Re: DIS: Proto: Economy
BobTHJ wrote:
Create a rule called Certification with Power 1 that reads:
{
A Player must be certified to perform any of the following actions:
* Submitting a ballot for distributed proposals
* Supporting or opposing a dependent action
* Submitting a proposal for distribution
If a player who performs one of the above actions and is not certified
to perform that action then that action is void and is treated as if the
Player never attempted to perform that action.
Charging for proposals has historically led to stagnation.
Each License has an initial cost to purchase, and in addition each
License requires a monthly renewal fee to be paid to the Agoran
Treasury. Unless otherwise specified, the cost to purchase a License
shall be $2,500, and the renewal fee for a license shall be $500. The
Secretary of the Treasury shall collect renewal fees from each Licensee
as soon as possible after the first of each month.
If this and the other proposals were adopted today, there would be 19
players (not counting HP3-14 who are going away soon) and 8 offices, and
we would need a minimum of two licenses (proposing and voting). Let's
look at how quickly the total money supply would shrink:
Initial funds = (19 * $1,000) - (2 * $2,500) = $14,000
Monthly change = (8 * $500) - (19 * $200) - (2 * $500) = -$800
This would bankrupt all players in about a year and a half, plus
about one month per new registration. Do you intend for the players
to have to vote themselves more money every few months?
Re: DIS: Proto: Economy
On 5/14/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BobTHJ wrote:
Create a rule called Certification with Power 1 that reads:
{
A Player must be certified to perform any of the following actions:
* Submitting a ballot for distributed proposals
* Supporting or opposing a dependent action
* Submitting a proposal for distribution
If a player who performs one of the above actions and is not certified
to perform that action then that action is void and is treated as if the
Player never attempted to perform that action.
Charging for proposals has historically led to stagnation.
Maybe that would be the case here, I don't have the experience to know.
However, a certificate gives you the ability to propose for a period of up
to two weeks, so you can prepare your protos and then buy a certificate once
you are ready to push them all through.
Each License has an initial cost to purchase, and in addition each
License requires a monthly renewal fee to be paid to the Agoran
Treasury. Unless otherwise specified, the cost to purchase a License
shall be $2,500, and the renewal fee for a license shall be $500. The
Secretary of the Treasury shall collect renewal fees from each Licensee
as soon as possible after the first of each month.
If this and the other proposals were adopted today, there would be 19
players (not counting HP3-14 who are going away soon) and 8 offices, and
we would need a minimum of two licenses (proposing and voting). Let's
look at how quickly the total money supply would shrink:
Initial funds = (19 * $1,000) - (2 * $2,500) = $14,000
Monthly change = (8 * $500) - (19 * $200) - (2 * $500) = -$800
This would bankrupt all players in about a year and a half, plus
about one month per new registration. Do you intend for the players
to have to vote themselves more money every few months?
I'm sorry, I meant to specify and I forgot. I intend to change the initial
amount of Currency per player from $1k to $10k, thus the reason for these
numbers and not smaller ones. And, while there is a fixed amount of currency
in the economy (this is intended to make it a limited resource), it is never
destroyed. License fees are paid into the Treasury and then re-distributed
back out to Officers. I'm sure a social program could be developed as well
to award money from the Treasury to those who are less fortunate. Or a
government contracts system where the Treasury pays players to perform
services on it's behalf.
BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday
Ed Murphy wrote: If a partnership contains exactly the same members as another registered partnership, then it is prohibited from registering. You haven't constructed such a situation, so this limitation is insufficient. You need to determine the ultimate subject of obligations, which is a set of natural players. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday
I actually find it quite interesting to have partnerships as Shareholders. I'd hate to see that go away due to a rule change. On 5/13/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BobTHJ wrote: Being that Primo Corporation is not a partnership, I don't believe it would exist as a player under this new rule. As CEO, I am gravely concerned by this language... It assigns rights and obligations to all partners, therefore it's a partnership even if it doesn't call itself one. I will likely have HP2 and SSE withdraw from it, though, to avoid ambiguity.
DIS: Re: BUS: Last-minute revisions
Ed Murphy wrote: Human Point Two changes the requested AI of the proposal Delete, Delete, Delete! to 1.01 It can't. AI must be a multiple of 0.1. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Army of Ghosts
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Human Point Two and I have made a R1742 binding agreement, the text of which is: I believe this doesn't work. Obligations on HP3 are translated, by that agreement, into obligations on HP2 and Murphy, and then by HP2's agreement into obligations on Quazie and Murphy. Obligations on HPn all amount to obligations on Quazie and Murphy. The subject of obligations is the same in all cases, so they're all the same legal person. But the things that the natural persons are obligated to do are different. A bit trivially in this particular case, but consider the following hypothetical situation: Five players create and register a Pineapple-type partnership (whose charter merely obliges them to cause it to obey the Agoran rules). They happen to be the five natural-person members of Primo Corporation (whose charter obliges them to do various things internal to Primo, e.g. maintain records). Are these counted as a single partnership, and the charters counted as a single charter? One of the five then claims to leave the Pineapple-type partnership, but remain part of Primo. Now what happens?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: If a partnership contains exactly the same members as another registered partnership, then it is prohibited from registering. You haven't constructed such a situation, so this limitation is insufficient. You need to determine the ultimate subject of obligations, which is a set of natural players. In combination with the explicit definition of person as excluding multi-tier arrangements, it should be sufficient. While I find it interesting to have other partnerships participate in Primo, there are limits to the number of levels that I wish to untangle. I also want to avoid boring repeats of the HPn scam, which No Free Votes II would also accomplish.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Registration Prohibits Silent Partners
Goethe wrote: Murphy wrote: If such an agreement is registered, then as soon as possible after its membership changes, it shall announce which players have joined and which have left. This requirement is satisfied if the information is published by a member of the agreement, or a person who was a member immediately before the change. It's interesting to watch the pull for regulation vs. privacy (silent partnerships always being an obsession of mine, this is third time I've tried to allow one). We ask for more regulation of these unfamiliar relationships than of personhood (e.g. we don't require an ID check of players to prevent Annabel-like issues). Also, rules like the above ignore the fact that they are trivial to get around at need. For example, the Registered Agreement could defer to a second, non-registered agreement as its governing council... anyone recall the UNDEAD? Zefram's interpretation in CFJ 1623 was that a partnership must assign rights and obligations to the partners. This could be extended by interpreting that anyone assigned rights and obligations, even indirectly, is a partner. In general Agorans seem to dislike, and feel the need to regulate, substructure (e.g. subgroups) rather than allowing functions of them to be privitized, and therefore subject to some degree of confidentiality (which would be breakable only if squabbles between members came to light). I'm not sure what drives that, it tends to make subgroups more unregulated, not less, as it relegates them to true scams and the like. In this case, at least, I think it's because the functions in question (i.e. how many partners does Pineapple have left?) directly impact the rule-defined gamestate (i.e. does Pineapple still exist as a player?). Second-System Effect will address this issue from a different angle.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1651 assigned to Quazie
Ed Murphy wrote: If someone did what you said, then an explicit list as per the last sentence of R107(b) would be our only recourse. That recourse is not in fact available. Per CFJ 1652, the set of eligible voters can change during the voting period. In particular, the set of eligible voters on a proposal changes if a new player registers. A fixed list of voters cannot be correct given such unpredictability. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Linked CFJs
Ed Murphy wrote: I submit the following linked CFJs, barring Zefram, Goethe, and the Pineapple Partnership: You've thus barred all the players that you could be sure would have the knowledge necessary to judge the CFJs. Pessimal. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Currency
So, does the Economy proto-proposal do an adequate job of creating and tapping into scarce commodities? That problem was one of the first to come to mind when I set out to devise a currency/economy, and I think I came up with a solution that will give currency meaning, use, and a reason to be exchanged. BobTHJ On 5/14/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: Once again Zefram, I call you out on this one. My time is a scarce commodity. Your time is not interchangeable with anyone else's time, and cannot be arbitrarily repurposed. It's a scarce resource, to be sure, but not a commodity, and so not the stuff of which currencies are made. -zefram
DIS: Proto: Economy
Zefram wrote: Proposal proliferation is a good thing in a parliamentary nomic. It is the very basis of the game. I do not have time to wade through the implications of a dozen ill-conceived and clashing proposals in a single distribution. If I stay, I feel the need so review them, lest one of them put me in a box (e.g. like I was during CFJs 1413-1417). The basis of the parliamentary nomic is parliamentary procedure, not unfettered access to pure democracy (e.g. mob rule). This is the main reason I just deregistered. At the very least, we should charge for raising AI to 1.1, currently a free end-run around the ordinary. On the contrary, that's (at least temporarily) an essential safeguard for democracy. Why does the phrase it's just a temporary safeguard for democracy make me feel uneasy? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto: Economy
Kerim Aydin wrote: Why does the phrase it's just a temporary safeguard for democracy make me feel uneasy? Because you know some history. I feel uncomfortable uttering the phrase, too. But this temporary safeguard has the unusual feature that it operates by imposing a more democratic procedure than would otherwise apply. If it stays around, the worst that happens is that we have less of the undemocratic subgame. -zefram
DIS: Proto: Currency
My goodness, we are just at odds with this, mostly based on my 2001-2002 experiences vs. your ealier ones. Zefram wrote: The latter is a democratic mechanism that I think it is dangerous to mess with. (I also think it's dangerous to make AI=2 proposals undemocratic.) On the contrary, a previous system of Oligarchs in the AI-1 world versus variable voting power (VEs) on the AI 2+ level was reasonably protective of scams, at least as much as this one. In fact, it was the AI-1 ladder type scams which cause the most damage. A ladder scam is a scam which climbs the AI scale through attacking low-level definitions. Murphy et al's recent attempt was a perfect example; taking advantage of an AI-1 man-in-the-middle attack between proposals and the proposal process. The Town Fountain scam was another such example. Challenge: Is it possible to write a flexible, heirarchical rule structure so that changes to the whole structure are permissible in certain circumstances, but a ladder attack is not possible? Thats offtopic, though. Zefram wrote: High-AI proposals and actions Without Objection are among the usual tools of crisis recovery, so don't mess with them. What you're simply saying is that the revolution always works, that is as long as a sufficient number of actual persons meta-agree that the Rules need fixing, a mechanism will be found (e.g. the Annabel example, or Lindrum World). Setting up a particular mechanism (e.g. the current voting scheme for high AI proposals) as a sacred cow does not make it particularly more protective. However, we recently rejected a proposal for a more complex economy (Agoran Chromodynamics). Perhaps due to not having a critical mass of players. We suddenly have more players, this time around I'd change my vote. Your proposal will in general be more attractive if it can get its desired internal complexity with less officer work. Well ok, we agree on one point :). Nomics don't have those sorts of resources, on the whole, which is why capitalism doesn't arise naturally. Well, the question of what is a nomic for is really open. It doesn't in fact, build on real (or even virtual) resource bases in a meaningful way. It comes down to what's interesting for the players at the moment. Is it an artificial scarcity of voting power, coalition strength, points, karma, community standing, or what? We could play with any of those bases, provided a reasonable proportion of the players believe its of enough value. If it's just a discussion board, we need something to discuss. If it's voting for its own sake, we still need something with perceived meaning to vote on. There has to be something, or else we end up in a lull like the post-massive-repealing that we just woke out of with the re-introduction of VCs. It might as well be capitalist as anything. The fact that currencies have been re-invented so often in this game convinces me that they are natural. -Goethe
DIS: Proto: Currency
Zefram wrote: I think they're reinvented just because they're familiar to the players. I point again to the word invented: natural things are discovered, not invented. This is just semantics. Persons discover in a communal society that it is natural to have some medium of exchange for items of shared value and so invent one. Maybe we're mixing little-c and big-c capitalism. I think that markers of value, and means of exchanging them are natural. But those can exist in a gift economy, as well. As can loans and some other fiscal instruments. I think I'm with you that big-C capitalism (5% growth/quarter, taxes, etc.) doesn't work without scarce-but renewable resources, which we don't have (that's why we made land and weather towards the end of the old system, but you're right, it was unnatural). Risk reduction (e.g. insurance) doesn't work because the risk is unnatural, as well. Our resources are pretty much zero-sum (my increased voting power comes at the expense of yours). Big-C capitalism turns nasty in those situations. Maybe our Nomic is more in line with a natural society at the limits of its sustainability than the real world is. -Goethe
Re: DIS: no free votes
