BUS: Thesis Offense (attn. Herald) (Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Erosion in Geological Rhyme)
On Sat, 2024-08-24 at 15:11 +0100, Katherina Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Sat, 2024-08-24 at 15:04 +0100, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I petition the Arbitor to republish this proposal with intent to > > qualify for a Baccalaureate of Nomic Art. > > NttPF. > > However, if you had actually petitioned as intended, I would respond as > follows: > > I'm flattered you think that highly of it! I think it would be > inappropriate if the proposal doesn't actually pass, but if it does I'll > certainly consider it. Thank you. Well, against all odds, the proposal not only passed, but provoked a rash of poetic fervour amongst Agorans. I (re-)publish the below proposal, and the attached votes, with the intent to qualify for an Art degree. (I shall leave the level of degree up to the peer-review process; I don't currently possess any Art degree.) I declare, under penalty of No Faking, that for each of the attached votes, I have obtained permission to republish it from the player who originally cast it. ...I, uh, also beg the Herald's pardon for requiring em to figure out exactly who has the Stone Badge. In my defence, I didn't actually expect this to pass. If I get time I'll try to see if I can take responsibility for compiling a list. // ID: 9168 Title: Erosion in Geological Rhyme Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Kate Co-authors: Consider each player with one or more stones; Take the sum of the Costs of the stones that e owns. And then, to compense for lost ius utendi, That number of times, grant that player a Spendie. Now, for each person who, from 2020, Has owned any stones (even one would be plenty), In light of the long tradition Stones had Grant em this Patent Title: "Stone Badge". And whereas this Proposal seeks to insist On the notion that stones will no longer exist, Repeal (in order) the following list. That's Rules 2640 and 2641, 2642, 2644 (43's already gone), And then 2645, the last to be done. COMMENTS: I doubt this proposal will pass now and here, But I hope to rhetorically make my point clear. The stone rules' complexity's always been high; Few players to learn have been willing to try. The most obvious problem's the tracking vocation: We simply can't seem to retain a Stonemason. Janet once held it, for quite a long time, But felt that the load was too high and resigned. Relying on em was unfair, e expressed. 'Twas frustrating that others showed no interest. (E already does too much work, I suggest.) E doubted another'd take over, and lo! Another report did not therefrom follow. And in the months since, not a one did up-show. Without a Stonemason, complexity's worse. Work multiplies like a terrible curse. Now, as well as the rules, we must also know what The Stonemason should track, but right now does not. We selected a victim by random sortition, But e failed to manage, despite a petition. To be clear, e tried! I don't allocate blame. But now e's resigned too, the position's the same. If none of us can the records sustain, Then I think it would be a mistake to retain A system that's such a great chore to maintain. So unless the subgame can be fixed at its bones I plead with you all to take heed of my moans And bring to a close the Era of Stones. // A burden that's too great to bear? My vote of FOR seems only fair. - Mischief // As a newcomer here, there's not much I can say For a long-standing piece such as Stones; but to play With some fresh toys, and steer their unfolding, is tempting. I'm sorry to ais, as I aid in preempting eir further proposal on Stones, but I opt to vote FOR their disposal, and let them be dropped. - Lily // FOR (Here I could come up with a funny rhyme, but I do not have the will or... thyme?) - lare290 // The Stonemason I endorse; e'll back the right horse. - Murphy // ~qenya
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Balancing creation and destruction
Against! The purpose of crystals is to encourage rule destruction, rule
creation is heretical!!
--
4st
putting jesters cap back on, it fell off while mobile
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024, 1:55 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: Creation Crystals
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors:
>
> Amend Rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing "If a proposal amends or repeals a
> rule" with "If a proposal enacts, amends, or repeals a rule".
>
> [Currently you get crystals for repealing rules but not for enacting them.
> It feels like both should be rewarded.]
>
> }}}
> --
> snail
> Steampunk Hat
>
BUS: [Proposal] Balancing creation and destruction
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Creation Crystals
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing "If a proposal amends or repeals a
rule" with "If a proposal enacts, amends, or repeals a rule".
[Currently you get crystals for repealing rules but not for enacting them.
It feels like both should be rewarded.]
}}}
--
snail
Steampunk Hat
BUS: [Proposal] Bang Bang
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 3:42 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion <
agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > (Alive, 2 Bangs)
>
> How do you have 2 Bangs?
>
Oh, I thought we were supposed to get 2 bangs at the start of the match so
we could each eliminate 1 player. But apparently we can each only eliminate
half a player (which makes the game impossible for anyone to win unless
every single bang is used.)
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Takes Two to Tango in this Town
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2692 (Bang!) by replacing "after which each alive player gains a
bang." with "after which each alive player is granted 2 bangs."
[Makes the bang subgame playable.]
}}}
--
snail
(Alive, 1 Bang)
Steampunk Hat
BUS: Proposal: Adjusting the Money Supply
I submit the following proposal: "Adjusting the Money Supply" (AI=1) [Giving folks the option to also adjust the base monthly income in light of the crystals-for-spendies proposal.] Amend Rule 2690 (Spendies) by replacing "20 Spendies" with "15 Spendies" -- Mischief Collector Hat: steampunk hat Vitality: alive Bang holdings: 1
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Crystal liquidation
I perform these actions, in this order:
* I withdraw the proposal "Crystal liquidation".
* I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Crystal liquidation
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: oliver.n
Co-author(s): 4st
Amend Rule 2685 "Crystals" by inserting the following text after the end of the
rule:
{
Once per week, a player CAN liquidate a specified crystal that e owns by
announcement. Doing so grants that player spendies equal to the half the size
of the crystal, rounded down, then destroys the crystal.
}
}}}
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:51, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
<[agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org](mailto:On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:51, Janet
Cobb via agora-discussion < wrote:
> "a specified crystal that e owns", please.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Crystal liquidation
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Crystal liquidation
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: oliver.n
Co-author(s): 4st
Amend Rule 2685 "Crystals" by inserting the following text after the end of the
rule:
{
Once per week, a player CAN liquidate a specified crystal that they own by
announcement. Doing so grants that player spendies equal to half the size of
the crystal, rounded down, then destroys the crystal.
}
}}}
[ah yes, NttPF]
- oliver.n
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:28, Oliver Nguyen via agora-discussion
<[agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org](mailto:On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:28, Oliver
Nguyen via agora-discussion < wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Crystal liquidation
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: oliver.n
> Co-author(s): 4st
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:24, Oliver Nguyen via agora-business
> <[agora-business@agoranomic.org](mailto:On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 08:24, Oliver
> Nguyen via agora-business < wrote:
>
>> I withdraw this proposal.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 23:37, Oliver Nguyen via agora-business
>> <[agora-business@agoranomic.org](mailto:On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 23:37,
>> Oliver Nguyen via agora-business < wrote:
>>
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>>
>>> Title: Crystal liquidation
>>> Adoption index: 1.0
>>> Author: oliver.n
>>> Co-author(s): 4st
>>>
>>>
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Crystal liquidation
I withdraw this proposal.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 23:37, Oliver Nguyen via agora-business
<[agora-business@agoranomic.org](mailto:On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 23:37, Oliver
Nguyen via agora-business < wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Crystal liquidation
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: oliver.n
> Co-author(s): 4st
>
> Amend Rule 2685 "Crystals" by inserting the following text after the end of
> the rule:
>
> {
> Once per week, a player CAN liquidate a specified crystal by announcement.
> Doing so grants that player spendies equal to the size of the crystal, then
> destroys the crystal.
> }
>
> - oliver.n
BUS: [Proposal] Crystal liquidation
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Crystal liquidation
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: oliver.n
Co-author(s): 4st
Amend Rule 2685 "Crystals" by inserting the following text after the end of the
rule:
{
Once per week, a player CAN liquidate a specified crystal by announcement.
Doing so grants that player spendies equal to the size of the crystal, then
destroys the crystal.
}
- oliver.n
Re: BUS: [proposal] Empty sortitions
On 8/28/24 14:17, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Various sortition fixes
>
> Adoption index: 2.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors: Kate
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2691 ("Sortition Procedure") by, as a single amendment:
> * Replacing "CAN become an option for that office" with "CAN by
> announcement become an option for that office".
> * Replacing "that player becomes the officeholder for that office" with
> "that player becomes the officeholder for that office, then the
> sortition ends"
> * Inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning "Seven
> days after":
> {
> If a sortition's lots period has ended, and the sortition has no valid
> options, then it immediately ends with no selection, and any duty to
> select an option with respect to it is discharged.
> }
>
> }
>
I withdraw the above-submitted proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Various sortition fixes v2
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Kate
{
Amend Rule 2691 ("Sortition Procedure") by, as a single amendment:
* Replacing "CAN become an option for that office" with "CAN by
announcement become an option for that office".
* Replacing "that player becomes the officeholder for that office" with
"that player becomes the officeholder for that office, then the
sortition ends"
* Inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning "Seven
days after":
{
If a sortition's lots period has ended, and the sortition has no valid
options, then it immediately ends with no selection, and any duty to
select an option with respect to it is discharged.
}
Each ongoing sortition that is not in its lots period and that has no
valid options or has previously had an option selected hereby ends.
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor
BUS: [proposal] Empty sortitions
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Various sortition fixes
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Kate
{
Amend Rule 2691 ("Sortition Procedure") by, as a single amendment:
* Replacing "CAN become an option for that office" with "CAN by
announcement become an option for that office".
* Replacing "that player becomes the officeholder for that office" with
"that player becomes the officeholder for that office, then the
sortition ends"
* Inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning "Seven
days after":
{
If a sortition's lots period has ended, and the sortition has no valid
options, then it immediately ends with no selection, and any duty to
select an option with respect to it is discharged.
}
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor
BUS: Proposal: Mid-2024 Omnibus Cleanup Act
Yes, R2221 exists, but one of these already failed the without objection threshold. I figured I'd bundle some other cleanup items with it and take care of everything at once. I submit the following proposal: "Mid-2024 Omnibus Cleanup Act" (AI=3 coauthors=Murphy, ais523, Janet, 4st) Amend rule 2528 (Voting Methods) by replacing "thereof." with "thereof)." and inserting a paragraph break immediately after the replaced string. [Suggested clarifications from Murphy and ais523] Amend rule 1023 (Agoran Time) by making the following replacements in the final top-level list item: 1) "that would otherwise occur" with "that would otherwise attempt to occur" and 2) "instead occurs on the following day" with "instead occurs on the first day of the following month" [Typos identified by Janet] Amend rules 2160 (Deputisation) and 2438 (Ribbons) -- in that order -- by, in each, replacing "an voluntary office" with "a voluntary office". [Typo identified by 4st] Amend rule 2606 (Proposal Classes) by replacing "an referendum" with "a referendum" -- Mischief Collector Hat: steampunk hat Vitality: alive Bang holdings: 1
BUS: Proposal: Veblen Defense
I submit the following proposal: "Veblen Defense" (AI=1) [Allows the current owner to bid up the cost.] Amend rule 2695 (The Veblen) by replacing the paragraph reading: A player who does not own the Veblen CAN pay a fee of X spendies to purchase the Veblen, where X is an integer not less than the current Veblen cost. When e does so, the Veblen is transferred to em, then the Veblen cost is set to X+1. with: A player CAN pay a fee of X spendies, where X is an integer not less than the current Veblen cost, to set the Veblen cost to X+1. When e does so, if e does not own the Veblen, the Veblen is transferred to em. and by replacing "Abusrdor" with "Absurdor" -- Mischief Collector Hat: steampunk hat Vitality: alive Bang holdings: 1
BUS: [Proposal] Re: TLK: Draft: Rationalising Recordkeepors
On Sun, 2024-08-18 at 06:44 +0100, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-talk wrote: > Revising and expanding Murphy's Hats fix proposal from a couple of > weeks ago in a way that also makes the language around tracking less > confusing. Thanks to Janet for correcting some mistakes in an earlier > draft. > > Would appreciate a few more eyes, will submit formally in a day or two > if I hear nothing. Thank you for the feedback! I submit the following proposal: Title: Rationalising Recordkeepors v1.2 Adoption Index: 3.0 Author: Kate Co-authors: Murphy, Janet, 4st [The purpose of this proposal is to unify the language around "tracking" and "recordkeepors", which is currently subtly different for assets and switches and has caused a lot of confusion in the past. In particular, the word "recordkeepor" is currently not defined with respect to switches, only to assets; this is causing bizarre behaviour around Hats, the intention of which is to be tracked, but not by an officer.] Create a new Rule of Power 3.0, entitled "Recordkeepors", and reading as follows: For some entity or class of entities to be "tracked by" another entity is for the latter entity to be its recordkeepor. For an entity to be a recordkeepor for a type of switch is for that entity to be the recordkeepor for all instances of that switch. Where the rules specify a recordkeepor for some set of instances of a switch, that recordkeepor's (weekly, if not specified otherwise) report includes the value of each instance in that set whose value is not its default value; a public document purporting to be this portion of that recordkeepor's report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances in that set are at their default value. The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That recordkeepor's report includes a list of all instances of that class and their owners. A public document purporting to be this portion of that recordkeepor's report is self-ratifying. Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by removing the following: The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and their owners. A public document purporting to be this portion of that entity's report is self-ratifying. For a class of assets to be "tracked by" an entity is for that entity to be its recordkeepor. Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by removing the following: 3. Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances of that switch. That officer's (weekly, if not specified otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that switch whose value is not its default value; a public document purporting to be this portion of that officer's report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances are at their default value. Amend Rule 2603 (Switch Responsibility) to read in full: For each type of switch that is not defined as untracked and that has at least one instance that would otherwise lack a recordkeepor, there exists an imposed office named "Tracker of [type name]" whose holder tracks those instances. Rename Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) to "Reports and Duties", and amend it by replacing this text: An officer SHALL publish eir report in plain text, with tabular data lining up properly when viewed in a monospaced font. Publishing a report that deviates from these restrictions is the Class 2 infraction of Making My Eyes Bleed. A player CAN, by announcement, petition a specified non-vacant office to take a specific action. The holder of that office SHALL publicly respond to that petition in a timely fashion. with this text: A person publishing a report SHALL do so in plain text, with tabular data lining up properly when viewed in a monospaced font. Publishing a report that deviates from these restrictions is the Class 2 infraction of Making My Eyes Bleed. A player CAN, by announcement, petition a specified person with a specified duty to take a specific action related to that duty. That person SHOULD publicly respond to that petition in a timely fashion. A player CAN petition a specified non-vacant office in the same fashion; its holder SHALL respond in the same fashion. Amend Rule 2694 (Hats) by replacing: Unless otherwise specified by the rules: 1) the recordkeepor for a player's hat is the player emself, and 2) reporting on hats is OPTIONAL. with: The recordkeepor for a player's hat is the player em
BUS: Proposal - Not all the way up
I create the following Proposal of AI-3.1 Title: Not all the way up Author: Yachay Co-Authors: None Content: In Rule 2481, amend "While Agora's Festivity is zero, the paragraphs above have no effect and are ignored." to: "While Agora's Festivity is zero, the paragraphs above in this rule have no effect and are ignored."
