DIS: Liquidity proto-proposal

[Owen Jacobson]

Any fixed Shiny level is going to be vulnerable to liquidity problems, to 
hyperinflation, to deflation, and to any of a number of other well-known 
failure modes. While Shinies have only one primary use case (pending 
proposals),wWith the creation of the AAaAA, there are now at least two formal 
secondary uses for Shinies, and recent activity has shown that there’s plenty 
of room for informal secondary uses as well. Therefore, taking a more serious 
look at liquidity is probably merited.

The classic approach to money supply management is through centralized lending 
and through fractional reserve banking. I think the active pool of Agora 
players is a bit too small to support a bank, which leaves centralized lending 
- that is, lending money to Agora, to be repaid with interest by Agora at a 
later date. To that end, here’s a brief sketch of a system:

* Eliminate the Shiny Supply Level entirely, eliminate or severely curtail 
Salaries, and eliminate Agora’s Balance switch. (Shinies paid to Agora are 
simply lost; Shinies paid by Agora appear out of nowhere.)

* Allow the Secretary to sell Bonds on behalf of Agora, without objection[? 
maybe with support? probably not by announcement]. A bond is a binding promise 
that Agora will, on a fixed future date, pay the holder the given number of 
Shinies. The purchasor of a Bond pays Agora the price of the Bond, and will be 
paid, by Agora, the value of the Bond at a later date. Generally, the price of 
a Bond is lower than the Value of a bond.

* Set a Prime Rate, which dictates the maximum value of a bond sold by Agora at 
a given price. Control the Prime Rate through proposals only, or through 
electioneering, whichever is more interesting.

* Allow the exchange of Bonds between players and organizations, probably under 
the Assets system.

The idea is to allow more proactive management of the money supply, while 
keeping it damped enough to prevent the mass creation of Shinies in a short 
period of time.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Enlargement of Agora Nomic

[Quazie]

What's agora's all time human player high? I know we got to a large number
at one point when human point two created point three through 10, but i'm
unsure what our realistic high water mark is.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 18:31 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> If we get even multiple thousands of players, I think we would have to
> bring on a full-time staff member.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 2017, at 7:38 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have a few major questions:
> >
> > You’re not kidding. These are complicated questions.
> >
> >> 1. Do we want more players?
> >
> > In as much as there is a “we”, the answer is probably that we want more
> players who are interesting to play alongside. More players who do nothing
> but draw Shinies and publish reports probably don’t improve the game in any
> meaningful way, while players who debate, critique, submit proposals, and
> otherwise advance the game are quite valuable.
> >
> > At least under the current rules, each player produces net work for at
> least the Registrar and the Secretary, and increase the load on omd’s mail
> servers by an insignificant but non-zero amount. Hundreds of players may
> well overwhelm those offices, or at least discourage the creation of rules
> that force affected officers to manually curate reports. Millions of
> players - a wild fantasy - might force serious re-work of the
> infrastructure that delivers Agora to the players.
> >
> >> 3. If yes, how do we get more players?
> >
> >
> > That’s a difficult one. Any Nomic is, in my experience, a Weird Game.
> Most people I’ve spoken to treat it as a curio, or are not interested in it
> at all, and forget about it quickly. Personally, I somewhat suspect that
> the people who would get the most out of playing already do Nomic-like
> things in their personal or professional lives anyways, and may see Agora
> as a drain on their time and attention: law students, debate club members,
> aspiring politicians and policy wonks, and so on.
> >
> > A coherent and generalized answer to “what’s fun about Agora” might be
> the start of a useful marketing campaign, though. Drawing in players by
> referral and by promoting the game in appropriate spaces (gaming fora,
> mainly) might well bring in a few new players, some of who may even stick
> around.
> >
> > -o
> >
>

Re: DIS: Enlargement of Agora Nomic

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

If we get even multiple thousands of players, I think we would have to
bring on a full-time staff member.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus


On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 7:38 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
>
>> I have a few major questions:
>
> You’re not kidding. These are complicated questions.
>
>> 1. Do we want more players?
>
> In as much as there is a “we”, the answer is probably that we want more 
> players who are interesting to play alongside. More players who do nothing 
> but draw Shinies and publish reports probably don’t improve the game in any 
> meaningful way, while players who debate, critique, submit proposals, and 
> otherwise advance the game are quite valuable.
>
> At least under the current rules, each player produces net work for at least 
> the Registrar and the Secretary, and increase the load on omd’s mail servers 
> by an insignificant but non-zero amount. Hundreds of players may well 
> overwhelm those offices, or at least discourage the creation of rules that 
> force affected officers to manually curate reports. Millions of players - a 
> wild fantasy - might force serious re-work of the infrastructure that 
> delivers Agora to the players.
>
>> 3. If yes, how do we get more players?
>
>
> That’s a difficult one. Any Nomic is, in my experience, a Weird Game. Most 
> people I’ve spoken to treat it as a curio, or are not interested in it at 
> all, and forget about it quickly. Personally, I somewhat suspect that the 
> people who would get the most out of playing already do Nomic-like things in 
> their personal or professional lives anyways, and may see Agora as a drain on 
> their time and attention: law students, debate club members, aspiring 
> politicians and policy wonks, and so on.
>
> A coherent and generalized answer to “what’s fun about Agora” might be the 
> start of a useful marketing campaign, though. Drawing in players by referral 
> and by promoting the game in appropriate spaces (gaming fora, mainly) might 
> well bring in a few new players, some of who may even stick around.
>
> -o
>

Re: DIS: Enlargement of Agora Nomic

[Owen Jacobson]

On Apr 28, 2017, at 7:38 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
 wrote:

> I have a few major questions:

You’re not kidding. These are complicated questions.

> 1. Do we want more players?

In as much as there is a “we”, the answer is probably that we want more players 
who are interesting to play alongside. More players who do nothing but draw 
Shinies and publish reports probably don’t improve the game in any meaningful 
way, while players who debate, critique, submit proposals, and otherwise 
advance the game are quite valuable.

At least under the current rules, each player produces net work for at least 
the Registrar and the Secretary, and increase the load on omd’s mail servers by 
an insignificant but non-zero amount. Hundreds of players may well overwhelm 
those offices, or at least discourage the creation of rules that force affected 
officers to manually curate reports. Millions of players - a wild fantasy - 
might force serious re-work of the infrastructure that delivers Agora to the 
players.

> 3. If yes, how do we get more players?


That’s a difficult one. Any Nomic is, in my experience, a Weird Game. Most 
people I’ve spoken to treat it as a curio, or are not interested in it at all, 
and forget about it quickly. Personally, I somewhat suspect that the people who 
would get the most out of playing already do Nomic-like things in their 
personal or professional lives anyways, and may see Agora as a drain on their 
time and attention: law students, debate club members, aspiring politicians and 
policy wonks, and so on.

A coherent and generalized answer to “what’s fun about Agora” might be the 
start of a useful marketing campaign, though. Drawing in players by referral 
and by promoting the game in appropriate spaces (gaming fora, mainly) might 
well bring in a few new players, some of who may even stick around.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3476 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

[Owen Jacobson]

On Apr 28, 2017, at 8:40 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> 
> There’s a fair bit of game convention that allows identifying players from 
> eir email addresses, if it’s not otherwise ambiguous for some reason. 
> Certainly, if I stopped signing my messages “-o”, nobody would have trouble 
> attributing messages from this address to me.
> 
> -o
> 
> 
> ​In fact I rarely sign at all.​ For all intents and purposes, my mailing 
> address is my signature.
> 

Funny story: that’s how my name ended up `o` instead of `owen`. I used your 
messages as a loose model when I submitted my original registration mail, and 
didn’t think to specify a name. When someone subsequently announced “o” had 
registered, I decided to roll with it rather than correcting my mistake.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3476 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

[Nicholas Evans]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> There’s a fair bit of game convention that allows identifying players from
> eir email addresses, if it’s not otherwise ambiguous for some reason.
> Certainly, if I stopped signing my messages “-o”, nobody would have trouble
> attributing messages from this address to me.
>
> -o
>
>
​In fact I rarely sign at all.​ For all intents and purposes, my mailing
address is my signature.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3476 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

[Owen Jacobson]

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus  
wrote:
> 
> Do we have statements one way or another from the players?