On 5/14/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, yes. Cue the overreaction. Eliminating the free vote scam would not be an overreaction. Fixing the rules so that ``person'' means ``person'' would not be an overreaction. (Since the legal argument for partnerships being able to register is tenuous anyway, this would hardly be a change.) On the other hand, forcibly deregistering players who are members of in partnerships would be an overreaction. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) I support this, partly because it makes sense and partly for the marvyness of having a useful rule of power 4. -- OscarMeyr, in agora-discussion
DIS: Re: BUS: realignment
On May 14, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I resign/cease to be bound by the Pineapple Parternship, as allowed by its charter. I can confirm that it does not dissolve, as it retains 2+ members. Great, do we need to reenact the Notary to keep track of partnerships' charters and registered membership? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Inhuman rights campaign
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to become the holder of the Office of Herald. BobTHJ On 5/14/07, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 9, 2007, at 9:39 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: I intend, with Agoran consent, to make the Pineapple Partnership the holder of the Office of Registrar. I intend, with Agoran consent, to make Human Point Two the holder of the Office of International Associate Director of Personnel. I'll support these in return for someone taking Herald off my hands. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: BUS: break time
On May 14, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I can't keep up right now. Need to enforce a break in myself, otherwise RL will suffer more (already is, can never seem to not get sucked in). Sincere apologies for leaving the CotC office so far behind. I'll continue to watch the (encouraging) developments with interest. I deregister. See you in two months or so. I look forward to your commentaries during your break. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: BUS: Summer break
Michael Slone wrote: I deregister from Agora. It is a pity to lose a player with such strong democratic sensibilities. I hope you'll be back. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Summer break
On May 14, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Michael Slone wrote: On 5/14/07, Jonathan Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, can't let Goethe take my most deregistrations crown. :) I deregister from Agora. Hope y'all have a good couple of months. Well, great. I deregister from Agora. Murphy, that leaves you and me as the only pre-2004 current registrations. Which one of us gets to deregister next? - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: transparent partnerships
Zefram wrote:
I hereby submit the following proposal, titled transparent partnerships:
{{{
Enact a rule with title Transparent Personhood and text:
When a non-natural person becomes a player, e is obliged to as
soon as possible announce the legal theory by which e is a person.
If e is a partnership, e is further obliged to as soon as possible
announce the set of eir members (the persons onto whom eir legal
rights and obligations fall).
}}}
-zefram
If I start a partnership with zefram, and then we announce that we are
in a partnership, and then add comex, do we need to announce this
addition under this rule?
DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Promotor candidacy
On 5/14/07, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 14 May 2007 18:52:21 Sherlock deregisters. 14 May 2007 18:00:12 Maud deregisters. I think the time you give for my deregistration is incorrect, since I deregistered after Sherlock did. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) In Australia the ground is blue and the sky has all manner of roads and buildings on it, with occasionally trees and grassy patches. -- Blob, in agora-discussion
DIS: Proto-Partnership Fix-em-up
Proto-Proposal - Partnerships with all the fixin's If the following text exists within the ruleset, delete it (f) The term person shall mean natural person or partnership of natural persons if a rule with the following text does not exist, create a rule entitled Limited Partnerships with said text If a partnership contains exactly the same members as another registered partnership, then it is prohibited from registering. If a registered partnership's membership changes such that it contains exactly the same members as another registered partnership, then it is deregistered. Add the following to the rule entitled Limited Partnerships Any partnership that has at least one non-natural player as a member may be derigestered with Natural Agoran Consent. add the following to R 2124 For the purposes of determining Natural Agoran Consent only Natural persons are considered players.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1651 assigned to Quazie
On 5/13/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You, sir, are cited for the use of domain-specific meanings in a general context. :P I would expect a goddess to know not to call me ``sir''. -- C. Maud Image There's your clue right there, Your Chaoticity! -/ I'm not invited to this party? Does anyone remember what happened the LAST TIME I wasn't invited to a party? -- The Goddess Eris, in agora-discussion