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Erosion in Geological Rhyme
Err, for the avoidance of doubt: If I have not done so already, I submit the below proposal. On Wed, 2024-08-21 at 13:06 +0100, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora- business wrote: > // > // > Title: Erosion in Geological Rhyme > Adoption Index: 2.0 > Author: Kate > Co-authors: > > Consider each player with one or more stones; > Take the sum of the Costs of the stones that e owns. > And then, to compense for lost ius utendi, > That number of times, grant that player a Spendie. > > Now, for each person who, from 2020, > Has owned any stones (even one would be plenty), > In light of the long tradition Stones had > Grant em this Patent Title: "Stone Badge". > > And whereas this Proposal seeks to insist > On the notion that stones will no longer exist, > Repeal (in order) the following list. > That's Rules 2640 and 2641, > 2642, 2644 (43's already gone), > And then 2645, the last to be done. > > COMMENTS: > > I doubt this proposal will pass now and here, > But I hope to rhetorically make my point clear. > The stone rules' complexity's always been high; > Few players to learn have been willing to try. > > The most obvious problem's the tracking vocation: > We simply can't seem to retain a Stonemason. > Janet once held it, for quite a long time, > But felt that the load was too high and resigned. > > Relying on em was unfair, e expressed. > 'Twas frustrating that others showed no interest. > (E already does too much work, I suggest.) > E doubted another'd take over, and lo! > Another report did not therefrom follow. > And in the months since, not a one did up-show. > > Without a Stonemason, complexity's worse. > Work multiplies like a terrible curse. > Now, as well as the rules, we must also know what > The Stonemason should track, but right now does not. > > We selected a victim by random sortition, > But e failed to manage, despite a petition. > To be clear, e tried! I don't allocate blame. > But now e's resigned too, the position's the same. > > If none of us can the records sustain, > Then I think it would be a mistake to retain > A system that's such a great chore to maintain. > So unless the subgame can be fixed at its bones > I plead with you all to take heed of my moans > And bring to a close the Era of Stones. > > // > //
BUS: [Proposal] Erosion in Geological Rhyme
Title: Erosion in Geological Rhyme Adoption Index: 2.0 Author: Kate Co-authors: Consider each player with one or more stones; Take the sum of the Costs of the stones that e owns. And then, to compense for lost ius utendi, That number of times, grant that player a Spendie. Now, for each person who, from 2020, Has owned any stones (even one would be plenty), In light of the long tradition Stones had Grant em this Patent Title: "Stone Badge". And whereas this Proposal seeks to insist On the notion that stones will no longer exist, Repeal (in order) the following list. That's Rules 2640 and 2641, 2642, 2644 (43's already gone), And then 2645, the last to be done. COMMENTS: I doubt this proposal will pass now and here, But I hope to rhetorically make my point clear. The stone rules' complexity's always been high; Few players to learn have been willing to try. The most obvious problem's the tracking vocation: We simply can't seem to retain a Stonemason. Janet once held it, for quite a long time, But felt that the load was too high and resigned. Relying on em was unfair, e expressed. 'Twas frustrating that others showed no interest. (E already does too much work, I suggest.) E doubted another'd take over, and lo! Another report did not therefrom follow. And in the months since, not a one did up-show. Without a Stonemason, complexity's worse. Work multiplies like a terrible curse. Now, as well as the rules, we must also know what The Stonemason should track, but right now does not. We selected a victim by random sortition, But e failed to manage, despite a petition. To be clear, e tried! I don't allocate blame. But now e's resigned too, the position's the same. If none of us can the records sustain, Then I think it would be a mistake to retain A system that's such a great chore to maintain. So unless the subgame can be fixed at its bones I plead with you all to take heed of my moans And bring to a close the Era of Stones.
Re: BUS: [proposal] Freedom of expression
On 8/18/24 00:06, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Untracked hats
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> Adoption index:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2594 ("Hats") by replacing "Hats are a secured player switch"
> with "Hats are a secured untracked player switch" and by replacing the
> paragraph beginning "A player CAN change eir hat" with the following
> paragraph:
>
> {
>
> A player CAN change eir hat to a valid value by public designation.
>
> }
>
> [Don't require reporting on hats in any event, and don't require
> explicit "notification" to any person (in any event, it's unclear what
> it means to "notify" oneself).]
>
> }
If, in the above-quoted message, I submitted a proposal, I withdraw that
proposal.
I submit a proposal with the title, coauthors, and text listed above and
with adoption index 1.0.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor
BUS: [proposal] Freedom of expression
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Untracked hats
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index:
{
Amend Rule 2594 ("Hats") by replacing "Hats are a secured player switch"
with "Hats are a secured untracked player switch" and by replacing the
paragraph beginning "A player CAN change eir hat" with the following
paragraph:
{
A player CAN change eir hat to a valid value by public designation.
}
[Don't require reporting on hats in any event, and don't require
explicit "notification" to any person (in any event, it's unclear what
it means to "notify" oneself).]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor
BUS: [Proposal] Proposal Limits
I submit the following Proposal:
{{{
Title: A reasonable limit
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Enact a new rule with title "Proposal Limits" and the following text:
{
A person SHALL NOT submit a proposal while e has already submitted five or
more proposals currently in the proposal pool that week; doing so is the
Class N Infraction of Preposterous Propositioning, where N is the number of
times e has committed the infraction this week.
}
[Deterrence for excess proposals, which is currently easily abusable.]
}}}
--
snail
(?)
Steampunk Hat
Re: BUS: [proposal] A bit too complex
... Okay, perhaps
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024, 2:31 am Janet Cobb via agora-business, <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Simplification, ironically
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by deleting the text from "The
> Readable Logical Ruleset (RLR)" (inclusive) to the end of the rule.
>
> Repeal Rule 2693 ("The Simplifior").
>
>
> [We have yet to see a report from this office and nobody has pointed
> this out or expressed interest in deputising, suggesting that the report
> is infeasible and/or not useful.]
>
> }
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor
>
>
BUS: [proposal] A bit too complex
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Simplification, ironically
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by deleting the text from "The
Readable Logical Ruleset (RLR)" (inclusive) to the end of the rule.
Repeal Rule 2693 ("The Simplifior").
[We have yet to see a report from this office and nobody has pointed
this out or expressed interest in deputising, suggesting that the report
is infeasible and/or not useful.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor
BUS: [proposal] Another double resolution proposal
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Single resolution
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 2124 by replacing the text from "A rule purporting to allow"
to "With T notice: e is the sponsor of a ripe intent created at least T
ago." (inclusive on both ends) with the following:
{
A rule purporting to allow a person to perform a tabled action allows em
to do so by announcement, indicating an intent for that action/method,
provided such action has never before been performed with respect to
that intent, and if that intent is:
* With N support: that intent is ripe, e is a sponsor or supporter of
it, and it has at least N supporters.
* Without N objections: that intent is mature and ripe, e is a sponsor
of it, and it has less than N objectors.
* With N Agoran consent: that intent is mature and ripe, e is a sponsor
or supporter of it, and it has at least N times as many supporters as it
has objectors (in which case e SHOULD list its supporters and objectors).
* With T notice: that intent is ripe, was created at least T ago, e is a
sponsor of it.
}
[Prohibit resolving the same intent twice. As a side effect, this
requires resolutions of tabled actions to "indicate" (intended to be
weaker than "specify" so that just quoting an intent without actually
referencing it counts) the intent that is being resolved, so that only
that one intent is invalidated.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor
BUS: Proposal: Shameless Bribery
I submit the following proposal: "Shameless Bribery (AI=1) All players who cast valid unconditional ballots FOR the referendum adopting this proposal earn a Black Ribbon -- Mischief Collector Hat: steampunk hat Vitality: ghostly Bang holdings: 0
BUS: Proposal: Yo Ho Ho!
I submit the following proposal ("Yo Ho Ho!" AI=1 coauthor=Immae):
[Now allows for some potential upside relative to today if there's
enough participation. The language is deliberately written so if a
player contributes multiple times in a given month, each contribution
(up to the overall cap) counts.]
Amend rule 2690 (Spendies) by replacing the sentence reading:
At the beginning of each month, every player is granted 20
Spendies.
with:
At the beginning of each month, every player is granted 5 + N
Spendies, where N is the lesser of 20 or the total number of
times that players contributed to anti-pirate defense in the
previous month.
and appending at the end of that rule, as a new paragraph:
A player may contribute to anti-pirate defense by paying a fee
of 5 Spendies.
--
Mischief
Collector
Hat: steampunk hat
Vitality: ghostly
Bang holdings: 0
Re: BUS: [proposal] *sigh*
On 7/23/24 22:00, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: *sigh*
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend the Rule entitled "The Veblen" to read, in whole:
>
> {
>
> The Veblen is a unique indestructible fixed asset tracked by the
> Abusrdor, with ownership entirely restricted to players and Agora. If
> the Veblen would otherwise be in abeyance, or if it is owned by the Lost
> and Found Department, it is immediately transferred to Agora.
>
> The Veblen cost is a secured singleton positive integer switch tracked
> by the Absurdor and with default value one.
>
> A player who does not own the Veblen CAN pay a fee of X spendies to
> purchase the Veblen, where X is an integer not less than the current
> Veblen cost. When e does so, the Veblen is transferred to em, then the
> Veblen cost is set to X+1.
>
> The owner of the Veblen SHOULD conspicuously show off eir ownership of
> it from time to time.
>
> }
>
>
> The Veblen is hereby transferred to the entity that owned the Veblen
> immediately before this proposal began taking effect (if e does not
> already own it).
>
> The Veblen cost is hereby flipped to what the Veblen Cost was
> immediately before this proposal began taking effect (if it does not
> already have that value).
>
> [Normalize tracking language. Normalize transfer language. Fix
> "ownership of the Veblen", if such a thing exists. Prohibit
> self-purchases (can be worked around by transferring it to Agora then
> immediately re-purchasing it).]
>
> }
>
I withdraw the above proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: *sigh*
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend the Rule entitled "The Veblen" to read, in whole:
{
The Veblen is a unique indestructible fixed asset tracked by the
Abusrdor, with ownership entirely restricted to players and Agora. If
the Veblen would otherwise be in abeyance, or if it is owned by the Lost
and Found Department, it is immediately transferred to Agora.
