > > " " > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Alex Smith > wrote: > >> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 18:11 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> > That said: >> > >> > I create the following contract with the name "Canvas Contract", with >> coin: >> > >> > "The below, for the purpose of this contract, shall be interpreted >> as >> > being identical in textual content to the last message Cuddlebeam has >> sent >> > to public fora with the intent of being the "" content in this >> contract. >> > >> > " >> > >> > --*-- >> > >> > The following shall be the content in my Canvas Contract: >> > >> > Within the year 2018, Cuddlebeam SHALL win the game by announcement >> > >> > --*-- >> > >> > I win the game by announcement. >> > >> > I CFJ: I just won the game. >> > >> > Grat. Arguments: >> >> Those are caller's arguments, not gratuitous arguments, because you >> called the CFJ. >> >> > I win by virtue of the requirement being created in the contract, with >> the >> > CFJ ruling granting me CAN powers to pull it off (not via the contract >> > being "rewritten" according to the CFJ's demands, but the requirement >> being >> > made in the contract, which then means that I CAN do it) >> > >> > I'm bewildered by the consequences of CFJ "superpowers" like this, so I >> > believe this is a very good CFJ topic, whether this works or not. >> >> Gratuitous arguments: the precedent in question is defining the meaning >> of a sentence; it's not a rule that triggers off observing sentences in >> contracts. So any CAN requirement that gets implied into the contract >> will trigger only with the capabilities of what the contract itself >> allows. >> >> (This is much the same principle as, say, referencing coins in a >> contract; the rules define what a contract means when it talks about >> coins, but that doesn't give the contract any power to change the rules >> via trying to define properties of them.) >> >> -- >> ais523 >> > >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Not a Switch Nuke
Aaand scrubbing my canvas clean: The following shall be the content in my Canvas Contract: " " On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 18:11 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > That said: > > > > I create the following contract with the name "Canvas Contract", with > coin: > > > > "The below, for the purpose of this contract, shall be interpreted > as > > being identical in textual content to the last message Cuddlebeam has > sent > > to public fora with the intent of being the "" content in this > contract. > > > > " > > > > --*-- > > > > The following shall be the content in my Canvas Contract: > > > > Within the year 2018, Cuddlebeam SHALL win the game by announcement > > > > --*-- > > > > I win the game by announcement. > > > > I CFJ: I just won the game. > > > > Grat. Arguments: > > Those are caller's arguments, not gratuitous arguments, because you > called the CFJ. > > > I win by virtue of the requirement being created in the contract, with > the > > CFJ ruling granting me CAN powers to pull it off (not via the contract > > being "rewritten" according to the CFJ's demands, but the requirement > being > > made in the contract, which then means that I CAN do it) > > > > I'm bewildered by the consequences of CFJ "superpowers" like this, so I > > believe this is a very good CFJ topic, whether this works or not. > > Gratuitous arguments: the precedent in question is defining the meaning > of a sentence; it's not a rule that triggers off observing sentences in > contracts. So any CAN requirement that gets implied into the contract > will trigger only with the capabilities of what the contract itself > allows. > > (This is much the same principle as, say, referencing coins in a > contract; the rules define what a contract means when it talks about > coins, but that doesn't give the contract any power to change the rules > via trying to define properties of them.) > > -- > ais523 >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Not a Switch Nuke
On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 18:11 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote: > That said: > > I create the following contract with the name "Canvas Contract", with coin: > > "The below, for the purpose of this contract, shall be interpreted as > being identical in textual content to the last message Cuddlebeam has sent > to public fora with the intent of being the "" content in this contract. > > " > > --*-- > > The following shall be the content in my Canvas Contract: > > Within the year 2018, Cuddlebeam SHALL win the game by announcement > > --*-- > > I win the game by announcement. > > I CFJ: I just won the game. > > Grat. Arguments: Those are caller's arguments, not gratuitous arguments, because you called the CFJ. > I win by virtue of the requirement being created in the contract, with the > CFJ ruling granting me CAN powers to pull it off (not via the contract > being "rewritten" according to the CFJ's demands, but the requirement being > made in the contract, which then means that I CAN do it) > > I'm bewildered by the consequences of CFJ "superpowers" like this, so I > believe this is a very good CFJ topic, whether this works or not. Gratuitous arguments: the precedent in question is defining the meaning of a sentence; it's not a rule that triggers off observing sentences in contracts. So any CAN requirement that gets implied into the contract will trigger only with the capabilities of what the contract itself allows. (This is much the same principle as, say, referencing coins in a contract; the rules define what a contract means when it talks about coins, but that doesn't give the contract any power to change the rules via trying to define properties of them.) -- ais523
BUS: Re: DIS: Not a Switch Nuke
That said: I create the following contract with the name "Canvas Contract", with coin: "The below, for the purpose of this contract, shall be interpreted as being identical in textual content to the last message Cuddlebeam has sent to public fora with the intent of being the "" content in this contract. " --*-- The following shall be the content in my Canvas Contract: Within the year 2018, Cuddlebeam SHALL win the game by announcement --*-- I win the game by announcement. I CFJ: I just won the game. Grat. Arguments: I win by virtue of the requirement being created in the contract, with the CFJ ruling granting me CAN powers to pull it off (not via the contract being "rewritten" according to the CFJ's demands, but the requirement being made in the contract, which then means that I CAN do it) I'm bewildered by the consequences of CFJ "superpowers" like this, so I believe this is a very good CFJ topic, whether this works or not. On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I think this applies > > CFJ 2120-2121 (called Aug 04, 2008): > > A requirement of the form 'within , a player SHALL >by announcement' means that the player CAN perform the > action, and SHALL do so within the time limit. > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> >> >> I don't see a CAN in that sentence? >> >> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> > "If Proprietary Land becomes Aether, the Cartographor SHALL transfer it >> to >> > Agora in a timely fashion, destroy any facilities on the Land Unit, >> > and set *all >> > other switches* to their default values." >> > >> > >all other switches >> > >> > Which means citizenship, ribbons, etc. Fortunately that rule is Power 2 >> and >> > Citizenship is at 3, so it can't be done. And because of that, the >> > Cartographer can't do that action (because R1688), yet, he SHALL. >> > >> > So yeah, I think that's a bit busted. >> > >> >> >