You may want to consider eir respective email addresses, from the last 
Registrar’s report, as well as Zachary Watterson’s stated intentions from eir 
first message under that name on agora-business:

> The below signature notwithstanding, I change my official nickname to
> Zachary Watterson, and my official meta-nickname to Gumball.

There’s a fair bit of game convention that allows identifying players from eir 
email addresses, if it’s not otherwise ambiguous for some reason. Certainly, if 
I stopped signing my messages “-o”, nobody would have trouble attributing 
messages from this address to me.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3476 assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I would love to here feedback on this, but I tink the main issue for
this is technical information and the definition of person.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus


On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Detail: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3476
>
> =  CFJ 3476  =
>
>   The Warrigal and Zachary Watterson are the same person.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:  o
>
> Judge:   Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> Judgement:
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by o:  19 Apr 2017
> Assigned to P.S.Scholasticus: as of this message
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
>
> ==
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3477 assigned to o

[Josh T]

The issue here as I see it is predicate level: there is a stage-level
interpretation and an individual-level interpretation. The individual-level
interpretation is that the adjective applies to the modified noun
intrinsically, that is, "the responsible people" at the individual-level
refers to people who are generally responsible. On the other hand, the
stage-level interpretation has a more holistic sense of the situation, with
a focus on the now: the stage-level interpretation of the aforementioned
statement, usually written as "the people responsible", using a
postpositive adjective, is generally interpreted as something like "the
people responsible for the situation at hand". Provided that allowable is
acceptable as a postpositive adjective, it seems reasonable to cast the
prepositive adjective statement as taking on the individual-level meaning,
which would agree with the interpretation of Quazie exceeding the Income
Cap.

天火狐

On 28 April 2017 at 19:47, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > If anyone can think of historical CFJs on the interpretation of
> “allowable” or a related term, I’m all ears.
>
> I got nothing.
>
> Dictionary seems to suggest either works.
>
> I think it's straight up "best interests of the game" territory here.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3477 assigned to o

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> If anyone can think of historical CFJs on the interpretation of “allowable” 
> or a related term, I’m all ears.

I got nothing.

Dictionary seems to suggest either works.

I think it's straight up "best interests of the game" territory here.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3478 assigned to ais523

[Owen Jacobson]

On Apr 28, 2017, at 7:36 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Detail: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3478
>> 
>> =  CFJ 3478  =
>> 
>>???'s highest allowable budget for a single player is 50.
> 
> My script uses mail from the command line using the following:
>> mail -s "[Arbitor] ${2}" agora-offic...@agoranomic.org < ../cases/${1}
> 
> This, unfortunately, forces the character set to ASCII.
> 
> I tried a workaround like this (bash):
>> (
>> cat << END
>> Subject: [Arbitor] ${2}
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
>> 
>> END
>> cat ../cases/${1}
>> ) | /usr/sbin/sendmail -i agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> 
> Funnily, this works perfectly when I send it to my own email address,
> but agora-official doesn't like it; two attempts completely vanished
> (never showed up in the official archives).
> 
> Any suggestions?

It’s hard to tell where things are going wrong, to be honest. Clearly, your 
local MTA can deal: you just posted the same notice by hand, and that worked.

mail(1) isn’t notorious for mangling its inputs, either: like most Unix 
utilities, it treats the input as a bag-o-bytes, for the most part. It does 
transform the message a bit, though, and could be the culprit. It’s interesting 
that switching from mail(1) to sendmail(1) changes the result.

What does `locale` think of the situation?

omd, if you’re around, would you be able to find out where the attempts sent 
through sendmail may have gone?

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3477 assigned to o

[Owen Jacobson]

If anyone can think of historical CFJs on the interpretation of “allowable” or 
a related term, I’m all ears.

-o

> On Apr 28, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> Detail: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3477
> 
> =  CFJ 3477  =
> 
>  Assuming that Quazie is a player, e has, within the past week,
>  exceeded the Income Cap.
> 
> ==
> 
> Caller:  Aris
> 
> Judge:   o
> Judgement:
> 
> ==
> 
> History:
> 
> Called by Aris:  22 Apr 2017
> Assigned to o:   as of this message
> 
> ==
> 
> Caller's Arguments:
> 
> "Allowable" could mean either "possible" or "permissible". If it's the
> later, e has not exceeded the Cap, as the highest permissible value is
> the highest value e could not be punished for. Additionally, if the
> action is ambiguous between the two (or otherwise ambiguous) then it
> is insufficiently clear to be valid.
> 
> ==
> 
> Caller's Evidence:
> 
> 
> ==



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3478 assigned to ais523

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Detail: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3478
> 
> =  CFJ 3478  =
> 
> ???'s highest allowable budget for a single player is 50.