The Veblen cost is a secured singleton positive integer switch tracked
by the Absurdor and with default value one.
A player who does not own the Veblen CAN pay a fee of X spendies to
purchase the Veblen, where X is an integer not less than the current
Veblen cost. When e does so, the Veblen is transferred to em, then the
Veblen cost is set to X+1.
The owner of the Veblen SHOULD conspicuously show off eir ownership of
it from time to time.
}
The Veblen is hereby transferred to the entity that owned the Veblen
immediately before this proposal began taking effect (if e does not
already own it).
The Veblen cost is hereby flipped to what the Veblen Cost was
immediately before this proposal began taking effect (if it does not
already have that value).
[Normalize tracking language. Normalize transfer language. Fix
"ownership of the Veblen", if such a thing exists. Prohibit
self-purchases.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] *sigh*
I submit the following proposal:
Title: *sigh*
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend the Rule entitled "The Veblen" to read, in whole:
{
The Veblen is a unique indestructible fixed asset tracked by the
Abusrdor, with ownership entirely restricted to players and Agora. If
the Veblen would otherwise be in abeyance, or if it is owned by the Lost
and Found Department, it is immediately transferred to Agora.
The Veblen cost is a secured singleton positive integer switch tracked
by the Absurdor and with default value one.
A player who does not own the Veblen CAN pay a fee of X spendies to
purchase the Veblen, where X is an integer not less than the current
Veblen cost. When e does so, the Veblen is transferred to em, then the
Veblen cost is set to X+1.
The owner of the Veblen SHOULD conspicuously show off eir ownership of
it from time to time.
}
The Veblen is hereby transferred to the entity that owned the Veblen
immediately before this proposal began taking effect (if e does not
already own it).
The Veblen cost is hereby flipped to what the Veblen Cost was
immediately before this proposal began taking effect (if it does not
already have that value).
[Normalize tracking language. Normalize transfer language. Fix
"ownership of the Veblen", if such a thing exists. Prohibit
self-purchases (can be worked around by transferring it to Agora then
immediately re-purchasing it).]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: Pragmatic quarters
Proposal: Pragmatic quarters (AI = 2, co-author = Mischief) Amend Rule 2555 (Blots) by replacing this text: At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each fugitive's blots are destroyed. with this text: Once a quarter, the Referee CAN and SHALL publish a Notice of Clemency, upon which half (rounded down) of each fugitive's blots are destroyed. Amend Rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing this text: At the beginning of each quarter, each crystal whose identity is not equal to the ID of any rule in the current ruleset has its size increased by 3. with this text: Once a quarter, the Geologist CAN and SHALL publish a Notice of Crystal Growth, upon which each crystal whose identity is not equal to the ID of any rule in the current ruleset has its size increased by 3. Amend Rule 2656 (Radiance) by replacing this text: At the start of every quarter, all radiance switches are set to half their current value rounded down. with this text: Once a quarter, the Illuminator CAN and SHALL publish a Notice of Diminution, upon which all radiance switches are set to half their current value rounded down. -- [ANSC H:GE V:G B:0]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Potential Further Absurdity (@Notary)
On 7/8/24 9:01 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
Please increase the complexity of the office to 1, if there is ever a
redraft. Otherwise, I'll petition the ADoP later, so its ok.
I didn't include it in the proposal because complexity is secured at power 2.
I grant the following promise ("Absurdor Complexity") to juan:
Cashing conditions: 1) it is before the expiration date of October 1, 2024; 2)
the "Potential Further Absurdity" proposal I submitted prior to issuing this
promise has passed; 3) there is a tabled intent to set the complexity of the
Absurdor to 1
Text: I support the tabled intent to set the complexity of the Absurdor to 1.
--
Mischief
Hat: steampunk hat
Vitality: Invulnerable
Bang holdings: 1
Re: BUS: [proposal] A whole new game
On 7/8/24 09:29, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: A new duel
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors: Mischief
>
> {
>
> All bangs are hereby destroyed. The vitality of each player hereby
> becomes ghostly.
>
> Amend the Rule entitled "Bang!" to read as follows:
>
> {
> Vitality is an untracked player switch with possible values of alive,
> unalive, and ghostly (default). Bangs are a fungible asset.
>
> Match state is an untracked singleton switch with possible values none
> (default), initializing, and ongoing. If the match state is none and has
> not changed in the past 7 days, a player CAN by announcement flip it to
> initializing. When the match state is flipped to none or to
> initializing, each player becomes ghostly, then all bangs are destroyed.
>
> While the match state is initializing:
> * A player CAN by announcement incarnate, thereby flipping eir vitality
> to alive.
> * A player CAN by announcement trigger the match, provided the match
> state has not changed in the past 7 days.
> * At the beginning of each Agoran week, if any player triggered the
> match in the previous Agoran week, and if there at least three alive
> players, the match state is flipped to ongoing, after which each alive
> player gains a bang.
>
> If the match state is ongoing, no player has won the game as a result of
> this Rule in the past 28 days, and a single player is alive, that player
> CAN stand alone by announcement. When a player stands alone, e wins the
> game. If a player won the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match
> state is flipped to none (if it is not already).
>
> When a player takes an action that causes one or more vitalities or bang
> balances to change, e SHOULD recite all such changes in the same message
> as which e takes that action. A document reciting all bang balances and
> vitalities SHOULD be published and ratified as needed.
> }
>
> Enact a new rule at power 1 entitled "Bang actions" with the following text:
> {
> While the match state is ongoing, a player CAN by announcement load a
> round, specifying a document (the sealed orders), provided that e has
> not done so in the current Agoran week.
>
> While the match state is ongoing, a player CAN by announcement fire a
> round, specifying a document (the revealed orders), provided that all of
> the following are true:
> * E was an alive player at the beginning of the current Agoran week.
> * E has not done so in the current Agoran week.
> * In the previous Agoran week, e loaded a round with sealed orders that
> are a fingerprint for the revealed orders.
> * The order list explicitly and unconditionally specifies a single
> clear, unambiguous, and unconditional list of persons to target (the
> target list).
>
> When a player (the shooter) fires a round, sequentially for each person
> (the target) in the target list, if the shooter is alive and has two
> bangs, and the target is an alive player, then two of the shooter's
> bangs are destroyed, after which the target is eliminated.
>
> When a player is eliminated, if eir vitality is alive, then the
> following happen in order:
> * Eir vitality is flipped to unalive.
> * E gains one bang.
>
> A player who loaded a round in one Agoran week SHALL, within the first
> four days of the next Agoran week, fire a round, provided the match
> state has not changed during either period; failure to do so is the
> class 1 infraction of wasting ammunition.
>
> If the match state is ongoing and has not changed in the past 7 days,
> and if no player has loaded a round or fired a round in this Agoran week
> or the previous two Agoran weeks, then the match state becomes none.
> }
>
> [
> A complete rewrite of bangs with many changes, including but not limited to:
> * Petty capitalization changes.
> * Remove "CAN publish".
> * Explicitly have match phases.
> * Slow down the game a lot.
> * Actions peformed with hashing rather than first-come first-serve.
> ]
>
> }
>
Ah, missed one change.
I withdraw the above-submitted proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: A new duel
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Mischief
{
All bangs are hereby destroyed. The vitality of each player hereby
becomes ghostly.
Amend the Rule entitled "Bang!" to read as follows:
{
Vitality is an untracked player switch with possible values of alive,
unalive, and ghostly (default). Bangs are a fungible asset.
Match state is an untracked singleton switch with possible values none
(default), initializing, and ongoing. If the match state is none and has
not changed in the past 7 days, a player CAN by announcement flip it to
initializing. When the match state is flipped to none or to
initializing, each player becomes ghostly (if e is not already), then all
bangs are destroyed.
While the match state is initializing:
* A player CAN by announcement incarnate, thereby flipping eir vitality
to alive.
* A player CAN by announcement trigger the match, pr
BUS: [proposal] A whole new game
I submit the following proposal:
Title: A new duel
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Mischief
{
All bangs are hereby destroyed. The vitality of each player hereby
becomes ghostly.
Amend the Rule entitled "Bang!" to read as follows:
{
Vitality is an untracked player switch with possible values of alive,
unalive, and ghostly (default). Bangs are a fungible asset.
Match state is an untracked singleton switch with possible values none
(default), initializing, and ongoing. If the match state is none and has
not changed in the past 7 days, a player CAN by announcement flip it to
initializing. When the match state is flipped to none or to
initializing, each player becomes ghostly, then all bangs are destroyed.
While the match state is initializing:
* A player CAN by announcement incarnate, thereby flipping eir vitality
to alive.
* A player CAN by announcement trigger the match, provided the match
state has not changed in the past 7 days.
* At the beginning of each Agoran week, if any player triggered the
match in the previous Agoran week, and if there at least three alive
players, the match state is flipped to ongoing, after which each alive
player gains a bang.
If the match state is ongoing, no player has won the game as a result of
this Rule in the past 28 days, and a single player is alive, that player
CAN stand alone by announcement. When a player stands alone, e wins the
game. If a player won the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match
state is flipped to none (if it is not already).
When a player takes an action that causes one or more vitalities or bang
balances to change, e SHOULD recite all such changes in the same message
as which e takes that action. A document reciting all bang balances and
vitalities SHOULD be published and ratified as needed.
}
Enact a new rule at power 1 entitled "Bang actions" with the following text:
{
While the match state is ongoing, a player CAN by announcement load a
round, specifying a document (the sealed orders), provided that e has
not done so in the current Agoran week.
While the match state is ongoing, a player CAN by announcement fire a
round, specifying a document (the revealed orders), provided that all of
the following are true:
* E was an alive player at the beginning of the current Agoran week.
* E has not done so in the current Agoran week.
* In the previous Agoran week, e loaded a round with sealed orders that
are a fingerprint for the revealed orders.
* The order list explicitly and unconditionally specifies a single
clear, unambiguous, and unconditional list of persons to target (the
target list).
When a player (the shooter) fires a round, sequentially for each person
(the target) in the target list, if the shooter is alive and has two
bangs, and the target is an alive player, then two of the shooter's
bangs are destroyed, after which the target is eliminated.
When a player is eliminated, if eir vitality is alive, then the
following happen in order:
* Eir vitality is flipped to unalive.
* E gains one bang.
A player who loaded a round in one Agoran week SHALL, within the first
four days of the next Agoran week, fire a round, provided the match
state has not changed during either period; failure to do so is the
class 1 infraction of wasting ammunition.
If the match state is ongoing and has not changed in the past 7 days,
and if no player has loaded a round or fired a round in this Agoran week
or the previous two Agoran weeks, then the match state becomes none.
}
[
A complete rewrite of bangs with many changes, including but not limited to:
* Petty capitalization changes.
* Remove "CAN publish".
* Explicitly have match phases.
* Slow down the game a lot.
* Actions peformed with hashing rather than first-come first-serve.
]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: Potential Further Absurdity
I submit the following proposal ("Potential Further Absurdity" AI=1
coauthor=Janet):
Create a rule entitled "The Veblen" with power 0.5 reading:
The Veblen is a unique indestructible fixed asset.
Ownership of the Veblen is entirely restricted to Agora and
players. If the Veblen is owned by the Lost and Found Department
or in abeyance, it is immediately transferred to Agora.
The Veblen Cost is a secured singleton switch with values of
positive integers and a default of 1.
Any player CAN pay a fee of X Spendies to transfer the Veblen to
to emself, where X is a value greater than or equal to the
current Veblen Cost. Upon doing so, e gains ownership of the
Veblen, and the Veblen Cost is set to X+1.
The Veblen Cost and the ownership of the Veblen are tracked by
the Absurdor.
The owner of the Veblen SHOULD conspicuously show off eir
ownership of it from time to time.
--
Mischief
Hat: steampunk hat
Vitality: Ghostly
Bang holdings: 1
BUS: (proposal) Cleaning up after economic change is hard, eh
I submit the following proposal: {
Title: Whoops, missed one
Co-authors: Janet
Adoption Index: 2.0
Text: {
[P9096 failed, so Growth was never repealed. This is the language from that
proposal]
Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by deleting the list item
(including the bullet point) that contains "Growth"
}
--
Quadrantal
Illuminator
BUS: Proposal: Protection Stone Fix (@Promotor)
I submit the following proposal ("Protection Stone Fix" AI=2 coauthor=Janet):
[Under the current rules, whenever the Protection Stone is protecting itself
and ends up in Agora's possession, it's stuck there permanently.]
Amend rule 2640 (Stones) by replacing
A stone is immune if and only if a rule of power 2 or more says it
is immune; otherwise it is non-immune.
with:
A stone is immune if and only if a rule of power 2 or more says it
is immune and it is not owned by Agora; otherwise it is non-immune.
--
Mischief
Hat: steampunk hat
Vitality: Unalive
Bang holdings: 0
BUS: [proposal] Stone cost reversion
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Stone cost adjustments
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 2642 by, as a single amendment:
* Appending the following to the paragraph beginning "Any player CAN": "
When this occurs, the stone cost of that stone is set to its default
value.".
* Replacing the paragraph beginning "At the beginning of each week" with
the following paragraph:
{
At the beginning of each Agoran week, the Stone Cost of each stone is
decreased by 1 (to a minimum of 1). When a stone is transferred to
Agora, its Stone Cost is reset to its default value.
}
[Go back to something close to the old system, since the current system
just results in stone costs decreasing forever. Slightly tweaked so
that, e.g., the Soul Stone doesn't reset costs. If you want the
protection of the higher cost, you should have to pay for it.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: (proposal) A fix for an older, unpatched paradox
I submit the following proposal: {
Title: A possible patch for a peculiar persisting pledge paradox
Coauthors: Aris
AI: 1.7
Text: {
[A fix for pledge indeterminacy (see CFJ 3907). Defaults to the pledge
having been violated, as the infraction system seems to have enough
flexibility to forgive pledges that are broken on a technicality]
Amend Rule 2450 ("Pledges") by appending to the first paragraph as follows:
{
If it would otherwise be indeterminate whether a player has violated a
pledge, then e shall be deemed to have violated that pledge.
}
}
}
--
Quadrantal
Illuminator
BUS: [proposal] Sortition fixes
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Sorting out sortition
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Kate, Mischief
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 2691 ("Sortition Procedure") by, as a single amendment,
replacing the pargraph
{
At the beginning of each quarter, the ADoP CAN by announcement, and
SHALL in a timely manner, initiate a sorition for each sortitioned
office if e has not already done so for that office.
}
with the following paragraphs:
{
A player CAN by announcement initiate a sortition for a vacant
sortitioned office for which a sortition is not ongoing. At the
beginning of each quarter, for each sortitioned office for which a
sortition is not ongoing, the ADoP CAN once by announcement, and SHALL
in a timely fashion, initiate a sortition.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a sortition CANNOT be initiated
for an office for which a sortition is ongoing.
}
and by appending the following paragraph:
{
If a sortition is ever ongoing for a non-sortitioned office (or for an
office that no longer exists), that sortition immediately ends.
}
[Ensure at most one sortition for an office can be ongoing, allow
sortitioning vacant sortition offices, and handle the edge case of the
rules changing during a sortition.]
Amend Rule 1006 ("Offices") by replacing the paragraphs
{
Imposed offices and sortitioned are offices described as such by the
rules that define them. All other offices are elected A person CANNOT be
made the holder of an elected office without eir explicit or reasonably
implied consent.
The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement, causing
it to become vacant. The non-interim holder of an elected office CAN,
with 3 support, resign the office while appointing another player to
become the holder of the office, provided that other player is one of
the Supporters. Any player CAN cause an office to become vacant without
2 objections.
}
with the following paragraphs:
{
Imposed offices and sortitioned offices are offices described as such by
the rules that define them. All other offices are elected. An office is
voluntary if and only if it is elected or sortitioned. The selection
method for a sortitioned office is a sortition for that office. The
selection method for an elected office is an election for that office.
A person CANNOT be made the holder of a voluntary office without eir
consent. A person voluntarily entering emself into the selection method
of that office always satisfies this requirement, regardless of whether
it meets the normal definition of consent.
The holder of a voluntary office CAN resign it by announcement, causing
it to become vacant. Any player CAN cause a voluntary office to become
vacant without 2 objections.
The non-interim holder of an elected office CAN, with 3 support, resign
the office while appointing another player to become the holder of the
office, provided that other player is one of the supporters.
}
[Allow resigning sortitioned offices. Ensure sortitioned offices are
protected with consent. Replace "explicit or reasonably implied consent"
with the normal definition and ensure becoming a candidate/option always
meets it. Restrict w/o 2 objections removal to voluntary offices.]
Amend Rule 2573 ("Impeachment") by replacing the text "elected office"
with the text "voluntary office" and by replacing the text "an election
is immediately opened for that office" with the text "the selection
method for that office is immediately initiated (if possible)".
[Allow impeachment for sortitioned offices.]
Amend Rule 2160 ("Deputisation") by replacing the text "elected office"
with the text "voluntary office".
[Allow deputizing for sortitioned offices.]
Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") by replacing the text "elected office" with
the text "voluntary office".
[Allow sortitioned offices to count for green ribbons.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Proposal] It takes two, and Ammo Store
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 9:45 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> In any case, this has demonstrated that a 1 Bang = 1 elimination ratio
> is probably not enough to handle high levels of trading – possibly
> players should start with half a Bang rather than a whole one. (Because
> the way you eliminate a player is, in effect, to transfer a Bang to
> them, there will always be enough to finish the game unless players
> start hoarding.)
>
> --
> ais523
>
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: It takes two
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors: ais523
[Adjusts the number of bangs needed to eliminate a player to two. This
should encourage trading and slow down rounds.]
Amend the rule with title "Bang!" by replacing "by paying a fee of 1 bang."
with "by paying a fee of 2 bangs."
}}}
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Ammo Store
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Enact a new Rule with title "Ammo Store" and the following text:
{
Each player CAN grant emself 1 bang by paying a fee of 13 spendies.
}
}}}
--
snail
(Alive, 0 Bangs)
(steampunk hat: creating new game mechanics)
BUS: [Proposal] What's the word?
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Last from the Past
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
[Makes it so the rules only use "Past X Days" instead of "Last X days", the
split was about even with a bit more "Past"s.]
Amend the following rules, in the order listed, by replacing every instance
of "last" with "past":
{
Rule 2625 (Proposal Recycling)
Rule 2630 (The Administrative State)
Rule 2689 (Vacations & Delegation)
Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties)
Rule 2478 (Justice)
Rule 2676 (Forgiveness)
}
Amend Rule 2499 (Welcome Packages) by replacing "last 30 days" with "past
30 days".
Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by replacing "last 15 days" with "past 15
days".
Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by replacing "last 7 days" with "past 7 days".
}}}
--
snail
Re: BUS: Proposal: Fashionable Manners (@Promotor)
On 6/20/24 8:51 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
Could his have an "in the order listed" (or similar) to avoid triggering
the prohibition on simultaneous rule changes?
Also, "the following rules".
Ooof, good catches -- thanks.
I retract "Fashionable Manners" from the Pool.
I submit the following proposal ("Fashionable Manners v1.1" AI=3
coauthor=Janet):
[Rules use both "timely manner" and "timely fashion" but rule 1023 (Agoran
Time) only defines the latter.]
Amend the following rules, in the order listed, by replacing every instance of "timely
manner" with "timely fashion":
Rule 103 (The Speaker)
Rule 2478 (Justice)
Rule 2585 (Birthday Gifts)
Rule 2679 (Restrictions on Participation)
Rule 2691 (Sortition Procedure)
--
Mischief
Re: BUS: Proposal: Fashionable Manners (@Promotor)
On 6/20/24 19:55, Mischief via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal ("Fashionable Manners" AI=3 coauthor=Janet):
>
> [Rules use both "timely manner" and "timely fashion" but rule 1023 (Agoran
> Time) only defines the latter.]
>
> Amend the follow rules by replacing every instance of "timely manner" with
> "timely fashion":
>
> Rule 103 (The Speaker)
> Rule 2478 (Justice)
> Rule 2585 (Birthday Gifts)
> Rule 2679 (Restrictions on Participation)
> Rule 2691 (Sortition Procedure)
>
Could his have an "in the order listed" (or similar) to avoid triggering
the prohibition on simultaneous rule changes?
Also, "the following rules".
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: Fashionable Manners (@Promotor)
I submit the following proposal ("Fashionable Manners" AI=3 coauthor=Janet):
[Rules use both "timely manner" and "timely fashion" but rule 1023 (Agoran
Time) only defines the latter.]
Amend the follow rules by replacing every instance of "timely manner" with "timely
fashion":
Rule 103 (The Speaker)
Rule 2478 (Justice)
Rule 2585 (Birthday Gifts)
Rule 2679 (Restrictions on Participation)
Rule 2691 (Sortition Procedure)
--
Mischief
BUS: [proposal] A bit meta
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Revision numbers, revised
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Gaelan
{
Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by replacing the paragraph
containing "the rule's revision number" with the following paragraph:
{
The listing of each rule in the SLR must additionally include a revision
number selected by the Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor SHOULD select revision
numbers such that they can be used retrospectively to determine that the
text of a rule has changed while it maintained the same ID number. The
Rulekeepor may exercise reasonable discretion in calculating revision
numbers.
}
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] oops
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Amendments are hard, okay?
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by replacing "the rule's ID
numberpower, title, and text" with "the rule's ID number, power, title,
and text".
[Accidentally introduced in a previous proposal.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [proposal] Stone cost reset
On 6/13/24 22:08, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Stone cost reset
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> Adoption index: 2.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2644 by replacing the text "then all existing stones are
> transferred to Agora." with the text "then all existing stones are
> transferred to Agora, after which the Stone Cost of each stone is set to
> its default value.".
>
> For each stone with Stone Cost less than 10, set the Stone Cost of that
> stone to 10. [Reset after snail's win.]
>
> }
>
*sigh* for the conflicting proposal.
I withdraw the above-submitted proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Stone cost reset v2
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 2.0
{
Amend Rule 2644 by replacing the text "all existing stones are
transferred to Agora." with the text "all existing stones are
transferred to Agora, after which the Stone Cost of each stone is set to
its default value.".
For each stone with Stone Cost less than 10, set the Stone Cost of that
stone to 10. [Reset after snail's win.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Stone cost reset
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Stone cost reset
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 2.0
{
Amend Rule 2644 by replacing the text "then all existing stones are
transferred to Agora." with the text "then all existing stones are
transferred to Agora, after which the Stone Cost of each stone is set to
its default value.".
For each stone with Stone Cost less than 10, set the Stone Cost of that
stone to 10. [Reset after snail's win.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: Rock strat
Proposal: Rock strat [Good ol' rock. Nothing beats rock.] Amend Rule 2683 (The Boulder) by replacing this text: Each player CAN, once a week, by announcement, push the boulder. When a player pushes the Boulder, its Height is increased by 1. At the beginning of each week, if the boulder was not pushed in the previous week, the Boulder's Height is set to 0. with this text: Each player CAN, once a week, pay a fee of N + 1 spendies to push the Boulder, where N is the number of times e has already done so that month. When a player pushes the Boulder, its Height is increased by 1. At the beginning of the week, if the Boulder was not pushed in the previous week, the Boulder's Height is decreased to half its value, rounded down.
BUS: Proposal: Anniversaries (attn Promotor)
I submit the following proposal ("Anniversaries" AI=2):
Amend rule 1023 (Agoran Time) by appending:
5. Any anniversary, monthly anniversary, or quarterly anniversary
that would otherwise occur on a day of the month that does not
exist (after considering any leap day) instead occurs on the
following day.
--
Mischief
BUS: Proposal: Hats (attn Promotor)
Considering that folks have already been putting on hats before this was even
formally submitted as a proposal, I think it's safe to say there's interest in
this...
I submit the following proposal ("Hats" AI=1):
[The idea here is to have a playful mechanism that also serves as a straw poll of how
players are feeling. Inspired by the self-reporting approach in the "Bang!"
subgame, a player could include eir current hat in eir signature if e wished. The
recordkeepor language is meant to 1) avoid requiring any work and also 2) avoid problems
if someone's first post after changing eir hat is to agora-discussion.]
Create a rule titled "Hats" reading:
Hats are a secured player switch defaulting to "none" with the following
possible values and associated meanings for the player's current focus:
none: no particular focus
armored helm: competing for wins and in sub-games
dunce cap: expressing regret or acknowledging a mistake
floral wreath: resolving conflict
green eyeshade: maintaining accurate records
hard hat: repairing problems in the rules
jaunty beret: exploring creative expression
jester's cap: bringing levity and humor
judicial wig: ruling on CFJs and interpreting the rules
knitted cap: finding loopholes and exploits
plain hat: simplifying the rules
rugged fedora: researching Agoran and Nomic history
sleeping cap: reducing eir participation in Agora
steampunk hat: creating new game mechanics
traditional mortarboard: conducting research and writing theses
A player CAN change eir hat at any time by notifying the recordkeepor for eir
hat (publicly or privately). Unless otherwise specified by the rules: 1) the
recordkeepor for a player's hat is the player emself, and 2) reporting on hats
is OPTIONAL.
Hats do not otherwise limit or restrict a player's actions in any way, and
every player is ENCOURAGED to participate in all aspects of the game regardless
of eir current hat.
--
Mischief
Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
I withdraw my latest Proposal too, the one about Weapons. I was too
excited, and sloppy. Although I still like the idea and would enjoy
expanding the Bang game.
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 11:25 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 6:56 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > It seems like Agora could use some more gameplay right now, so I present
> > this subgame that got drafted a while ago. It experiments with an
> > officerless tracking system, where players should report their status in
> > all their messages. For example (Alive, 3 Bangs) after a signature would
> > suffice.
> >
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > {{{
> > Title: A friendly game
> > Adoption Index: 1.0
> > Author: snail
> > Co-author(s): juan
> >
> > Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
> >
> > {
> > Bangs are a fungible asset.
> >
> > Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of
> > Invulnerable, Alive, Unalive, or Ghostly (default). A player with a
> > Vitality that is not Ghostly is called “corporeal”, else e is called
> > "ghostly".
> >
> > A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means
> > to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only
> > Invulnerable or Ghostly players.
> >
> > Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all
> eir
> > messages.
> >
> > Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities.
> Such a
> > purported report is self-ratifying, and SHOULD be made as needed.
> >
> > Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by paying
> a
> > fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em
> 1
> > bang.
> >
> > Any Alive player CAN Stand Alone by announcement, if there are no other
> > players that are Alive, and no person has won the game by doing so in the
> > past 7 days. When a player Stands Alone, e wins the game. If a player won
> > the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is reset.
> >
> > When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are
> > destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang.
> >
> > When 3 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable
> > players have eir Vitality set to Alive.
> >
> > When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
> > resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
> > reset gains 1 bang.
> > }
> >
> > The match is hereby reset.
> > }}}
> > --
> > snail
> >
>
> I withdraw the above proposal. (I've changed the reset period to allow 7
> days of incarnating so hopefully nobody misses out, plus allow time for
> proposals after a match ends, and mention ratifying the optional report
> without objection. Also cleaned up something yachay mentioned)
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: A friendly game v2
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-author(s): juan, janet, ais523, Yachay
>
> Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
>
> {
> Bangs are a fungible asset.
>
> Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of
> Invulnerable, Alive, Unalive, or Ghostly (default). A player with a
> Vitality that is not Ghostly is called “corporeal”, else e is called
> "ghostly".
>
> To "incarnate" is to flip one's Vitality to Invulnerable. A ghostly player
> CAN
> incarnate by announcement, provided there are only Invulnerable or Ghostly
> players.
>
> Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all eir
> messages.
>
> Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a
> report SHOULD be made and Ratified Without Objection as needed.
>
> Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by paying a
> fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1
> bang.
>
> Any Alive player CAN Stand Alone by announcement, if there are no other
> players that are Alive, and no person has won the game by doing so in the
> past 7 days. When a player Stands Alone, e wins the game. If a player won
> the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is reset.
>
> When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are
> destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang.
>
> When 7 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable
> players have eir Vitality set to Alive.
>
> When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
> resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
> reset gains 1 bang.
> }
>
> The match is hereby reset.
> }}}
> --
> snail
>
Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 6:56 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> It seems like Agora could use some more gameplay right now, so I present
> this subgame that got drafted a while ago. It experiments with an
> officerless tracking system, where players should report their status in
> all their messages. For example (Alive, 3 Bangs) after a signature would
> suffice.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: A friendly game
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-author(s): juan
>
> Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
>
> {
> Bangs are a fungible asset.
>
> Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of
> Invulnerable, Alive, Unalive, or Ghostly (default). A player with a
> Vitality that is not Ghostly is called “corporeal”, else e is called
> "ghostly".
>
> A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means
> to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only
> Invulnerable or Ghostly players.
>
> Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all eir
> messages.
>
> Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a
> purported report is self-ratifying, and SHOULD be made as needed.
>
> Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by paying a
> fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1
> bang.
>
> Any Alive player CAN Stand Alone by announcement, if there are no other
> players that are Alive, and no person has won the game by doing so in the
> past 7 days. When a player Stands Alone, e wins the game. If a player won
> the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is reset.
>
> When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are
> destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang.
>
> When 3 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable
> players have eir Vitality set to Alive.
>
> When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
> resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
> reset gains 1 bang.
> }
>
> The match is hereby reset.
> }}}
> --
> snail
>
I withdraw the above proposal. (I've changed the reset period to allow 7
days of incarnating so hopefully nobody misses out, plus allow time for
proposals after a match ends, and mention ratifying the optional report
without objection. Also cleaned up something yachay mentioned)
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: A friendly game v2
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-author(s): juan, janet, ais523, Yachay
Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
{
Bangs are a fungible asset.
Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of
Invulnerable, Alive, Unalive, or Ghostly (default). A player with a
Vitality that is not Ghostly is called “corporeal”, else e is called
"ghostly".
To "incarnate" is to flip one's Vitality to Invulnerable. A ghostly player
CAN
incarnate by announcement, provided there are only Invulnerable or Ghostly
players.
Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all eir
messages.
Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a
report SHOULD be made and Ratified Without Objection as needed.
Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by paying a
fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1
bang.
Any Alive player CAN Stand Alone by announcement, if there are no other
players that are Alive, and no person has won the game by doing so in the
past 7 days. When a player Stands Alone, e wins the game. If a player won
the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is reset.
When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are
destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang.
When 7 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable
players have eir Vitality set to Alive.
When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
reset gains 1 bang.
}
The match is hereby reset.
}}}
--
snail
BUS: Proposal: Say It Once Mk II (attn Promotor)
I retract my proposal "Say It Once"
I submit the following proposal ("Say It Once Mk II" AI=3):
[This proposal quotes text that explicitly includes both references, so this
should be safe against unintended conflicts with other changes.]
Amend rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by, in the text reading:
Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. For decisions, the
possible values are "none" (default) or integral multiples of 0.1
from 1.0 to 9.9. For proposals, the possible values are integral
multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9 (default 1.0).
The adoption index of a referendum CANNOT be set or changed to
"none" or to a value less than that of its associated proposal. If
a referendum ever has an adoption index of "none" or an adoption
index less than that of its associated proposal, it is immediately
set to the adoption index of the associated proposal.
Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2.
deleting the sentence "Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2."
--
Mischief
Re: BUS: Proposal: Say It Once (attn Promotor)
On 5/21/24 16:07, Mischief via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal ("Say It Once" AI=3):
>
> [This proposal refers to the rule using its revision number and by quoting
> text that explicitly includes both references, so this should be safe against
> unintended conflicts with other changes.]
>
> Amend rule 1950/38 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by, in the text reading:
>
>Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
>decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. For decisions, the
>possible values are "none" (default) or integral multiples of 0.1
>from 1.0 to 9.9. For proposals, the possible values are integral
>multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9 (default 1.0).
>
>The adoption index of a referendum CANNOT be set or changed to
>"none" or to a value less than that of its associated proposal. If
>a referendum ever has an adoption index of "none" or an adoption
>index less than that of its associated proposal, it is immediately
>set to the adoption index of the associated proposal.
>
>Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2.
>
> deleting the sentence "Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2."
>
>
>
Please don't include the revision number in amendments. I believe we've
held that doing so causes the specification to be invalid (that would
have been under the old R105 standard though). Also, it's unclear what
happens if the revision number is wrong due to the rule history being wrong.
Including the whole text of the rule should be sufficient.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: Say It Once (attn Promotor)
I submit the following proposal ("Say It Once" AI=3):
[This proposal refers to the rule using its revision number and by quoting text
that explicitly includes both references, so this should be safe against
unintended conflicts with other changes.]
Amend rule 1950/38 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by, in the text reading:
Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. For decisions, the
possible values are "none" (default) or integral multiples of 0.1
from 1.0 to 9.9. For proposals, the possible values are integral
multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9 (default 1.0).
The adoption index of a referendum CANNOT be set or changed to
"none" or to a value less than that of its associated proposal. If
a referendum ever has an adoption index of "none" or an adoption
index less than that of its associated proposal, it is immediately
set to the adoption index of the associated proposal.
Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2.
deleting the sentence "Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2."
--
Mischief
Re: BUS: Proposal - Bang game Weapons (@Promotor)
On 5/14/24 15:08, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> {
> Weapon is an untracked corporeal player switch with possible values of the
> names of the weapons listed below, with Revolver as the default.
>
> - Revolver: An Alive player with a Revolver CAN Revolvershot another
> specified Alive player by paying a fee of 1 bang. This Eliminates that
> player.
> - Grenade: An Alive player with a Grenade CAN Grenadeboom 3 specified
> players that do not have Sniper Rifles by paying a fee of 2 bang.
> - Dynamite: An Alive player with a Dynamite CAN Dynamiteboom with 7 days of
> notice. To Dynamiteboom is to pay 3 bang and then Eliminate all other Alive
> players without a Sniper Rifle.
"pay" here doesn't trigger the fee-based actions machinery, so this
likely isn't well-enough specified. Also note that this can be done
multiple times from a single intent.
> - Sniper Rifle: An Alive player with a Sniper Rifle has an Aim switch, with
> possible values of all Alive players, defaulting to emselves. If ey haven't
> done so in the last 3 days, a player with a Sniper Rifle can Change Aim by
> announcement, setting eir Aim switch to a specified value. An Alive player
> with a Sniper Rifle with an Aim switch that hasn't changed value in the
> last 3 days can Snipershot the player specified by eir Aim switch by paying
> a fee of 1 bang. This Eliminates that player.
Agoran Spivak uses "emself" and "e", both singular (so "e has not"
rather than "ey haven't"). This applies below as well.
> - Book of Blackpowder: An Alive player with a Book of Blackpowder can
> Bookrevive a specified player by paying a fee of 2 bang, this Revives em.
> Reviving a player makes em Alive if ey were Unalive. An Alive player with a
> Book of Blackpowder can Bookblast a specified player by paying a fee of 2
> bang, this Eliminates em.
>
> A corporeal player can set eir Weapon switch to a specified value by
> announcement if ey haven't done so in the last time the match was reset, or
> by paying a fee of 5 Stamps.
>
> If a player's Weapon switch has changed in the last 48 hours, ey CANNOT
> spend bang, other rules notwithstanding.
"rules to the contrary notwithstanding".
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
On 5/14/24 07:55, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a > purported report is self-ratifying, and SHOULD be made as needed. I don't think this works. It isn't a switch report R2162 so it isn't self-ratifying there, and new definitions of self-ratifying things are secured at power 3. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: Self-Elimination
I submit the following proposal ("Self-Elimination" AI=1):
[Perhaps someone will find an interesting reason to do this. This proposal
should work with either version of the game.]
Amend the rule titled "Bang!" by replacing every instance of "another specified Alive
player" with "a specified Alive player"
Amend the rule titled "Bang for your Buck" by replacing every instance of "another specified
Alive player" with "a specified Alive player"
--
Mischief
BUS: Proposal - Bang game Weapons (@Promotor)
I like the Bang idea quite a lot.
I submit the following Proposal:
---
Title: A friendly shop
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: Yachay
Co-author(s): -
Amend "Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by
paying a fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then
grants em 1 bang." in the rule "Bang!" to:
"Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1 bang."
Then create a new rule called "Bang for your Buck" with the following text:
{
Weapon is an untracked corporeal player switch with possible values of the
names of the weapons listed below, with Revolver as the default.
- Revolver: An Alive player with a Revolver CAN Revolvershot another
specified Alive player by paying a fee of 1 bang. This Eliminates that
player.
- Grenade: An Alive player with a Grenade CAN Grenadeboom 3 specified
players that do not have Sniper Rifles by paying a fee of 2 bang.
- Dynamite: An Alive player with a Dynamite CAN Dynamiteboom with 7 days of
notice. To Dynamiteboom is to pay 3 bang and then Eliminate all other Alive
players without a Sniper Rifle.
- Sniper Rifle: An Alive player with a Sniper Rifle has an Aim switch, with
possible values of all Alive players, defaulting to emselves. If ey haven't
done so in the last 3 days, a player with a Sniper Rifle can Change Aim by
announcement, setting eir Aim switch to a specified value. An Alive player
with a Sniper Rifle with an Aim switch that hasn't changed value in the
last 3 days can Snipershot the player specified by eir Aim switch by paying
a fee of 1 bang. This Eliminates that player.
- Book of Blackpowder: An Alive player with a Book of Blackpowder can
Bookrevive a specified player by paying a fee of 2 bang, this Revives em.
Reviving a player makes em Alive if ey were Unalive. An Alive player with a
Book of Blackpowder can Bookblast a specified player by paying a fee of 2
bang, this Eliminates em.
A corporeal player can set eir Weapon switch to a specified value by
announcement if ey haven't done so in the last time the match was reset, or
by paying a fee of 5 Stamps.
If a player's Weapon switch has changed in the last 48 hours, ey CANNOT
spend bang, other rules notwithstanding.
Each corporeal player SHOULD specify eir Weapon in all eir messages.
}
BUS: [Proposal] An Agoran Standoff
It seems like Agora could use some more gameplay right now, so I present
this subgame that got drafted a while ago. It experiments with an
officerless tracking system, where players should report their status in
all their messages. For example (Alive, 3 Bangs) after a signature would
suffice.
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: A friendly game
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-author(s): juan
Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
{
Bangs are a fungible asset.
Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of
Invulnerable, Alive, Unalive, or Ghostly (default). A player with a
Vitality that is not Ghostly is called “corporeal”, else e is called
"ghostly".
A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, which means
to flip eir Vitality to Invulnerable, provided there are only
Invulnerable or Ghostly players.
Each corporeal player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all eir
messages.
Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a
purported report is self-ratifying, and SHOULD be made as needed.
Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified Alive player by paying a
fee of 1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and then grants em 1
bang.
Any Alive player CAN Stand Alone by announcement, if there are no other
players that are Alive, and no person has won the game by doing so in the
past 7 days. When a player Stands Alone, e wins the game. If a player won
the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is reset.
When the match is reset, each player is set to Ghostly, all bangs are
destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang.
When 3 days have passed since the match is reset, all Invulnerable
players have eir Vitality set to Alive.
When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
reset gains 1 bang.
}
The match is hereby reset.
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] Grind Stone, Lode Stone
Here's some proposals to replace the currently defunct stones:
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Grind Stone
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by replacing
{
- Anti-Equatorial Stone (monthly): When wielded, the mossiest
non-immune stone is transferred to the wielder. If more than one
such stone is tied for mossiest, a specified one is transferred.
When this happens, the wielded stone's mossiness is incremented
by 1.
}
with
{
- Grind Stone (quarterly): When wielded, if this is the 5th time the
wielder has wielded the Grind Stone (not the recursion stone) since any
other player wielded it, e wins the game.
}
}}}
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Lode Stone
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by replacing
{
- Loud Stone (monthly): When wielded, a specified player's
Dream is set to a specified Dream, and then e is Beguiled;
Beguiling is secured. A player's Dream CANNOT be flipped if e
was Beguiled in the last 7 days, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding.
}
with
{
- Lode Stone (monthly): If e has wielded this stone in the same
message, any player CAN pay a fee of X-2 Spendies to transfer a specified
stone to emself, where X is the current Stone Cost of the specified stone.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [proposal] Delegate removal
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Delegate removal
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 2689 ("Vacations & Delegation") by replacing
{ E CAN, by announcement, flip the Delegate switch of that office to
"None". }
with
{ The Delegate of an office, if any, and the holder of that office, if
any, CAN by announcement flip the Delegate of that office to "None". }
[Allow officers to remove delegates in order to allow an officer to
regain control of the office by force (unlikely to actually matter, but
it seems like something that should be possible).]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sortition
> SHALL in a timely manner, initiate a sorition for each sortitioned typo ^ -- Falsifian
BUS: [Proposal] Market Stone Pricing
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Market Stone Pricing
Author: Jaff
AI: 2.0
{
Amend Rule 2642/9 (Stone Cost) by replacing the text:
{
When a stone is transferred, its Stone Cost is set to the default. At the
beginning of every week, the Stone Cost for each stone is reduced by 1, to a
minimum of 0.
}
with
{
At the beginning of each week, for each stone that was not
transferred during the previous week, its Stone Cost is reduced by 1, to a
minimum of 1. Then, for each stone that was transferred more than once
during the previous week, its Stone Cost is increased by 1.
}
}
}}}
- Jaff
BUS: [Proposal] Sortition
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Sortition
Author: nix
Co-Authors: Janet
AI: 2
[This proposal experiments with a much older idea of democracy -
sortition. In this process, instead of an election the office is
randomly assigned to a player from a pool of interested players.
In theory the advantages is that it avoids us becoming too reliant on a
specific officer or workflow, and gives everyone a chance to
participate.]
Enact a new Power = 2 rule titled "Sortition Procedure" with the
following text:
At the beginning of each quarter, the ADoP CAN by announcement, and
SHALL in a timely manner, initiate a sorition for each sortitioned
office if e has not already done so for that office.
When a sortition is initiated, it enters the lots period. Any player
CAN become an option for that office during this period. If a person
ceases to be a player during this period, e also ceases to be an
option for each current sortition.
Seven days after a sortition is initiated, its lots period ends. The
ADoP CAN by announcement, and SHALL in a timely manner after a
lots period ends, randomly select one of the options for that
office. When e does so, that player becomes the officeholder for
that office.
Amend R1006 (Offices) by replacing:
An imposed office is an office described as such by the rule
defining it. All others are elected.
with:
Imposed offices and sortitioned are offices described as such by the
rules that define them. All other offices are elected
Amend R2683 (The Boulder) by replacing "The Absurdor is an office" with
"The Absurdor is a sortitioned office".
Amend R2616 (The Webmastor) by replacing "The Webmastor is an office"
with "The Webmastor is a sortitioned office".
Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing "The Collector is an office" with "The
Collector is a sortitioned office".
Amend R2685 (Crystals) by replacing "The Geologist is an office" with
"The Geologist is a sortitioned office".
Amend R2640 (Stones) by replacing "The Stonemason is an office" with
"The Stonemason is a sortitioned office".
Amend R2656 (Radiance) by replacing "The Illuminator is an office" with
"The Illuminator is a sortitioned office".
Amend R2690 (Spendies) by replacing "The Spendor is an office" with "The
Spendor is a sortitioned office".
}
--
nix
Arbitor, Spendor
BUS: [Proposal] Less Smooth, More Immune
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Less Smooth, More Immune
AI: 2.0
Author: nix
Co-authors: Janet
[The overhaul spendies did to stones left two major stubs. The first is
references to smoothness, a removed mechanic. This will simply remove
those references.
The second leftover is immunity. It no longer means anything, but some
stones reference it. This adds immunity back, in a way balanced with
the current mechanics.]
Amend R2640 (Stones) by removing "(ii) The smoothness of the stone,
which is a non-negative integer;", replacing "(iii)" with "(ii)",
replacing "(iv)" with "(iii)", and appending, to the end, the following
paragraph:
A stone is immune if and only if a rule of power 2 or more says it
is immune; otherwise it is non-immune.
Amend R2642 (Stone Cost) by replacing "to transfer a specified stone"
with "to transfer a specified non-immune stone".
Amend R2645 (The Stones) by replacing every instance of "(weekly, X)",
where X is a number, with "(weekly)".
Amend R2645 (The Stones) by replacing every instance of "(monthly, X)",
where X is a number, with "(monthly)";
Amend R2645 (The Stones) by replacing:
- Protection Stone (monthly): When wielded, a specified stone is
granted immunity.
with:
- Protection Stone (monthly): When wielded, specify a stone. The
stone most recently specified when wielding the Protection Stone
is immune.
Amedn R2645 (The Stones) by replacing:
- Hot Potato Stone (weekly): When this stone is wielded, the wielder
specifies an eligible player and gains 8 radiance. The stone is
transferred to the eligible player. An eligible player is one who
has not owned this stone since the last time Agora owned it. If
this stone is not owned by Agora, a player CANNOT otherwise
transfer it, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This stone is
immune if 3 or more players have wielded it since the most recent
collection notice.
with:
- Hot Potato Stone (weekly): When this stone is wielded, the wielder
specifies an eligible player and gains 8 radiance. The stone is
transferred to the eligible player. An eligible player is one who
has not owned this stone since the last time it was transferred
without being wielded. If this stone has been wielded at least
once in the last 15 days, it is immune.
}
--
nix
Arbitor, Spendor
BUS: [Proposal] No Overpowered Deputizations
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: No Overpowered Deputizations
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author: snail
Co-authors: Janet, Murphy, Juniper
Amend Rule 2160 (Deputisation) by replacing
{
When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the
holder of that office, unless the deputisation is temporary,
and/or the action being performed would already install someone
into that office.
}
with
{
When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder
of that office, unless the deputisation is temporary, doing so would make
em Overpowered, and/or the action being performed would already install
someone into that office.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] No more mega raffles
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Stamp Raffle fix
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2687 (The Stamp Raffle) by appending the following paragraph:
{
At the end of each week in which a Raffle Result was not published, each
stamp owned by Agora at the beginning of the week is transferred to the
player it has as a type, or to the Lost and Found Department if no such
player exists. Then, each player that received a stamp this way gains 1
radiance.
}
}}}
I submit the following proposal, which would also fix this:
{{{
Title: Stamp Raffle Repeal
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Repeal Rule 2687 (The Stamp Raffle).
Each stamp owned by Agora is transferred to the player it has as a type, or
to the Lost and Found Department if no such player exists.
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] Welcome to spendy town
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Welcome Spendies
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2499 (Welcome Packages) by replacing
{
* One stamp of eir own type.
}
with
{
* One stamp of eir own type.
* 10 spendies, if e has not been granted any spendies since e last
registered.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [proposal] Festival restrictions
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Festival strength restrictions
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 2481 ("Festival Restrictions") by replacing "Each Festive
player has the maximum possible voting strength. All other players have
the minimum possible voting strength." with "Each Festive player has the
maximum possible voting strength. Each person who is not a Festive
player has the minimum possible voting strength. Rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, no modifications to voting strength (other than
defining the maximum and minimum) are applied by any other Rule.".
[Clarify that setting strength to the maximum/minimum cannot then be
altered with Blots or bonuses, since it's currently unclear whether the
method of calculation in R2422 applies. Additionally, don't allow
non-Festive players to escape the penalty by deregistering.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [proposal] Stone cleanups
On 4/14/24 15:12, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I withdraw the above proposal.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Stone cleanups
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Janet
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by deleting the list item
> (including the bullet point) that contains "Growth".
>
> Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by, as a single amendment, deleting the
> list item (including the bullet point) that contains "Anti-Equatorial"
> and the list item (including the bullet point) that contains "Loud".
>
> [Growth and the Anti-Equatorial Stone depend on mossiness, which no
> longer exists. The Loud Stone depends on Dreams, which no longer exist.]
>
> }
I withdraw the above-submitted proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Stone cleanups v3
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by deleting the list item
(including the bullet point) that contains "Growth". Amend Rule 2645
("The Stones") by, as a single amendment:
* Deleting the list item (including the bullet point) that contains
"Anti-Equatorial Stone", the list item (including the bullet point) that
contains "Loud Stone", and the list item (including the bullet point)
that contains "Protection Stone".
* Replacing each instance of the text "non-immune stone" with "stone".
* In the list item containing "Hot Potato Stone", deleting from " If
this stone is not owned by Agora" (inclusive) to the end of the list item.
[Growth and the Anti-Equatorial Stone depend on mossiness, which no
longer exists. The Loud Stone depends on Dreams, which no longer exist.
The Protection Stone depends on immunity, which no longer Next, Also,
clean up references to immunity. Finally, the Hot Potato Stone no longer
needs to restrict transference, as stones are now fixed.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [proposal] Stone cleanups
On 4/14/24 15:06, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Stone cleanups
>
> Adoption index: 2.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by deleting the list item
> (including the bullet point) that contains "Growth".
>
> Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by deleting the list item (including the
> bullet point) that contains "Anti-Equatorial".
>
> [Both of these depend on mossiness, which no longer exists.]
>
> }
>
I withdraw the above proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Stone cleanups
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by deleting the list item
(including the bullet point) that contains "Growth".
Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by, as a single amendment, deleting the
list item (including the bullet point) that contains "Anti-Equatorial"
and the list item (including the bullet point) that contains "Loud".
[Growth and the Anti-Equatorial Stone depend on mossiness, which no
longer exists. The Loud Stone depends on Dreams, which no longer exist.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Stone cleanups
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Stone cleanups
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
{
Amend Rule 2451 ("Executive Orders") by deleting the list item
(including the bullet point) that contains "Growth".
Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by deleting the list item (including the
bullet point) that contains "Anti-Equatorial".
[Both of these depend on mossiness, which no longer exists.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Proposal] Spendy Sizing
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Spendy Sizing
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing
{
A player is crystallized if the total size of crystals e owns is
at least the number of rules in the current ruleset.
}
with
{
A player is crystallized if the total size of crystals e owns is
at least the number of rules in the current ruleset.
A player CAN increase the size of a specified crystal by 1 by paying
a fee of 11 spendies.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] Preventing catastrophe.
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: More instability with a hyphen
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors: R. Lee
Amend rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing
"- If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the
instability
of that crystal is increased by 1."
with
"- If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the
instability of that crystal is increased by 2."
[The above hyphen was missing in the previous version.]