My script uses mail from the command line using the following:
> mail -s "[Arbitor] ${2}" agora-offic...@agoranomic.org < ../cases/${1}

This, unfortunately, forces the character set to ASCII.

I tried a workaround like this (bash):
> (
> cat << END
> Subject: [Arbitor] ${2}
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
>
> END
> cat ../cases/${1}
> ) | /usr/sbin/sendmail -i agora-offic...@agoranomic.org

Funnily, this works perfectly when I send it to my own email address,
but agora-official doesn't like it; two attempts completely vanished
(never showed up in the official archives).

Any suggestions?

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3478 assigned to ais523

[Owen Jacobson]

Oh, Unicode.

On Apr 28, 2017, at 7:29 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> =  CFJ 3478  =
> 
>???'s highest allowable budget for a single player is 50.
> 
> ==


-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: CFJs to still be assigned

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Like i said - maybe a CFJ, just wanna make sure we have a thread on CFJs to 
> potentially 
> assign - there's just been a lot of activity lately and don't want anything 
> getting lost :)

I think 3478 is the last one.  Let me know if I missed any.

There's still a batch from January outstanding.   I may offer bounties on
those.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

[Quazie]

Public forum might help.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:28 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I hereby pay 4 shinies to pend this proposal.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal if it has no formatting errors and its
> > passage would create two new rules:
> >
> > {{{
> > Title: Agora's To-Do List
> > Adoption index: 1.0
> > Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >
> > Enact a rule titled, "To-Do List", reading: "Any player MAY with 1
> > support add an item to the to-do list with a specified number of
> > Shinies associated with it. Any to-do list item must have a clear set
> > of requirements for completion. The to-do list shall be maintained by
> > the Lister. Any person MAY complete an item on the to-do list and
> > claim the specified number of Shinies associated with it by notifying
> > the Lister of their completion of the task. If the Lister agrees with
> > the claimee, the Lister shall pay the claimee the specified number of
> > Shinies from Agora. Any disagreement regarding completion shall be
> > resolved via a CFJ. After an item has been completed, the Lister shall
> > remove it from the to-do list."
> >
> > Enact a rule titled, "The Office of the Lister", reading: "The Lister
> > is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the to-do of
> > Agora.
> >
> > The Lister's Weekly report includes the current state of the Agoran
> > to-do list and any recent events thereof."
> > }}}
> >
> > Second section made from the text of the Rulekeeper's rule.
> >
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I hereby pay 4 shinies to pend this proposal.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus


On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I submit the following proposal if it has no formatting errors and its
> passage would create two new rules:
>
> {{{
> Title: Agora's To-Do List
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> Enact a rule titled, "To-Do List", reading: "Any player MAY with 1
> support add an item to the to-do list with a specified number of
> Shinies associated with it. Any to-do list item must have a clear set
> of requirements for completion. The to-do list shall be maintained by
> the Lister. Any person MAY complete an item on the to-do list and
> claim the specified number of Shinies associated with it by notifying
> the Lister of their completion of the task. If the Lister agrees with
> the claimee, the Lister shall pay the claimee the specified number of
> Shinies from Agora. Any disagreement regarding completion shall be
> resolved via a CFJ. After an item has been completed, the Lister shall
> remove it from the to-do list."
>
> Enact a rule titled, "The Office of the Lister", reading: "The Lister
> is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the to-do of
> Agora.
>
> The Lister's Weekly report includes the current state of the Agoran
> to-do list and any recent events thereof."
> }}}
>
> Second section made from the text of the Rulekeeper's rule.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3477 assigned to o

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Ha - I like this assignment, as I know o's feelings on this, given the 
> actions e took.  It will be interesting to see if e reconsiders, or if we, 
> as agora, disagree with whatever decision e makes.