}}}
--
snail
Re: BUS: [proposal] Welcome package fix
On 4/10/24 11:16, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 4/10/24 11:13, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Welcome package fix, again
>>
>> Author: Janet
>>
>> Coauthors: Aris
>>
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>>
>> {
>>
>> Amend Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages") to read, in whole:
>>
>> {
>>
>> When a player receives a welcome package, if e has not received a
>> welcome package, including under any previous definition, since e last
>> registered nor in the last 30 days, e gains the following assets:
>> * One stamp of eir own type.
>>
>> A player CAN, by announcement, cause a specified player to receive a
>> welcome package (syn. "grant" em a welcome package).
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>> [Clarify the issues identified with welcome packages previously. There
>> has been discussion of adding pro-rated spendies, but that will be done
>> separately.]
>>
>> }
>>
> I withdraw the above-submitted proposal.
>
> Title: Welcome package fix, again
> Author: Janet
> Coauthors: Aris
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages") to read, in whole:
>
> {
>
> When a player receives a welcome package, if e has not received a
> welcome package, including under any previous definition, since e last
> registered nor in the last 30 days, e gains the following assets:
>
> * One stamp of eir own type.
>
> A player CAN, by announcement, cause a specified player to receive a
> welcome package (syn. "grant" em a welcome package).
>
> }
>
>
> [Clarify the issues identified with welcome packages previously. There
> has been discussion of adding pro-rated spendies, but that will be done
> separately. Only a formatting change from V1.]
>
> }
>
Goddammit. I withdraw each proposal I submitted in the above-quoted message.
I submit the following proposal
Title: Welcome package fix, again, again
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Aris
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Amend Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages") to read, in whole:
{
When a player receives a welcome package, if e has not received a
welcome package, including under any previous definition, since e last
registered nor in the last 30 days, e gains the following assets:
* One stamp of eir own type.
A player CAN, by announcement, cause a specified player to receive a
welcome package (syn. "grant" em a welcome package).
}
[Clarify the issues identified with welcome packages previously. There
has been discussion of adding pro-rated spendies, but that will be done
separately. Only a formatting change from V1.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [proposal] Welcome package fix
On 4/10/24 11:13, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Welcome package fix, again
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors: Aris
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages") to read, in whole:
>
> {
>
> When a player receives a welcome package, if e has not received a
> welcome package, including under any previous definition, since e last
> registered nor in the last 30 days, e gains the following assets:
> * One stamp of eir own type.
>
> A player CAN, by announcement, cause a specified player to receive a
> welcome package (syn. "grant" em a welcome package).
>
> }
>
>
> [Clarify the issues identified with welcome packages previously. There
> has been discussion of adding pro-rated spendies, but that will be done
> separately.]
>
> }
>
I withdraw the above-submitted proposal.
Title: Welcome package fix, again
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Aris
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Amend Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages") to read, in whole:
{
When a player receives a welcome package, if e has not received a
welcome package, including under any previous definition, since e last
registered nor in the last 30 days, e gains the following assets:
* One stamp of eir own type.
A player CAN, by announcement, cause a specified player to receive a
welcome package (syn. "grant" em a welcome package).
}
[Clarify the issues identified with welcome packages previously. There
has been discussion of adding pro-rated spendies, but that will be done
separately. Only a formatting change from V1.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Welcome package fix
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Welcome package fix, again
Author: Janet
Coauthors: Aris
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Amend Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages") to read, in whole:
{
When a player receives a welcome package, if e has not received a
welcome package, including under any previous definition, since e last
registered nor in the last 30 days, e gains the following assets:
* One stamp of eir own type.
A player CAN, by announcement, cause a specified player to receive a
welcome package (syn. "grant" em a welcome package).
}
[Clarify the issues identified with welcome packages previously. There
has been discussion of adding pro-rated spendies, but that will be done
separately.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: crystals change
I create the following proposal. The reason for it is because one weird attribute of crystals is that power 3 rules can never change ownership. the size increases by 3 each time and the instability increases by a max of 3. Title: More instability so crystals can actually change hands AI: 1 Text: Amend rule 2685 'Crystals' by replacing "- If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the instability of that crystal is increased by 1." with "If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the instability of that crystal is increased by 2."
Re: BUS: [proposal] Spendor definition
On 4/10/24 11:02, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Who are you, again?
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> {
>
> Amend the Rule entitled "Spendies" by prepending the following paragraph:
>
> {
>
> The Spendor is an office.
>
> }
>
> }
>
*sigh*
I withdraw the above-submitted proposal.
Title: Who are you, again, again?
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Amend the Rule entitled "Spendies" by prepending the following paragraph:
{
The Spendor is an office.
}
The Officeholder of Spendor is hereby flipped to nix.
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Spendor definition
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Who are you, again?
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Amend the Rule entitled "Spendies" by prepending the following paragraph:
{
The Spendor is an office.
}
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Proposal] Spendie Fixie
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Spendie Fixie
AI: 2.0
Author: nix
Co-Authors: Murphy, ais523, Janet
[Spendies v1.1 both failed to repeal R2643 and may have accidentally
repealed 2642. This proposal fixes both of those.]
Reenact R2642 (Stone Cost) with a Power of 2 and the full text:
Stone Cost is a Stone switch with values of non-negative integers
and a default of 10. Stone Cost is tracked by the Stonemason.
Any player CAN pay a fee of X Spendies to transfer a specified stone
to emself, where X is the current Stone Cost of the specified stone.
When a stone is transferred, its Stone Cost is set to the default.
At the beginning of every week, the Stone Cost for each stone is
reduced by 1, to a minimum of 0.
[If the rule is repealed, this brings it back. If the rule isn't
repealed, it does nothing.]
Repeal R2643 (Collecting Stones).
If no player has any Spendies, grant each player 20 Spendies.
[Get Spendies running properly if they aren't already.]
}
--
nix
Arbitor
BUS: [proposal] A repeal
I submit the following proposal:
Title: A repeal
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Repeal the Rule entitled "Agora of Empires".
[The only gameplay this has produced is what was effectively an Apathy
attempt, and it does not appear likely to produce more in the future.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [proposal] Better late than never
I submit the following proposal:
Title: SLR ratification 2023-12-31
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published by Janet on or about December
31, 2023 at 21:12:14 UTC, available at [0].
[0]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-December/017538.html
[I was required to submit such a proposal for Ratify the Ruleset Week
but forgot to. Sorry.]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
I create the following proposal:
---
Title: yes, yes, I got the memo
Author: Gaelan
AI: 1.7
Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
it has one).
} with {
A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
already been investigated.
}
[Currently, if an infraction is noted after it is investigated,
the Investigator SHALL but CANNOT investigate it. This would be
automatically forgiven by 2531, so it’s not an issue in practice,
but let’s fix it properly.]
---
Gaelan
BUS: Proposal: Don't humiliate the recently departed
I create the following proposal: {
Title: Don't humiliate the recently departed
AI: 2
Amend rule 2168 ("Extending the Voting Period”) by replacing "despite being
eligible” with "despite being eligible players”.
}
Gaelan
Re: BUS: Proposal: one from the archives
I withdraw the quoted proposal and create an identical one, but
with Kate as a co-author.
Gaelan
> On Mar 24, 2024, at 9:16 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> I create the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: One from the archives
> Author: Gaelan
> AI: 1
>
> Re-enact rule 417, with the following text: {
> The Archivist is an office; its holder is responsible for ensuring
> the continued availability of documents of historical interest.
>
> The archivist’s monthly report contains:
> * Instructions for accessing collections of:
>* Texts of each historic rule revision.
>* Texts of each proposal.
>* Judicial cases.
>* Public messages.
>* Messages to discussion fora.
>* Theses for which a person was awarded a degree.
>* Optionally, any other documents the Archivist deems worthy
> of archival.
> * A description of the completeness of each of the above
>collections.
>
> The referenced collections NEED NOT be perfectly complete or
> accurate, but the Archivist SHOULD work towards improving
> their completeness and accuracy.
> }
>
> Re-title rule 417 to “The Archivist”.
>
> Amend Rule 2581 by appending the following item to the list: {
> - Archaeologist, awardable by the Archivist to any player who
> makes a significant contribution to filling in missing
> historical records.
> }
>
> Make Gaelan the Archivist.
>
> [History for the Rulekeepor’s benefit, copied from Zefram’s rule
> archive:
> ??? by Proposal 417 [presumably enacted - Gaelan]
> Amended(1) by Proposal 1302, 4 November 1994
> Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995
> Amended(3) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995
> Amended(4) by Proposal 1741, 15 October 1995
> Amended(5) by Proposal 2029, 28 November 1995
> Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 23 January 1996
> Amended(7) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996
> Amended(8) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996
> Null-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996
> Repealed as Power=1 Rule 417 by Proposal 3787 (Steve), 8 September 1998
> ]
>
> [This is intentionally written loosely to allow the Archivist to
> defer to existing archives - for example that maintained by the
> CotC - where appropriate.]
> }}}
BUS: Proposal: one from the archives
I create the following proposal:
{{{
Title: One from the archives
Author: Gaelan
AI: 1
Re-enact rule 417, with the following text: {
The Archivist is an office; its holder is responsible for ensuring
the continued availability of documents of historical interest.
The archivist’s monthly report contains:
* Instructions for accessing collections of:
* Texts of each historic rule revision.
* Texts of each proposal.
* Judicial cases.
* Public messages.
* Messages to discussion fora.
* Theses for which a person was awarded a degree.
* Optionally, any other documents the Archivist deems worthy
of archival.
* A description of the completeness of each of the above
collections.
The referenced collections NEED NOT be perfectly complete or
accurate, but the Archivist SHOULD work towards improving
their completeness and accuracy.
}
Re-title rule 417 to “The Archivist”.
Amend Rule 2581 by appending the following item to the list: {
- Archaeologist, awardable by the Archivist to any player who
makes a significant contribution to filling in missing
historical records.
}
Make Gaelan the Archivist.
[History for the Rulekeepor’s benefit, copied from Zefram’s rule
archive:
??? by Proposal 417 [presumably enacted - Gaelan]
Amended(1) by Proposal 1302, 4 November 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1741, 15 October 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2029, 28 November 1995
Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 23 January 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996
Amended(8) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996
Null-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996
Repealed as Power=1 Rule 417 by Proposal 3787 (Steve), 8 September 1998
]
[This is intentionally written loosely to allow the Archivist to
defer to existing archives - for example that maintained by the
CotC - where appropriate.]
}}}
BUS: [Proposal] Spendies
Below is my spendies proposal. Some of the changes from the proto are
outlined in that thread. The big change is lowering the number from 100
to 20, and adjusting the costs of things to match. This was based on a
suggestion from kiako to encourage less round numbers to be used, which
may encourage more trading.
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Spendies v1.1
Author: nix
Co-Authors: Janet, kiako
AI: 2
[Spendies are simple. We all start with the same amount every month,
and if you don't use them you lose them. You can transfer them, put
them in contracts, etc. But they will go away. What's important is what
you do with them in that month.]
Enact a new (Power=1) rule titled Spendies with the text:
Spendies are a currency ownable by players and contracts. Spendies
are tracked by the Spendor in eir weekly report.
At the end of each month, all Spendies are destroyed. At the
beginning of each month, every player is granted 20 Spendies.
[Quick compatibility with another proposal]
If a proposal titled "FUNgibility" and authored by nix has been adopted
within the last 90 days, amend the rule titled "Spendies" to replace
"currency" with "fungible liquid asset".
[Delete dream of wandering.]
Repeal R2675 (Dream of Wandering).
[Below stones are simplified, similarly to the stamp specialization
proposal I made previously. You simply buy them for a cost that
decreases every month while the stone has the same owner.]
Amend R2640 (Stones) by replacing:
A stone is a unique indestructible liquid asset
with:
A stone is a unique indestructible fixed asset
and deleting its last two paragraphs.
Amend R2641 (Wielding Stones) by replacing:
While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it or to transfer it
by announcement.
with:
While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it.
Retitle R2642 (Gathering Stones) to "Stone Cost" and then amend R2642 to
read in full:
Stone Cost is a Stone switch with values of non-negative integers
and a default of 10. Stone Cost is tracked by the Stonemason.
Any player CAN pay a fee of X Spendies to transfer a specified stone
to emself, where X is the current Stone Cost of the specified stone.
When a stone is transferred, its Stone Cost is set to the default.
At the beginning of every week, the Stone Cost for each stone is
reduced by 1, to a minimum of 0.
Repeal R2642 (Gathering Stones).
[Similarly, let's include stamps. Remember Dreams are gone, so this is
now the primary way to get new stamps. Use Spendies to get stamps from
L&FD, or mint more of your own. There's some modifications to the cost
to account for scale, which also discourages timing scams somewhat.]
Amend R2659 (Stamps) by appending the following paragraphs:
Any player CAN pay a fee of 5 Spendies to grant emself X stamps of
eir own type. When less than 8 Stamps of eir type exist, X is 2.
When 8 to 15 Stamps of eir type exist, X is 1. When 16 or more
stamps of eir type exist, X is 0.
Any player CAN pay a fee of 5 + (X) Spendies to transfer a
specified stamp from the L&FD to emself. X is equal to the number of
times e has already done so in the current month.
[Finally, you can buy some radiance, tho the cost is fairly high. Might
push you across the finish line tho, or at least give a use for some
spare Spendies.]
Amend R2656 (Radiance) by appending the following paragraph:
Any player CAN increase eir radiance by 1 by paying a fee of 2
Spendies.
}
--
nix
Arbitor
BUS: [proposal] Empire fixes
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Empire fixes
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Amend the Rule entitled "Agora of Empires" by, as a single amendment
(using the following steps, as if they were applied in order, to compute
the final text):
* Replacing the text "There exists a document known as the Empireworld"
with "There exists a document, initially empty, known as the Empireworld".
* Replacing each instance of the text "CfJ" with the text "CFJ".
* Replacing the text "when ey believe it to be appropriate" with "when
they believe it to be appropriate". [The antecedent is "Imperials",
which is plural.]
* Replacing the final paragraph with the following:
{
An Imperial CAN, without 2 objections, Dominate the World provided that
(1) the Empireworld shows that e has accomplished at least 3
extraordinary feats in the fictional world that the Empireworld
describes since e last won the game as a result of this Rule and that
(2) no person has won the game as a result of this Rule in the past 30
days. When a player Dominates the World, e wins the game.
This Rule does not describe what qualifies as an extraordinary feat.
}
Set the Empireworld to what it would be had it been empty initially
after the enactment of the Rule entitled "Agora of Empires".
[Fixes the uninitialized state, fixes minor grammar issues, does the
standard win indirection, and removes the double "by announcement" and
"without 2 objections" method for winning (which *shouldn't* allow by
announcement wins by precedent, but should be fixed in any case).]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Proposal] Mourning shattered crystals
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Less Fragile Crystals
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
[Makes it so crystals can't be destroyed by the player that owns them,
which doesn't seem fun. Also gets rid of the "repeal this rule once someone
wins" part since we can just do that by proposal if we want. I'd rather it
stay around by default.]
Amend Rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing
{
A crystal is an asset with secured integer switches identity, size
(default 0), and instability (default 0).
}
with
{
A crystal is an indestructible asset with secured integer switches
identity, size
(default 0), and instability (default 0).
}
and by replacing
{
Any player CAN, by announcement, Shatter the System, specifying
each crystallized player, and provided that no player has done so
in the past 30 days. When a player does so, each crystallized
player wins the game.
If at least 4 days have passed since any player won the game in
this manner, any player CAN repeal this rule by announcement.
}
with
{
Any player CAN, by announcement, Shatter the System, specifying
at least 1 crystallized player, and provided that no person has done
so
in the past 30 days. When a player does so, each crystallized
player wins the game.
If a player won the game in this manner 4 days ago, then all existing
crystals are destroyed.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] FUNgibility
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: FUNgibility
Author: nix
Co-Authors:
AI: 3
[Right now, sentences like "Blank are an asset ownable by..." is
interpreted to adding to a default within R2576. This seems unintuitive.
This proposal makes that default only apply if there's no mention of
ownership.]
Retitle R2578 (Currencies) to "Fungibility"
Amend R2578 to read in full:
A fungible asset is one where two instances of it are considered
equivalent if they have the same owner, for the purposes of
specification, granting, and transferring. The total amount of a
fungible asset that an entity owns is also know as that entities
"balance" of that asset.
Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing:
Stamps of a given type are a currency.
with:
Stamps of a given type are fungible.
Amend R2555 (Blots) by replacing:
Blots are an indestructible fixed currency
with:
Blots are an indestructible fixed fungible asset
}
--
nix
Arbitor
BUS: [Proposal] No Hidden Ownership Restrictions
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: No Hidden Ownership Restrictions
Author: nix
Co-Authors: Janet, kiako
AI: 3
[Right now, sentences like "Blank are an asset ownable by..." is
interpreted to adding to a default within R2576. This seems unintuitive.
This proposal makes that default only apply if there's no mention of
ownership.]
Amend R2576 (Ownership) by replacing:
If ownership of an asset is restricted to a class of entities, then
that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside
that class. By default, ownership of an asset is restricted to
Agora, players, and contracts, but an asset's backing document may
modify this.
with:
An asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity unless its
backing document specifies that entity can own it. If an asset's
backing document is otherwise silent on which entities can own it,
then it can be owned by Agora, players, and contracts.
Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing:
Stamps are a category of asset ownable by players .
with:
Stamps are a category of asset ownable by players and Agora.
}
--
nix
Arbitor
BUS: [proposal] Close enough rulekeeping
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Close enough
Author: Janet
Coauthors:
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 105 by deleting the text " and the next change identifier".
[Remove the reference to "change identifiers" (presumably just revision
numbers) for reenactment.]
Amend Rule 1681 by, as a single amendment, deleting the text ", revision
number, " and inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph
beginning "The listing of each rule in the SLR":
{
The listing of each rule in the SLR must additionally include a
reasonably accurate approximation of the number of changes made to the
rule (the rule's revision number). The Rulekeepor may exercise
reasonable discretion in calculating revision numbers.
}
[Define what a rule's "revision number" is and explicitly grant the
Rulekeepor discretion in calculating it (e.g. not counting certain
amendments (back when we used Suber-style proposals that re-numbered
rules) or skipping revision numbers (for historical reasons).]
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Proposal] In case of unexpected nonplayerhood
I submit this proposal: // Title: In case of unexpected nonplayerhood Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Kate Co-authors: Gaelan In Rule 2492 (Recusal), s/deregistered/unregistered [Allows a judge to be removed if, through some mishap, the CFJ has been assigned to someone who has never been a player or who ceased to be a player through some means other than deregistration. Composition fully intended to annoy Janet, but I think completely effective under the new standard of "clear to a reasonable player".] // -Kate
BUS: [Proposal] vacations v4
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Vacations v4
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author: snail
Co-authors: nix, Janet, 4st, Yachay, G., juan, Murphy, ais523
[This proposal adds Vacations and Delegation, which encourage officers
to take time off and give the responsibility to someone else for a
while. Not only is this intended to reduce burnout for officers, but it
is also intended to be an opportunity for other players to learn an
office without fully committing to it. snail's note: this version allows a
delegate to resign by announcement. This should work fine: anyone can then
become the delegate with Agoran Consent, or by the officer making an intent
to give another player delegate (perhaps their second choice).]
Amend R2438 by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an
office" with "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office or is the
delegate for an office while its holder is on vacation."
Enact a new Power=3 rule titled "Vacations & Delegation" with the
following text:
Delegate is an Office switch with possible values of "None" and
any active player, and default value of "None". Delegates are
tracked by the ADoP in eir weekly report.
A player CAN flip the Delegate switch of a specified office to
emself with Agoran Consent. If the Delegate switch of an office is
set to "None", the holder of that office CAN flip the Delegate
switch of that office to a specified player with support from that
specified player.
An officer CAN and SHOULD take a Vacation from a specified office e
has continuously held for over 6 months with 7 day notice, if e has
not done so in the last year. When an officer qualifies for a
Vacation, the ADoP SHOULD encourage em to take one, at least once a
quarter.
An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a
Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. The list of officers
currently on vacation is part of the ADoP's report.
While the holder of an office is On Vacation, the Delegate of that
office CAN perform an action ordinarily reserved for the office-holder
as if e held the office, if it would be POSSIBLE for the Delegate to
perform the action, other than by this method, if e held the office.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, while an officer is On
Vacation that officer NEED NOT comply with any duties of that
office, and the Delegate, if any, SHALL comply with all duties of
the office as if e held the office.
The Delegate of an office CANNOT resign it. E CAN, by announcement,
flip the Delegate
switch of that office to "None".
}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] ROCK
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Loud Stone
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by appending the following paragraph:
{
- Loud Stone (monthly, 4): When wielded, a specified player's Dream is set
to a specified Dream, and then e is Beguiled; Beguiling is secured. A
player's Dream CANNOT be flipped if e was Beguiled in the last 7 days,
rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
}
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] Coauthored Crystals
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Coauthored Crystals
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing
{
- If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the
instability of that crystal is increased by 3.
}
with
{
- If that crystal's owner is not the author of that proposal, the
instability of that crystal is increased by 1.
- If that crystal's owner is not the author or coauthor of that proposal,
the
instability of that crystal is increased by 2.
}
[This makes the rule function the same when there's no coauthors, but if
there's a coauthor that owns the crystal of the modified rule, its
instability is only increased by 1 instead of 3.]
}}}
--
snail
BUS: [proposal] vacations v3
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: Vacations v3
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author: snail
Co-authors: nix, Janet, 4st, Yachay, G., juan, Murphy
[This proposal adds Vacations and Delegation, which encourage officers
to take time off and give the responsibility to someone else for a
while. Not only is this intended to reduce burnout for officers, but it
is also intended to be an opportunity for other players to learn an
office without fully committing to it. snail's note: added a simple consent
check of having to support becoming a delegate, instead of the changes i
did before. Also still changed the deputization-like clause.]
Amend R2438 by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an
office" with "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office or is the
delegate for an office while its holder is on vacation."
Enact a new Power=3 rule titled "Vacations & Delegation" with the
following text:
Delegate is an Office switch with possible values of "None" and
any active player, and default value of "None". Delegates are
tracked by the ADoP in eir weekly report.
A player CAN flip the Delegate switch of a specified office to
emself with Agoran Consent. If the Delegate switch of an office is
set to "None", the holder of that office CAN flip the Delegate
switch of that office to a specified player with support from that
specified player.
An officer CAN and SHOULD take a Vacation from a specified office e
has continuously held for over 6 months with 7 day notice, if e has
not done so in the last year. When an officer qualifies for a
Vacation, the ADoP SHOULD encourage em to take one, at least once a
quarter.
An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a
Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. The list of officers
currently on vacation is part of the ADoP's report.
While the holder of an office is On Vacation, the Delegate of that
office CAN perform an action ordinarily reserved for the office-holder
as if e held the office, if it would be POSSIBLE for the Delegate to
perform the action, other than by this method, if e held the office.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, while an officer is On
Vacation that officer NEED NOT comply with any duties of that
office, and the Delegate, if any, SHALL comply with all duties of
the office as if e held the office.
}
--
snail
BUS: [Proposal] (@Promotor) A Loud Noise
I submit the following proposal:
{{{
Title: Wake Up Call
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2675 (Dream of Wandering) by replacing "Dream is a secured
active player switch" with "Dream is an active player switch".
Enact a new Rule with Power 1 and title "Clapping" and the following text:
{
Each player CAN, with 3 support, Clap. When a player Claps, each active
player's Dream is set to Wandering. A player CANNOT Clap if any person has
Clapped in the past 2 weeks.
}
}}}
--
snail
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Things Mean What They're Meant to Mean
On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 3:08 PM Aris via agora-business wrote: > > I submit the following proposal. > > -Aris > --- > Title: Things Mean What They're Meant to Mean I retract this proposal and submit the following. No substantive changes. I'm sorry, Promotor. -Aris --- Title: Things Mean What They're Meant to Mean Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: G. Amend Rule 105, "Rule Changes", by adding at the end of the paragraph: A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. the text: If a specification would ever be interpreted as causing multiple changes to happen at once, it is instead interpreted as attempting to cause them to occur separately, in the order they are listed in the specification. and by replacing the paragraph: Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. with: Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule. Furthermore, if the change being specified would be clear to any reasonable player, the specification is not ambiguous, even if it is incorrect or unclear on its face. This provision does not prevent the specification of undesirable changes; for instance, an amendment which adds a typo is not corrected to remove the typo. and by replacing the text: 5. retitle (syn. amend the title of) a rule. with: 5. retitle a rule. [Removing the synonym, since it should no longer be needed.] At 4st's request, it is publicly noted that e is very silly for calling this proposal an unnecessary bug fix. [Some further examples of what should now work: 1. An amendment to the power of a rule is read as a change of the rule's power. 2. A repeal of a section of a rule is read as an amendment which removes that section. 3. Ellipses are read sensibly in rule quotations. 4. "Enact the following:" enacts the rule, unless it could sensibly be read as enacting a regulation. 5. "Append the following paragraph" works even if two paragraphs are clearly specified. (It still fails if it's unclear whether the text means one or two paragraphs though.) You get the point.]