I haven't been paying attention to what e's assumed specifically, but
I *did* assign it on the grounds that e was probably fairly interested :).

Re: DIS: CFJs to still be assigned

[Quazie]

Like i said - maybe a CFJ, just wanna make sure we have a thread on CFJs to
potentially assign - there's just been a lot of activity lately and don't
want anything getting lost :)

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:24 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > Just as a reminder:
> > There is maybe a CFJ on me being a player, as called by me the person if
> I'm not a player.
>
> You attempted to call the CFJ as follows:
> > Assuming I am not a player:
> >   I CFJ on the statement  "Quazie is a player."
>
> I took this as a conditional "If I am not a player, I CFJ on the
> statement".
>
> Tradition is that we allow conditionals (in which case we have to wait for
> the outcome of the other CFJ to know if you called one), or if the
> conditional is indeterminate, to treat the statement as having failed.
>
> You could CFJ on whether you called a CFJ :).
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: CFJs to still be assigned

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Just as a reminder:
> There is maybe a CFJ on me being a player, as called by me the person if I'm 
> not a player.

You attempted to call the CFJ as follows:
> Assuming I am not a player:
>   I CFJ on the statement  "Quazie is a player."

I took this as a conditional "If I am not a player, I CFJ on the statement".

Tradition is that we allow conditionals (in which case we have to wait for
the outcome of the other CFJ to know if you called one), or if the 
conditional is indeterminate, to treat the statement as having failed.

You could CFJ on whether you called a CFJ :).

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3477 assigned to o

[Quazie]

Ha - I like this assignment, as I know o's feelings on this, given the
actions e took.  It will be interesting to see if e reconsiders, or if we,
as agora, disagree with whatever decision e makes.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> Detail: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3477
>
> =  CFJ 3477  =
>
>   Assuming that Quazie is a player, e has, within the past week,
>   exceeded the Income Cap.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:  Aris
>
> Judge:   o
> Judgement:
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by Aris:  22 Apr 2017
> Assigned to o:   as of this message
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> "Allowable" could mean either "possible" or "permissible". If it's the
> later, e has not exceeded the Cap, as the highest permissible value is
> the highest value e could not be punished for. Additionally, if the
> action is ambiguous between the two (or otherwise ambiguous) then it
> is insufficiently clear to be valid.
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
>
> ==
>
>

DIS: CFJs to still be assigned

[Quazie]

Just as a reminder:

There is maybe a CFJ on me being a player, as called by me the person if
I'm not a player.

There is certainly a CFJ from Aris on the state of my budget switches,
assuming I'm a player.

I think that's it?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Assumptions:

[Quazie]

I've actually explicitly kept myself from objecting to most things, other
than the one instance of Murphy objecting for me to Aris taking the CFJ on
my playership.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:00 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > For example, would ratifying the statement “Quazie is not a player”
> resolve the ambiguity?
>
> Well if you tried to ratify without objection, what would happen
> if Quazie objected?  :)
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Assumptions:

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> For example, would ratifying the statement “Quazie is not a player” resolve 
> the ambiguity?

Well if you tried to ratify without objection, what would happen
if Quazie objected?  :)

DIS: Re: BUS: Assumptions:

[Owen Jacobson]

On Apr 16, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> Assuming I am not a player:
>   I CFJ on the statement  "Quazie is a player.”

What if we’ve all been coming at this from the wrong direction?

I think there’s broad consensus that the truthiness of that CFJ is a matter in 
need of resolution, and we’ve had a few threads discussing problems with 
various non-registering ways to resolve the problem while making Quazie a 
player. However, we don’t need to make Quazie a player to resolve the 
ambiguity, do we? We just need one of the two states to be the only remaining 
possible state.

For example, would ratifying the statement “Quazie is not a player” resolve the 
ambiguity? The rule on registration might bar ratification from making someone 
a player, but no rule appears to bar making someone not a player by 
ratification.

This is mostly academic. I’m way more interested in the approach we’re using, 
and ratifying our way out of it feels like giving up. However, I am interested 
in reasons ratification wouldn’t work this way…

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Enlargement of Agora Nomic

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I have a few major questions:

1. Do we want more players?

2. Why?

3. If yes, how do we get more players?

I personally would love more players because more players tend to
cause a more complex game state and are more fun.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus