Re: DIS: Regarding the dergistrations

[Nic Evans]

On 05/29/2017 04:08 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
We have a serious deregistration problem. Two of our experienced 
players, and one of our new players have deregistered. I'd like to 
open this up as a central thread about what we've done wrong. I'd 
appreciate if the former players would consider joining in the 
discussion, so that we might work together to improve Agora. Right now 
things are getting kind of unsustainable.


-Aris


I've thought about this all day (on top of the thoughts that lead to my 
decision) and I'm just going to say what I feel.


I love Agora, and until this month I've enjoyed the company of every 
person involved with Agora. It's a community that exists only to build a 
community, a history of building history. People have dedicated a lot of 
time and resources into making this a successful and enjoyable 
experience for each other, and never asked for anything but basic 
respect and appreciation in return.


First, I want to talk about the symptom that ultimately made the game 
unfun to me. Here's some numbers:


Current player count: ~23 players

Votes on the last round of proposals: 7

Votes on the last round of elections: 6

Comments on the Assets v4 proto: 5, from 4 players

Comments on Assets and Deregistration proto: 1, from 1 player

Comments on 'humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer': 22, from 9 
players


Number of current Agencies: 10? How many have been used? 3?

Number of organizations: 5. How many have been used recently? 0?

In 2 weeks, we've had 29 CFJs. Every CFJ created by 1 person _requires_ 
the time of ais523 and the judge. How many of these facilitated 
gameplay? How many were presented alongside thought-out arguments, and 
how many were posed without a thought?


To me, this reads like a game up its own ass. Gameplay is in all realms 
overshadowed by asides and busywork. I want to be clear here: Everyone 
is responsible for this, including myself. And everyone is entitled to 
frivolity and play and creating busywork, to some extent. This was not 
previously regulated because 1) we usually take turns and 2) we 
respected the boundaries of each other. I hope this will remain 
unregulated, but I hope that's accomplished by going back to respecting 
each others' time and interests and making it clear to people when they 
have failed to do so.


In pursuit of the former, I'm sorry for the trouble I've caused. I'm 
sorry for frustrating G., through my actions or my words, enough that e 
quit. I'm sorry for being snarky when I was disatisfied with others, 
instead of being more constructive. I'm sorry for deregistering before 
resolving the votes, because I only realized afterwards how troublesome 
that might be.


In pursuit of the latter, I have some specific comments:

P.S.S.:

I've been snarky with you, but I actually think you're becoming a model 
Agoran. Don't think I'm upset with you. That said, try to sit on your 
emails more. Write them, save them, and come back and edit them before 
publishing. This'll save everyone some headache, especially for official 
business.


CuddleBeam:

If the way you responded to grok's deregistration - both the first 
response and the reply - was your attempt at a sincere and thought-out 
response to someone being upset, then you need to _seriously_ 
re-evaluate your treatment of other people. If it is either not sincere 
or not thought-out, those are self evident problems.


Most of the time when you attempt - and fail - to do something, it's 
caught by people doing a keyword search in the rules. Be more prudent 
before creating work for others. Most of the time when people respond to 
your arguments, you only respond to the ones that either reinforce your 
views or that you think you have a good response to. This is another 
example of not respecting other people's time and effort.


Also: Learn what an ad hominem is, and learn that your fucking word 
choice affects how people view your fucking words. That last sentence 
sounds really offensive, to make a point. I don't have any ill-will 
towards you, but I really think you need to think a bit more about your 
actions. Think more about the thousands of CFJs, hundreds of rules, 20 
years of gameplay, and years of experience some players have. Most 
importantly, think about the person on the other end of the message 
before you hit send.


To the rest of Agora:

I understand being patient with new players; I was new only a few years 
ago. But if the bar is set so low that every easily avoidable faux pas 
is forgiven without a thought, that treating Agora Right Good Forever 
amounts to only not being explicitly malicious, or that we assume 
someone is acting 'in good faith' when they've clearly not bothered to 
put in a semblance of the work they're making for other people, then I'm 
just not interested in putting my own time in.

DIS: Up for testing Agency minigames

[CuddleBeam]

Agencies are amazing, you can pretty much create switches inside of it and
make your own minigames inside of it via threading conditions.

If you need a tester for a mechanic for your protosal/proposal, and you'd
like to use an Agency for that testing, I'm up for it. I have a few shinies
too (you can just pay me back if I have to transfer shinies to you to
simulate 'real' payments to Agora or something, for example, renting a
Thermae or buying some Amphoras in your minigame).

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[CuddleBeam]

The Academia Proposal Contest is there so perhaps have two levels of
Judges? Casual and High/Pro/Superior? Make a Judge-Degree? (Can just be a
CFJ test)

I definitely think newcomers can handle the more mundane CFJs like

CFJ: "can I do this?"

*Judge points to a rule, sometimes even two.*

"Yes you can."

But the more complex ones would be better suited for a more prepared judge.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:49 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Tue, 30 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
> >> Gah. Oh well. How would you put it?
> > I'm digging a hole for myself, nvm, sorry
>
> So was I. Sorry.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.


As was I in all probability. I'm sorry too. I'd suggest that we all move on
from this and start doing something productive.

-Aris

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 30 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:


Gah. Oh well. How would you put it?

I'm digging a hole for myself, nvm, sorry


So was I. Sorry.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[CuddleBeam]

>Gah. Oh well. How would you put it?
I'm digging a hole for myself, nvm, sorry

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[CuddleBeam]

>Just in case you're not aware, that message _still_ makes you sound like a huge
dick.


Gah. Oh well. How would you put it?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
>> man saying that so stale makes me sound like a huge dick.
>>
>> ok so BASICALLY:
>>
>> -Dude it sucks that you have to leave
>> -I'm not sorry about doing what I'm doing though
>> -I want us both to play *together* in our *own way* and be HAPPY.
>> Hopefully
>> in the future that happens.
>>
>> OK THATS ALL I FEEL AWKWARD lol
>>
>> kbye.
>
>
> Just in case you're not aware, that message _still_ makes you sound like a
> huge dick.
>

Oh come on. It was an improvement. Let's try not to get all of our
players to deregister.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Quazie]

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:17 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> On May 29, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Missing a close parenthesis. Why do we need None? Surely any player
> could occasionally want to judge a case, so the distinction seems
> unnecessary.
>
> Fair.
>
> I'd also make Wide the default, although that is open to
> debate. The judicial system is a good way to get new players involved.
>
> That’s a departure from the current system (not necessarily bad). However,
> I’m still against it—I feel that judging should be a decision a player
> makes when they feel they understand enough of the ruleset to jump in, and
> faulty judgements from new players help nobody.
>

None should be the default - A new player shouldn't be hit with judging a
CFJ immediately - Judicial duties should be opt in.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 30 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:


man saying that so stale makes me sound like a huge dick.

ok so BASICALLY:

-Dude it sucks that you have to leave
-I'm not sorry about doing what I'm doing though
-I want us both to play *together* in our *own way* and be HAPPY. Hopefully
in the future that happens.

OK THATS ALL I FEEL AWKWARD lol

kbye.


Just in case you're not aware, that message _still_ makes you sound like a 
huge dick.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Gaelan Steele]

> On May 29, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Missing a close parenthesis. Why do we need None? Surely any player
> could occasionally want to judge a case, so the distinction seems
> unnecessary.
Fair.
> I'd also make Wide the default, although that is open to
> debate. The judicial system is a good way to get new players involved.
That’s a departure from the current system (not necessarily bad). However, I’m 
still against it—I feel that judging should be a decision a player makes when 
they feel they understand enough of the ruleset to jump in, and faulty 
judgements from new players help nobody. 
> 
> -Aris



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Judicial Reform

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I create the AI-2 proposal “Judicial Reform” by Gaelan with the following
> text: <
>
> Amend R991 “Calls for Judgement” by replacing the last paragraph with {
>
> “Judge Status” is a player switch tracked by the Arbitor in eir monthly
> report, with valid values of “None” (default, “Narrow,” and “Wide.” A player
> may flip eir own Judge Status by announcement.

Missing a close parenthesis. Why do we need None? Surely any player
could occasionally want to judge a case, so the distinction seems
unnecessary. I'd also make Wide the default, although that is open to
debate. The judicial system is a good way to get new players involved.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3517 assigned to Aris

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>
> I'm finding keeping up with the game very difficult at the moment, and
> may end up having to resign offices or even deregister if the activity
> continues.

Please don't leave. We're having enough problems with empty offices
already. If necessary, outsource some of the work via agency, but we
really need you as Arbitor at the moment.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Proto/Suggestion: Agoran Provinces

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:05 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> In order to break this "critical mass" of activity, I suggest dividing the
> game into three (simplified) sub-nomics, and have them each develop as their
> own Province.
>
> There has been precedence of Agora having a similar "divide" (the Blots and
> such), although this would be making the slices in a different way. Perhaps
> it helps. (Also, this is personal interest, but I would love to see
> differences in 'axiomatic' perspectives in each one and see how each
> mini-Agora develops.)
>
> This is also inspired in the BLO vs GNO vs MIC dynasty of Blognomic:
> https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=The_Fourth_Metadynasty which
> seemed to be one of the more interesting ones, and we have the amount of
> players to make it work.
>
> This definitely qualifies for "radical" ideal though, and as ais has pointed
> out, may not work. But I figure it would be good to put this out anyway, for
> consideration.

**Very strong oppose.** Everyone, please note ais523's warning "It's
interesting to note that at times of lower activity, when there isn't
a functioning economy, players tend to make wild and drastic changes
to the rules in the hope that there'll be more to discuss. This nearly
always backfires and leaves the mailing lists dead for months at a
time." I'd like very much to avoid that happening. Agora is the most
active it's been in years, and while we're going through some growing
pains, I strongly doubt this would fix anything. It seems like it
would be more likely just to make everything a chaotic mess, and/or
convince all of our remaining experienced players to leave.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Proto/Suggestion: Agoran Provinces

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think this could be a good idea and I was thinking about messing around with 
agencies to test this out.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 29, 2017, at 8:05 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> In order to break this "critical mass" of activity, I suggest dividing the 
> game into three (simplified) sub-nomics, and have them each develop as their 
> own Province.
> 
> There has been precedence of Agora having a similar "divide" (the Blots and 
> such), although this would be making the slices in a different way. Perhaps 
> it helps. (Also, this is personal interest, but I would love to see 
> differences in 'axiomatic' perspectives in each one and see how each 
> mini-Agora develops.)
> 
> This is also inspired in the BLO vs GNO vs MIC dynasty of Blognomic: 
> https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=The_Fourth_Metadynasty which 
> seemed to be one of the more interesting ones, and we have the amount of 
> players to make it work.
> 
> This definitely qualifies for "radical" ideal though, and as ais has pointed 
> out, may not work. But I figure it would be good to put this out anyway, for 
> consideration.

DIS: Proto/Suggestion: Agoran Provinces

[CuddleBeam]

In order to break this "critical mass" of activity, I suggest dividing the
game into three (simplified) sub-nomics, and have them each develop as
their own Province.

There has been precedence of Agora having a similar "divide" (the Blots and
such), although this would be making the slices in a different way. Perhaps
it helps. (Also, this is personal interest, but I would love to see
differences in 'axiomatic' perspectives in each one and see how each
mini-Agora develops.)

This is also inspired in the BLO vs GNO vs MIC dynasty of Blognomic:
https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=The_Fourth_Metadynasty which
seemed to be one of the more interesting ones, and we have the amount of
players to make it work.

This definitely qualifies for "radical" ideal though, and as ais has
pointed out, may not work. But I figure it would be good to put this out
anyway, for consideration.

Re: Re: DIS: A Solution to the Issue of Philosophy

[CuddleBeam]

Precisely because its gameplay-related is what makes it interesting (to me,
personally).

It's like finding a lego block and finding that it somehow relates to the
beginning of the universe.

Also, there seems to be a "Critical Mass" of activity that the Ruleset/game
design can handle at any time.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3493, 3494 assigned to Aris

[Kerim Aydin]

Aris, I think CFJ 3493 is trivially FALSE given your judgement on 3494, but
I think you still need to judge it :).  (sorry if you did and I missed it).

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3493

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 12:25 AM Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
>   On May 19, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Alex Smith  
> wrote:
> 
>   > On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 10:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>   >> I CFJ on:  Immediately after my most recent deregistration, I had a 
> Balance Switch with a value greater than 0.
>   >
>   > This is CFJ 3494. I assign it to Aris.
> 
>   Note that as this remains un-judged, I’ll likely publish the 
> Secretary’s report as if it were TRUE, with all the consequences that 
> implies, and a
>   note about the outstanding CFJ.
> 
>   Maybe sometime this year I’ll get to publish that report without any 
> provisional entries.
> 
>   -o
> 
> Oops, forgot about this one. Sorry. I'll judge it tomorrow.
> -Aris
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3517 assigned to Aris

[Quazie]

Please don't leave before you fix up the ruleset - though I guess you don't
lose your nickname even if you deregister
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 16:24 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 16:17 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 29 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2017-05-28 at 12:53 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > I request this be linked to Cuddlebeam's most recent CFJ.
> > > I can't honour this request because the CFJ in question was
> > withdrawn.
> >
> > Actually, I think CuddleBeam withdrew it in discussion forum, but
> > explicitly refrained from doing it publicly when we said it was an
> > interesting case?
>
> You're right, it was withdrawn to a-d. I'll assign it in the next
> message.
>
> I'm finding keeping up with the game very difficult at the moment, and
> may end up having to resign offices or even deregister if the activity
> continues.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3517 assigned to Aris

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 16:17 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 29 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-05-28 at 12:53 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > I request this be linked to Cuddlebeam's most recent CFJ.
> > I can't honour this request because the CFJ in question was
> withdrawn.
> 
> Actually, I think CuddleBeam withdrew it in discussion forum, but
> explicitly refrained from doing it publicly when we said it was an
> interesting case?

You're right, it was withdrawn to a-d. I'll assign it in the next
message.

I'm finding keeping up with the game very difficult at the moment, and
may end up having to resign offices or even deregister if the activity
continues.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3517 assigned to Aris

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-05-28 at 12:53 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I request this be linked to Cuddlebeam's most recent CFJ.
> I can't honour this request because the CFJ in question was withdrawn.

Actually, I think CuddleBeam withdrew it in discussion forum, but
explicitly refrained from doing it publicly when we said it was an
interesting case?

Re: DIS: Voting strength

[Quazie]

Cool, I'll gain a better understanding of all of this as I become hopefully
temp assessor.

I've got some scripts to write today it seems.
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 15:45 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 20:12 +, Quazie wrote:
> > If voting strength increases or decreases during the voting period, what
> > happens?  Nichdel voted and then deregistered, thus dropping eir strength
> > to 0 - do eir votes still count?
>
> Actually, nonregistered persons have voting strength 1. They just can't
> cast votes unless they were a player when the decision started.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Regarding the dergistrations

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 16:25 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> I'm fairly certain my deregistration statement clearly outlines that the
> fruitless philosophical CFJ attempts in spite of obvious rules that answers
> them are my biggest gripe. I don't mind some philosophical discussion of
> the rules, but when the ruleset or prior CFJs obviously answer the question
> I get frustrated. It's not worth my time to run in circles over those
> discussions when they have answers already.

Given that both I and the judges are struggling to keep up with the CFJ
load recently, perhaps we should consider making calling a CFJ require
spending Shinies, just like pending a proposal does. I'm not sure if
we've experimented with limited CFJs before now. (I think there are a
ton of rules trying to prevent us doing just that, but we can always
change the rules if need be.)

That said, a large flux of repetitive CFJs that are already answered by
precedent tends to happen every time there's a surge in registrations,
as new players tend to be unfamiliar with arguments that the rest of us
have done to death already. (The new players occasionally find a
direction to look in that the existing players hadn't seen; quite a few
Wins by Paradox were created like that. So despite typically being
repetitive, the CFJs in question also sometimes create useful
gameplay.)

I think the lack of a useful economy (Shinies don't count, as there's
nothing to trade them for) is something that causes Agora to turn
overly philosophical, as there's often not much else to do. Creating an
economy is also hard, though, because typically most players won't
participate in it, and economies need participation to really function
correctly.

It's interesting to note that at times of lower activity, when there
isn't a functioning economy, players tend to make wild and drastic
changes to the rules in the hope that there'll be more to discuss. This
nearly always backfires and leaves the mailing lists dead for months at
a time.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[CuddleBeam]

man saying that so stale makes me sound like a huge dick.

ok so BASICALLY:

-Dude it sucks that you have to leave
-I'm not sorry about doing what I'm doing though
-I want us both to play *together* in our *own way* and be HAPPY. Hopefully
in the future that happens.

OK THATS ALL I FEEL AWKWARD lol

kbye.

Re: DIS: Draft promotor report

[Josh T]

I would like to unofficially request that the proposal pool not be drained
until people get paid so that people can afford to pay the fees.

天火狐

On 28 May 2017 at 20:11, Aris Merchant 
wrote:

> The following is a draft report. Note that it's not quite the same as
> a regular report, as it has some of the URLs that get cut from the
> finalized version. I welcome any applicable corrections. If you want
> your proposals distributed, you should talk to ais523 about pending
> them.
>
> --
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, and the
> valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>
> ID Author(s)   AI   Title   PenderPend fee
> (sh.)
> -
> 7858*  Gaelan  3.0  Fast Resolution, now workingais523N/A [1]
>
>
> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
>
> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
> 
> ---
> pp1   P.S.S [2] 1.0  Agora's To-Do List (v2/ov1)
> pp2   Ienpw III 1.0  Reader's Digest
> pp3   Quazie1.7  Issuing Cards is secured...[3]
> pp4   G., [4]   1.7  Betterer Pledges, (BBoRWCDaPWDaLoEWSWW)
> pp5   Gaelan1.0  No Sneakiness
> pp6   o, Aris   2.0  Deregistration and Assets
> pp7   nichdel   1.2  Organization Integration and Stamp Collecting
> pp8   Gaelan1.0  Sequential Numbering
> pp9   Gaelan1.5  State of the Union
>
>
> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
>
> [1] Pended by the mechanism in the Rule "Reward and Delay"
> [2] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [3] ...with power threshold 1.7.
> [4] Gaelan, Aris, 天火狐
>
> The Pending List Price (PLP) is 6 shinies. The Pending Minimum Price (PMP)
> is 5 shinies.
>
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
>
> //
> ID: 7858
> Title: Fast Resolution, now working
> Adoption Index: 3.0
> Author: Gaelan
> Co-author(s):
> https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
> business/2017-May/034840.html
>
>
>
> Amend rule 107 “Initiating Agoran Decisions” by replacing {
>   The voting period lasts for 7 days. The minimum voting period for a
> decision
>   with at least two options is five days.
> } with {
>   Unless specified by another rule with power greater than or equal to 2,
> the
>   voting period lasts for 7 days and the minimum voting period for a
> decision
>   with at least two options is five days.
> }
>
> Create rule "Fast Resolution" (Power 2) {
>   For the purposes of this rule, an Agoran Decision's Pertinent
> Information is
>   the set of all information that the vote collector must use to determine
> the
>   result of the decision.
>
>   If, for an Agoran Decison:
>
>   1. It has enough votes so that its result cannot be changed by any
> combination
>   of votes from players that have not yet voted (assuming no new players
>   register and no votes are withdrawn), and
>   2. None of its Pertinent Information has changed in the past 24 hours,
>
>   Then any player may cause its voting period to end immediately by
>   announcement.
> }
>
> //
> ID: pp1
> Title: Agora's To-Do List (v2/ov1)
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> Co-author(s):
>
> Enact a rule titled, "To-Do List", reading: "Any player MAY without two
> objection 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 without two objection
> 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."
>
> //
> ID: pp2
> Title: Reader's Digest
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Ienpw III
> Co-author(s):
>
> Enact a new rule entitled "Reader's Digest": {
>   There exists an elected office called 

Re: DIS: Voting strength

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 20:12 +, Quazie wrote:
> If voting strength increases or decreases during the voting period, what
> happens?  Nichdel voted and then deregistered, thus dropping eir strength
> to 0 - do eir votes still count?

Actually, nonregistered persons have voting strength 1. They just can't
cast votes unless they were a player when the decision started.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[CuddleBeam]

I find it massively unfortunate that you've felt the need to leave, and I
do feel that I'm definitely part of this new music that is sounding across
Agora which you dislike.

But I enjoy what I enjoy, and I'll pursue my own happiness in Agora, but
I'll also try to help everyone else achieve theirs as well.

I hope that when you decide to come back, we can both play Agora together
in our own way and enjoy it, despite our differences.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> Believe me, you were never part of the problem. I didn't mind opining 
> over philosophy in Agora as long as it's backed with an understanding
> of the rules and CFJ precedent--something you always made sure to include
> in your more abstract posts. I'm more frustrated with the blase "I say 
> I did so I did" approaches towards abstract applications of the rules, 
> especially in cases where the rules plainly state how that case could be 
> handled.

Thanks for the kind words.  Definitely much appreciated.

And Hmm.  You can find sets of silly CFJs from one player 
in the archives periodically.  Sometimes they're fine, but if we're trying
to get activity going too, and traffic is high overall, they can be really 
distracting - but don't want to utterly discourage them either sometimes
it's fresh eyes finding true loopholes... tricky...

Re: DIS: Regarding the dergistrations

[grok (caleb vines)]

I'm fairly certain my deregistration statement clearly outlines that the
fruitless philosophical CFJ attempts in spite of obvious rules that answers
them are my biggest gripe. I don't mind some philosophical discussion of
the rules, but when the ruleset or prior CFJs obviously answer the question
I get frustrated. It's not worth my time to run in circles over those
discussions when they have answers already.

No amount of legislating will change it, and I have no intent to
re-register after 30 days unless the pattern of behavior continues.

On May 29, 2017 4:19 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Are there any key behaviours you can identify that were problematic?
>
> Are there any solutions you would like to see Agora implement?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 2017, at 5:17 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
> >
> > If you have any questions about my deregistration that aren't answered
> in my deregistration statement, I'd be happy to answer them.
> >
> > On May 29, 2017 4:08 PM, "Aris Merchant"  gmail.com> wrote:
> > We have a serious deregistration problem. Two of our experienced
> players, and one of our new players have deregistered. I'd like to open
> this up as a central thread about what we've done wrong. I'd appreciate if
> the former players would consider joining in the discussion, so that we
> might work together to improve Agora. Right now things are getting kind of
> unsustainable.
> >
> > -Aris
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Cool cool. It was a double whammy of precedence I was trying to set.
> 
> 1 - you can CFJ on questions (non-controvertial)
> 2 - some future conditionals are legit outside of voting (but I tried 
> to ensure that it was limited in scope)

Yeah, the full impact of #2 hit me on the second reading.  I thought:
well, I wouldn't ask for reconsideration because of my mistake, but I
might point out how far reaching this could be!
(Then I thought "what the heck, might be a fun if risky direction").

Re: DIS: A Solution to the Issue of Philosophy

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Given the recent problems regarding philosophical discussion:
> 
> How would people feel about making a new mailing list for these discussions
> to take place and maybe the Herald could post weekly summaries to official?
> This would allow people to avoid the discussion without being completely out
> of the loop.

Not sure what you're categorizing as "these discussions", but I was wondering
about a "judicial only" channel, as the judicial discussions get very long,
have a lot of back-and-forth, but also quickly disappear in the weeds and
look like noise for people who don't want to be bothered with it.

Re: DIS: Regulating snark

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Proto proposal: Grudge.
> There exists an asset called a Grudge.

Karma systems +1 like the idea; when we've had them, they both lead
to good feelings and let us know when we're stepping on each others'
toes.

Re: DIS: Regarding the dergistrations

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Are there any key behaviours you can identify that were problematic?

Are there any solutions you would like to see Agora implement?

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 29, 2017, at 5:17 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> 
> If you have any questions about my deregistration that aren't answered in my 
> deregistration statement, I'd be happy to answer them.
> 
> On May 29, 2017 4:08 PM, "Aris Merchant"  
> wrote:
> We have a serious deregistration problem. Two of our experienced players, and 
> one of our new players have deregistered. I'd like to open this up as a 
> central thread about what we've done wrong. I'd appreciate if the former 
> players would consider joining in the discussion, so that we might work 
> together to improve Agora. Right now things are getting kind of unsustainable.
> 
> -Aris 

Re: DIS: Regarding the dergistrations

[grok (caleb vines)]

If you have any questions about my deregistration that aren't answered in
my deregistration statement, I'd be happy to answer them.

On May 29, 2017 4:08 PM, "Aris Merchant" 
wrote:

> We have a serious deregistration problem. Two of our experienced players,
> and one of our new players have deregistered. I'd like to open this up as a
> central thread about what we've done wrong. I'd appreciate if the former
> players would consider joining in the discussion, so that we might work
> together to improve Agora. Right now things are getting kind of
> unsustainable.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[grok (caleb vines)]

I don't think this situation required permanent record.

On May 29, 2017 3:53 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I would have recommended that you submitted a Writ of FAGE.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 2017, at 12:58 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
> >
> > I was really excited to play legislative-based, classic nomic style
> Agora. That's not what I'm getting. All this psuedo-philosophy of the rules
> stuff is really frustrating to me, especially since it's all getting
> dismissed or ruled false anyways.
> >
> > I spent a long time reading the rules in depth before I started, and
> really wanted to do it up right. Apparently that isn't a requirement or
> expectation, so I have no interest in playing.
> >
> > And it's a shame, because I was really, REALLY excited to join a nomic
> with so much history and prestige. But it just doesn't feel like a nomic to
> me right now.
> >
> > I'll keep an eye on the lists to see if it gets better in a month, but
> I'm not getting my hopes up.
> >
> >
> > I deregister​ as a player.
> >
> >
> > -grok
>
>

Re: DIS: Regarding the dergistrations

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I already proposed in a separate thread a new mailing list. As for other 
solutions, maybe a state of emergency where if we are plummeting down hill like 
this, we can hit the breaks stop and have a meta-conversation.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 29, 2017, at 5:08 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> We have a serious deregistration problem. Two of our experienced players, and 
> one of our new players have deregistered. I'd like to open this up as a 
> central thread about what we've done wrong. I'd appreciate if the former 
> players would consider joining in the discussion, so that we might work 
> together to improve Agora. Right now things are getting kind of unsustainable.
> 
> -Aris 

Re: DIS: A Solution to the Issue of Philosophy

[grok (caleb vines)]

As long as the discussions of philosophy have implications on the game
state, this will never be a functional solution.

Also, if my deregistration statement didn't make it clear, the problem is
not philosophy on face.

On May 29, 2017 4:03 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Given the recent problems regarding philosophical discussion:
>
> How would people feel about making a new mailing list for these
> discussions to take place and maybe the Herald could post weekly summaries
> to official? This would allow people to avoid the discussion without being
> completely out of the loop.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>

DIS: Regarding the dergistrations

[Aris Merchant]

We have a serious deregistration problem. Two of our experienced players,
and one of our new players have deregistered. I'd like to open this up as a
central thread about what we've done wrong. I'd appreciate if the former
players would consider joining in the discussion, so that we might work
together to improve Agora. Right now things are getting kind of
unsustainable.

-Aris

DIS: A Solution to the Issue of Philosophy

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Given the recent problems regarding philosophical discussion:

How would people feel about making a new mailing list for these discussions to 
take place and maybe the Herald could post weekly summaries to official? This 
would allow people to avoid the discussion without being completely out of the 
loop.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com

Re: DIS: Regulating snark

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think the Anger Management or even carding could be a helpful addition.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 29, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> Maybe also have something like "If a player X owns three grudges and for each 
> of those grudges the targets thereof also owns a grudge against the player X, 
> the {keeper of grudges} may place player X on Anger Management", which would 
> be a state that punishes a player a little. 
> 
> Oh yeah, Grudges should not be tradable. I hazard that it would be unwise if 
> they were. 
> 
> 天火狐
> 
> On 29 May 2017 at 14:32, Quazie  wrote:
> It's a rough draft - I feel like holding grudges should be advantageous - but 
> holding too many makes you vulnerable is the premise I was going for. Voting 
> strength is pretty low right now (there were prior situations where voting 
> strength defaulted to a much larger number) and maybe increasing it by 1 is 
> interesting when the default is higher than 1.
> 
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26 Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I don't like the voting strength bit—I don't think there is any harm in 
> creating a temporary grudge whenever you vote AGAINST.
> 
> Gaelan
> 
> > On May 29, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> >
> > Proto proposal: Grudge.
> >
> > There exists an asset called a Grudge.
> >
> > Each Grudge has a person associated with it.
> >
> > Once a month, A player may indicate a person, and a reason, and then gain 
> > one Grudge associated with said person.
> >
> > If a player is holding a Grudge against every current player they may be 
> > deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this deregistration 
> > as Spiteful.
> >
> > If every other player has a Grudge representing  the same player e may be 
> > deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this deregistration 
> > as Banishment.
> >
> > If a player is holding a Grudge representing a player, they have voting 
> > strength + 1 in every non-for vote on proposals written by that player.
> >
> > If a player votes for a proposal Witten by a person they hold a Grudge 
> > against, then they 'Get Over It' and lose said Grudge.
> >
> > 
> >
> > I'm watching lots of angst exist all of a sudden, so let's codify it.
> >
> > I don't know if it's a good idea - but I've been bouncing it around in my 
> > head for a while, so I decided to proto it.
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I don’t feel able to serve as assessor. I would be willing to serve as 
Reportor, but you should take it up, if you wish.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 29, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Martin Rönsch  wrote:
> 
> Am 29.05.2017 um 19:44 schrieb Quazie:
>> Okay - I will cover ADoP.
>> 
>> Reporter is vacant as is assessor.
>> 
>> PSS showed interest in reporter at one point, but does anyone have interest 
>> in Assessor?
>> 
>> I don't want it - but i am now back at Agora, and I'm willing to step up if 
>> no one else is interested.
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:00 Nicholas Evans  wrote:
>> To clarify i mean i completely deregister, not resign ADoP
>> 
>> On May 29, 2017 11:55, "Nic Evans"  wrote:
>> On 05/26/2017 04:39 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>> I initiate an election for Associate Director of Personnel, as there has
>> been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to
>> determine the new Associate Director of Personnel. For this decision, the
>> vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players
>> (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>> I withdraw my previous vote on this decision and cast the vote [Quazie].
>> 
>> I resign. I feel like we're spending more time cleaning unnecessary messes 
>> and discussing irrelevant philosophy than playing Agora. Maybe I'm wrong, 
>> but either way I'm finding it more frustrating than enjoyable.
> 
> I am interested in being the reportor, I am also willing to step in as 
> assessor, but I think I'd rather leave this job to an experienced player.
> 
> Veggiekeks

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I concur with this general sentiment, philosophy is interesting, but the rules 
and legislative process are the core of the game.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 29, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> On 05/26/2017 04:39 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>> I initiate an election for Associate Director of Personnel, as there has
>> been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to
>> determine the new Associate Director of Personnel. For this decision, the
>> vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players
>> (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
> I withdraw my previous vote on this decision and cast the vote [Quazie].
> 
> I resign. I feel like we're spending more time cleaning unnecessary messes 
> and discussing irrelevant philosophy than playing Agora. Maybe I'm wrong, but 
> either way I'm finding it more frustrating than enjoyable.

DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I would have recommended that you submitted a Writ of FAGE.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 29, 2017, at 12:58 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
> 
> I was really excited to play legislative-based, classic nomic style Agora. 
> That's not what I'm getting. All this psuedo-philosophy of the rules stuff is 
> really frustrating to me, especially since it's all getting dismissed or 
> ruled false anyways. 
> 
> I spent a long time reading the rules in depth before I started, and really 
> wanted to do it up right. Apparently that isn't a requirement or expectation, 
> so I have no interest in playing.
> 
> And it's a shame, because I was really, REALLY excited to join a nomic with 
> so much history and prestige. But it just doesn't feel like a nomic to me 
> right now.
> 
> I'll keep an eye on the lists to see if it gets better in a month, but I'm 
> not getting my hopes up.
> 
> 
> I deregister​ as a player.
>   
> 
> -grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

Cool cool. It was a double whammy of precedence I was trying to set.

1 - you can CFJ on questions (non-controvertial)
2 - some future conditionals are legit outside of voting (but I tried to
ensure that it was limited in scope)

Also - that judgement also implies that the case is still open, as I was
barred from judging it.
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 13:22 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > I am always willing to listen to your criticism G. - please let me know
> what
> > you thought I said, and how I can word things better in the future to
> reduce
> > confusion.
>
> Actually, thinking about it, the honest truth is that in cutting/pasting
> everything, I lost CuddleBeam's barring message entirely, so skimming the
> case
> without that in there, all I could think was "what does barring have to
> do with it?  I thought this was about whether statements could be asked as
> questions."  So it wasn't your phrasing at all, it was the completely lost
> context.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> I am always willing to listen to your criticism G. - please let me know what
> you thought I said, and how I can word things better in the future to reduce
> confusion.

Actually, thinking about it, the honest truth is that in cutting/pasting
everything, I lost CuddleBeam's barring message entirely, so skimming the case 
without that in there, all I could think was "what does barring have to
do with it?  I thought this was about whether statements could be asked as
questions."  So it wasn't your phrasing at all, it was the completely lost
context.

DIS: Voting strength

[Quazie]

If voting strength increases or decreases during the voting period, what
happens?  Nichdel voted and then deregistered, thus dropping eir strength
to 0 - do eir votes still count?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

I am always willing to listen to your criticism G. - please let me know
what you thought I said, and how I can word things better in the future to
reduce confusion.
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 13:08 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I humbly and un-regulated-ly withdraw any objection I had to Quazie's
> judgement here.  In rapidly cutting and pasting lots of judgements
> into the database yesterday, I completely misread/misinterpreted the
> way e rephrased the CFJ statement.  Looking at it for more than 2 minutes
> now, it's a fine judgement.
>
> On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > I am happy to reconsider of you lemme know where I over stepped.
> > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 21:17 Josh T  wrote:
> >   I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if
> there is interest among the players for reconsideration.
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >   I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd
> consider
> >   this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider
> were I a
> >   player.  Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the
> question,
> >   or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the
> caller
> >   *meant* to ask, this uses a judgement to try and sent precedent on
> an
> >   entirely different matter.  If this were allowed we'd have to let
> judges
> >   opine on anything, unrelated to their CFJ topic, and consider it
> >   precedent.
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Kerim Aydin]

I humbly and un-regulated-ly withdraw any objection I had to Quazie's
judgement here.  In rapidly cutting and pasting lots of judgements
into the database yesterday, I completely misread/misinterpreted the
way e rephrased the CFJ statement.  Looking at it for more than 2 minutes
now, it's a fine judgement.

On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> I am happy to reconsider of you lemme know where I over stepped.
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 21:17 Josh T  wrote:
>   I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if there 
> is interest among the players for reconsideration. 
> 天火狐
> 
> On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider
>   this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider were I a
>   player.  Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the question,
>   or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the caller
>   *meant* to ask, this uses a judgement to try and sent precedent on an
>   entirely different matter.  If this were allowed we'd have to let judges
>   opine on anything, unrelated to their CFJ topic, and consider it
>   precedent.

Re: Re: DIS: Regulating snark

[CuddleBeam]

Perhaps make a central "Karma" system, linked to both cards and grudges?

And holding Office with a "clean-streak" of not doing any offenses and no
Tardiness would earn you Karma, for example, because you've done good
service.

I think it would be good for both anti-negative and pro-positive movements
to be involved in systems like this. Stick and carrot and whatnot.

Re: DIS: Regulating snark

[Josh T]

Maybe also have something like "If a player X owns three grudges and for
each of those grudges the targets thereof also owns a grudge against the
player X, the {keeper of grudges} may place player X on Anger Management",
which would be a state that punishes a player a little.

Oh yeah, Grudges should not be tradable. I hazard that it would be unwise
if they were.

天火狐

On 29 May 2017 at 14:32, Quazie  wrote:

> It's a rough draft - I feel like holding grudges should be advantageous -
> but holding too many makes you vulnerable is the premise I was going for.
> Voting strength is pretty low right now (there were prior situations where
> voting strength defaulted to a much larger number) and maybe increasing it
> by 1 is interesting when the default is higher than 1.
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26 Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
>> I don't like the voting strength bit—I don't think there is any harm in
>> creating a temporary grudge whenever you vote AGAINST.
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>> > On May 29, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>> >
>> > Proto proposal: Grudge.
>> >
>> > There exists an asset called a Grudge.
>> >
>> > Each Grudge has a person associated with it.
>> >
>> > Once a month, A player may indicate a person, and a reason, and then
>> gain one Grudge associated with said person.
>> >
>> > If a player is holding a Grudge against every current player they may
>> be deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this
>> deregistration as Spiteful.
>> >
>> > If every other player has a Grudge representing  the same player e may
>> be deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this
>> deregistration as Banishment.
>> >
>> > If a player is holding a Grudge representing a player, they have voting
>> strength + 1 in every non-for vote on proposals written by that player.
>> >
>> > If a player votes for a proposal Witten by a person they hold a Grudge
>> against, then they 'Get Over It' and lose said Grudge.
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > I'm watching lots of angst exist all of a sudden, so let's codify it.
>> >
>> > I don't know if it's a good idea - but I've been bouncing it around in
>> my head for a while, so I decided to proto it.
>>
>

Re: DIS: Regulating snark

[Quazie]

It's a rough draft - I feel like holding grudges should be advantageous -
but holding too many makes you vulnerable is the premise I was going for.
Voting strength is pretty low right now (there were prior situations where
voting strength defaulted to a much larger number) and maybe increasing it
by 1 is interesting when the default is higher than 1.
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I don't like the voting strength bit—I don't think there is any harm in
> creating a temporary grudge whenever you vote AGAINST.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On May 29, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> >
> > Proto proposal: Grudge.
> >
> > There exists an asset called a Grudge.
> >
> > Each Grudge has a person associated with it.
> >
> > Once a month, A player may indicate a person, and a reason, and then
> gain one Grudge associated with said person.
> >
> > If a player is holding a Grudge against every current player they may be
> deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this deregistration
> as Spiteful.
> >
> > If every other player has a Grudge representing  the same player e may
> be deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this
> deregistration as Banishment.
> >
> > If a player is holding a Grudge representing a player, they have voting
> strength + 1 in every non-for vote on proposals written by that player.
> >
> > If a player votes for a proposal Witten by a person they hold a Grudge
> against, then they 'Get Over It' and lose said Grudge.
> >
> > 
> >
> > I'm watching lots of angst exist all of a sudden, so let's codify it.
> >
> > I don't know if it's a good idea - but I've been bouncing it around in
> my head for a while, so I decided to proto it.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Josh T]

To be fair, I think that having an important philosophical argument and
background on these recent issues is important, although I haven't
personally had the chance to read and go over them with a fine comb because
of real life, much less come up with a worthy response. However, with the
responses of other players, I hazard to guess that is unwise at the moment.

天火狐

On 29 May 2017 at 13:12, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 29 May 2017, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> > To clarify i mean i completely deregister, not resign ADoP
>
> Ugh.  I really am going to shut up about philosophy now.  Really
> sorry for my part in this.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Regulating snark

[Gaelan Steele]

I don't like the voting strength bit—I don't think there is any harm in 
creating a temporary grudge whenever you vote AGAINST. 

Gaelan

> On May 29, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> Proto proposal: Grudge.
> 
> There exists an asset called a Grudge.
> 
> Each Grudge has a person associated with it.
> 
> Once a month, A player may indicate a person, and a reason, and then gain one 
> Grudge associated with said person.
> 
> If a player is holding a Grudge against every current player they may be 
> deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this deregistration 
> as Spiteful.
> 
> If every other player has a Grudge representing  the same player e may be 
> deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this deregistration 
> as Banishment.
> 
> If a player is holding a Grudge representing a player, they have voting 
> strength + 1 in every non-for vote on proposals written by that player.
> 
> If a player votes for a proposal Witten by a person they hold a Grudge 
> against, then they 'Get Over It' and lose said Grudge.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm watching lots of angst exist all of a sudden, so let's codify it.
> 
> I don't know if it's a good idea - but I've been bouncing it around in my 
> head for a while, so I decided to proto it.

DIS: Unofficial Vote Results for 7853-7857

[Nic Evans]

Here's the vote tallies for the most recent proposals:

|| 7853 | 7854 | 7855 | 7856 | 7857 |
|+--+--+--+--+--+
|ais523  | F| F| F| F| F|
|Gaelan  | F| F| A| F| F|
|grok| P| P| P| F| F|
|nichdel | P| F| P| F| F|
|o   | F| F| P| F| P|
|PSS | F| F| F| F| F|
|Quazie  | F| F| F| F| F|
|+--+--+--+--+--+
|F/A | 5/0  | 6/0  | 3/1  | 7/0  | 6/0  |
|AI  | 3.0  | 3.0  | 1.0  | 2.0  | 1.0  |
|V   | 7| 7| 7| 7| 7|
|Q   | 3| 4| 4| 4| 4|
|P   | T| T| T| T| T|

Final quorum: 4

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Martin Rönsch]

Am 29.05.2017 um 19:44 schrieb Quazie:

Okay - I will cover ADoP.

Reporter is vacant as is assessor.

PSS showed interest in reporter at one point, but does anyone have 
interest in Assessor?


I don't want it - but i am now back at Agora, and I'm willing to step 
up if no one else is interested.



On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:00 Nicholas Evans > wrote:


To clarify i mean i completely deregister, not resign ADoP

On May 29, 2017 11:55, "Nic Evans" > wrote:

On 05/26/2017 04:39 PM, Nic Evans wrote:

I initiate an election for Associate Director of
Personnel, as there has
been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran
decision to
determine the new Associate Director of Personnel. For
this decision, the
vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the
players
(PRESENT is also a valid vote).

I withdraw my previous vote on this decision and cast the vote
[Quazie].

I resign. I feel like we're spending more time cleaning
unnecessary messes and discussing irrelevant philosophy than
playing Agora. Maybe I'm wrong, but either way I'm finding it
more frustrating than enjoyable.



I am interested in being the reportor, I am also willing to step in as 
assessor, but I think I'd rather leave this job to an experienced player.


Veggiekeks

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[Quazie]

Sad to see you go grok - hope I wasn't overly problematic - your insight so
far has led me to some interesting archive spelunking on my part - and I
really have enjoyed your play so far.

Interestingly - does grok's agency get dissolved? I think it doesn't - so
i'll work on fixing that.

(Though TBH I am not in love with the Agency concept at the moment, I feel
like it doesn't help anything, I'd rather go all in on organizations, but
i'm so locked out that I can't)
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:18 grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

> Believe me, you were never part of the problem. I didn't mind opining over
> philosophy in Agora as long as it's backed with an understanding of the
> rules and CFJ precedent--something you always made sure to include in your
> more abstract posts. I'm more frustrated with the blase "I say I did so I
> did" approaches towards abstract applications of the rules, especially in
> cases where the rules plainly state how that case could be handled.
>
> It's just frustrating that I thought I was doing things right as a new
> player--asking lots of questions before I did things and really studying
> the rules before registration--when clearly just jumping in and asserting
> that I did things is fine too. It makes me feel like my work is for
> nothing, and I tend not to stay in spaces where I don't feel appreciated.
>
> It's just not worth my time and energy to post an argument about every
> single psuedo-philosophy argument presented on Agora, and if I don't I run
> the risk of losing. Just not a game I'm interested in playing.
>
> And for what it's worth, I always appreciated your historical approach on
> Agora. It was always appreciated.
>
>
> -grok
>
> On May 29, 2017 12:10 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sorry if I was over-historicating myself.
>>
>> On one hand, long digressions on philosophy have always been a part
>> of Agora, that's not going away.  The recent talk about academics,
>> essays and theses, and new players asking lots of questions, kicked it
>> up a notch so maybe I started doing that too much , I'll dial it back
>> myself.
>>
>> On the other hand, that's always been part of Agora, but it has to be
>> balanced by plenty of working game play (functioning economy and so
>> forth) so the long digressions are a minor side show.  So people can
>> blip over the philosophy they find boring and "just play".
>>
>> But the "just play" bits seem to have lots of arcane agency-ing that
>> I've lost track of myself.  And the recent scams set poor cultural
>> precedents on scamming, perhaps (same thing happened a couple years
>> back with Fool's scam - it was a burst of activity that then killed
>> things because everyone got bored while it was sorted).
>>
>> And of course, with this high volume, it's hard to wade through at all
>> no matter what's going on.
>>
>> FWIW, the contributions I noted from you in your short tenure seemed
>> quite worthwhile!  Hope you might stay tuned to see if it settles
>> down to more regular gameplay in a month or so...
>>
>> On Mon, 29 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> > I was really excited to play legislative-based, classic nomic style
>> Agora. That's not what I'm getting. All this psuedo-philosophy of the rules
>> > stuff is really frustrating to me, especially since it's all getting
>> dismissed or ruled false anyways.
>> > I spent a long time reading the rules in depth before I started, and
>> really wanted to do it up right. Apparently that isn't a requirement or
>> > expectation, so I have no interest in playing.
>> >
>> > And it's a shame, because I was really, REALLY excited to join a nomic
>> with so much history and prestige. But it just doesn't feel like a nomic
>> > to me right now.
>> >
>> > I'll keep an eye on the lists to see if it gets better in a month, but
>> I'm not getting my hopes up.
>> >
>> >
>> > I deregister​ as a player.
>> >
>> >
>> > -grok
>> >
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Quazie]

Okay - I will cover ADoP.

Reporter is vacant as is assessor.

PSS showed interest in reporter at one point, but does anyone have interest
in Assessor?

I don't want it - but i am now back at Agora, and I'm willing to step up if
no one else is interested.


On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:00 Nicholas Evans  wrote:

> To clarify i mean i completely deregister, not resign ADoP
>
> On May 29, 2017 11:55, "Nic Evans"  wrote:
>
>> On 05/26/2017 04:39 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>>
>>> I initiate an election for Associate Director of Personnel, as there has
>>> been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to
>>> determine the new Associate Director of Personnel. For this decision, the
>>> vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players
>>> (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>
>> I withdraw my previous vote on this decision and cast the vote [Quazie].
>>
>> I resign. I feel like we're spending more time cleaning unnecessary
>> messes and discussing irrelevant philosophy than playing Agora. Maybe I'm
>> wrong, but either way I'm finding it more frustrating than enjoyable.
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Quazie]

Did you resign from all your positions?

Did you deregister?

Don't leave us nichdel (but I understand if you need to leave)

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 09:55 Nic Evans  wrote:

> On 05/26/2017 04:39 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
> > I initiate an election for Associate Director of Personnel, as there has
> > been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to
> > determine the new Associate Director of Personnel. For this decision, the
> > vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players
> > (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
> I withdraw my previous vote on this decision and cast the vote [Quazie].
>
> I resign. I feel like we're spending more time cleaning unnecessary
> messes and discussing irrelevant philosophy than playing Agora. Maybe
> I'm wrong, but either way I'm finding it more frustrating than enjoyable.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This isn't what I thought it would be

[grok (caleb vines)]

Believe me, you were never part of the problem. I didn't mind opining over
philosophy in Agora as long as it's backed with an understanding of the
rules and CFJ precedent--something you always made sure to include in your
more abstract posts. I'm more frustrated with the blase "I say I did so I
did" approaches towards abstract applications of the rules, especially in
cases where the rules plainly state how that case could be handled.

It's just frustrating that I thought I was doing things right as a new
player--asking lots of questions before I did things and really studying
the rules before registration--when clearly just jumping in and asserting
that I did things is fine too. It makes me feel like my work is for
nothing, and I tend not to stay in spaces where I don't feel appreciated.

It's just not worth my time and energy to post an argument about every
single psuedo-philosophy argument presented on Agora, and if I don't I run
the risk of losing. Just not a game I'm interested in playing.

And for what it's worth, I always appreciated your historical approach on
Agora. It was always appreciated.


-grok

On May 29, 2017 12:10 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:

>
>
> Sorry if I was over-historicating myself.
>
> On one hand, long digressions on philosophy have always been a part
> of Agora, that's not going away.  The recent talk about academics,
> essays and theses, and new players asking lots of questions, kicked it
> up a notch so maybe I started doing that too much , I'll dial it back
> myself.
>
> On the other hand, that's always been part of Agora, but it has to be
> balanced by plenty of working game play (functioning economy and so
> forth) so the long digressions are a minor side show.  So people can
> blip over the philosophy they find boring and "just play".
>
> But the "just play" bits seem to have lots of arcane agency-ing that
> I've lost track of myself.  And the recent scams set poor cultural
> precedents on scamming, perhaps (same thing happened a couple years
> back with Fool's scam - it was a burst of activity that then killed
> things because everyone got bored while it was sorted).
>
> And of course, with this high volume, it's hard to wade through at all
> no matter what's going on.
>
> FWIW, the contributions I noted from you in your short tenure seemed
> quite worthwhile!  Hope you might stay tuned to see if it settles
> down to more regular gameplay in a month or so...
>
> On Mon, 29 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> > I was really excited to play legislative-based, classic nomic style
> Agora. That's not what I'm getting. All this psuedo-philosophy of the rules
> > stuff is really frustrating to me, especially since it's all getting
> dismissed or ruled false anyways.
> > I spent a long time reading the rules in depth before I started, and
> really wanted to do it up right. Apparently that isn't a requirement or
> > expectation, so I have no interest in playing.
> >
> > And it's a shame, because I was really, REALLY excited to join a nomic
> with so much history and prestige. But it just doesn't feel like a nomic
> > to me right now.
> >
> > I'll keep an eye on the lists to see if it gets better in a month, but
> I'm not getting my hopes up.
> >
> >
> > I deregister​ as a player.
> >
> >
> > -grok
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> To clarify i mean i completely deregister, not resign ADoP

Ugh.  I really am going to shut up about philosophy now.  Really
sorry for my part in this.

Re: Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[CuddleBeam]

>Please tone down the language a wee bit, we like to pretend to be
>genteel. (I'm not saying nichdel wasn't overly snarky emself; this is a
>de-escalation request all around).

Yeah I re-read my thing and found it to be more intense than it should be
lol.

Sorry about that.

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> But yeah. Don't fucking toss me an ad hominem. I'll gladly re-process 
> the ideas and re-present it again.

Please tone down the language a wee bit, we like to pretend to be genteel. 
(I'm not saying nichdel wasn't overly snarky emself; this is a de-escalation
request all around).

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[CuddleBeam]

>This response makes me think you didn't read or comprehend my response.

This is a really intense claim, but I'll restate my response again, but
breaking down your exact reply instead of making certain assumptions which
I thought were obvious from dialogue. I believe this is the "practical"
versus "platonic" approach again, or what "unwritten things" are
"obvious"/"axiomatic" or not. (Axiomatic lightly in a lingo sense that it
doesn't need to be explained, it's obvious or just "should be so, anything
else would be ridiculous/bad/improper")

"Why don't you have those axioms, you're crazy!" versus "How can those
things be axioms, that's crazy!"

The 'withdraw' extrapolation from ballots isn't obvious or "axiomatic" to
me. I don't believe there is a good reason to assume it as such.

There really isn't a solution to that, if that's the issue. I think you
thought that I "didn't understand it" because I'm not assuming your axioms,
but then again, I didn't state that I was continuing to argue from my point
of view instead of explicitly going "ayo, this is an axiom problem" like
I'm doing now.

But yeah. Don't fucking toss me an ad hominem. I'll gladly re-process the
ideas and re-present it again.

Onto it:

---[YOU]---

Note the definition of regulated, from R2125:


"An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit
its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which the action
would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect,
modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor."
---[/YOU]---

There is no limitation, permission or enabling (unless 'unregulated'
actions are allowed by the Rules, in which case, they're regulated,
because they're allowed, and all actions in the universe are regulated
as per my other proof, but I'm assuming that isn't true for the sake
of argument) of withdrawing *objections*. It just explains that such a
phenomenon, if it happens, has a certain effect.


---[YOU]---

The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly
mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly regulated.

---[/YOU]---


Yes, and withdrawing ballots isn't the same thing as withdrawing
proposals. And withdrawing *objections*, which was what my scam
attempt was about, has no explicit conditions for success or failure.


Ballots certainly do. Proposals certainly do. Objections, don't.


---[YOU]---

For this, there's no explicit definition. However, the rules still
imply it's a thing players can do, and mention a situation where, if
it was performed, it would have an effect.

---[/YOU]---


I think THIS is our CENTRAL disagreement and make it seem why each of
us looks bonkers to the other.


You believe that these unwritten implications exist, I don't believe
they do. They're not obvious to me, nor do I see any reason for them
to be obvious or "axiomatic".


And you can disagree with that and we're back at the cards for cards,
decentralized justice problem again but with a different flavor.


We just disagree on these "axioms".


>And your recent behavior makes me think you don't attempt to comprehend the 
>rules before acting.


I do, but since I can't (and won't) be the final judge for my
attempts, and I'm not psychic to know what the would-be judgement from
others would be, so I just try stuff as an actual necessary part of
reaching that comprehension. I have a good idea, sure, but I won't
know for real until I actually try it.


Nobody will get to fully understand the rules alone, and if that's
what you're implying, I believe that's wrong, due to what I've said
above. Or you mean that you'd prefer for it to be posted in Discussion
rather than formal areas in which case, I can just shrug.


It was free and non-spammy. I had nothing to lose, so I did it.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Kerim Aydin]

Ok, here's the longer deal on unregulated actions.

The rules neither take from, nor add to, your ability to perform 
unregulated actions.

For this, CFJs 2149 and 2150 are instructive.  From those two cases:

"Celebrating" is unregulated.  Can you celebrate something by
announcement?  Sure!  By common definition, to celebrate something is to
acknowledge something good as part of an enjoyable activity, you can
certainly do that over email in a game forum.

"Landing on the moon" is also unregulated.  Can you land on the moon by 
announcement? Well, you can say you did, but unless you send me video, I'd
say you CANNOT.  It's just not something people can do, no matter how much
you just said you did.

So, what about support/object?

Well, if I were in a meeting, and the facilitator says "who supports this
idea?"  I could say something, or raise my hand, and the facilitator would
count me as a supporter.  So I CAN generally do that, in common terms, in
any conversation or in response to any intent, opinion, or idea.  So,
if someone asks me here, over email, if I support something, I can send
a message saying I do, and in common terms, I'm a supporter.  The Rules
specify this must be done publicly to have a game impact (so sitting at my
desk raising my hand wouldn't count), but that's a minor condition to a
common thing I can do naturally, without regulation.

What about withdrawing support?  If I listen to arguments in a meeting
(say, with my hand raised as a supporter), I can put my hand down and
say "I don't support this anymore."  Normal, natural.  By common
definition, I CAN withdraw my support.  In an email context, I can send
in something that says "I don't support this opinion any more" and people
would accept that I'm not a supporter.  So I don't need rules to be able
to do that.

Can I withdraw someone else's support?  Well, no!  If I tried to pull
my neighbor's hand down, security would be called, and even if I succeeded,
it would be under duress, and no one would count that as my neighbor 
actually withdrawing support.  In common terms, I CANNOT withdraw someone
else's support or objection.

So in *that* case, I CANNOT do it naturally (in an unregulated way), any
more than I could land on the moon, and since the rules don't otherwise
permit (regulate) it, so I can't do it
in the game by announcement.

Now, of course, the Rules *could* permit counterfactuals.  If the rules
explicitly said, "a person CAN land on the moon by announcement.", then
if someone announces it, we create the Legal Fiction that it happened. In
other words, whomever is the recordkeepor of Moon Landings notes it down,
and it's part of the Agoran gamestate (but no longer attached to reality,
of course).  This is what happened with the recent ballot issue that gave
ais523 eir Junta.

But for unregulated actions, you're stuck with reality - and in reality,
withdrawing someone else's objections is just NOT something that people
generally accept as possible, for any common uses of those terms.

The only remaining issues I think are:

(1) in the rules, the "and not withdrawn" is a bit detached from the
phrase "publicly", so there's a bit of a chance a person could object
publicly, and withdraw (eir own!) objection privately.  I think it's a
slight ambiguity in the text that would be resolved in favor of it being
public only.

(2) who tracks people who support and object (on behalf of themselves)?
I'm not sure that really causes an "issue", but I've thought of at least
one situation where it may lead to some interesting results... I'll save
that one for a bit.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Nicholas Evans]

This response makes me think you didn't read or comprehend my response. And
your recent behavior makes me think you don't attempt to comprehend the
rules before acting.

On May 29, 2017 10:35, "CuddleBeam"  wrote:

> >The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly
> mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly regulated.
>
> I disagree.
>
> An action is regulated if:
> * (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance
> - There is no limitation, permission or enabling (unless 'unregulated'
> actions are allowed by the Rules, in which case, they're regulated, because
> they're allowed, and all actions in the universe are regulated as per my
> other proof, but I'm assuming that isn't true for the sake of argument)
>
> * (2) describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or
> fail
> - There actually is no description about how a withdrawal of *objections*
> would succeed or not. Withdrawal of objections =/= withdrawal of ballots.
> Or it is, in which case, I should be able to expolate other terms out of
> their context and scam like that.
>
> * (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for
> which some player is required to be a recordkeepor."
> - This is the odd one, because it seems that I'm not required to track
> until I need to actually publish, so it seems to me that withdrawals before
> that event are unregulated, and after it, are regulated.
>

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[CuddleBeam]

>The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly
mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly regulated.

I disagree.

An action is regulated if:
* (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance
- There is no limitation, permission or enabling (unless 'unregulated'
actions are allowed by the Rules, in which case, they're regulated, because
they're allowed, and all actions in the universe are regulated as per my
other proof, but I'm assuming that isn't true for the sake of argument)

* (2) describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or
fail
- There actually is no description about how a withdrawal of *objections*
would succeed or not. Withdrawal of objections =/= withdrawal of ballots.
Or it is, in which case, I should be able to expolate other terms out of
their context and scam like that.

* (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which
some player is required to be a recordkeepor."
- This is the odd one, because it seems that I'm not required to track
until I need to actually publish, so it seems to me that withdrawals before
that event are unregulated, and after it, are regulated.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Quazie]

I am happy to reconsider of you lemme know where I over stepped.
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 21:17 Josh T  wrote:

> I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if there is
> interest among the players for reconsideration.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider
>> this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider were I a
>> player.  Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the question,
>> or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the caller
>> *meant* to ask, this uses a judgement to try and sent precedent on an
>> entirely different matter.  If this were allowed we'd have to let judges
>> opine on anything, unrelated to their CFJ topic, and consider it
>> precedent.
>>
>> On Wed, 24 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>>
>> >   First: Past rules allow for YES/NO questions to be judged
>> TRUE/FALSE with TRUE meaning YES and FALSE meaning NO, and I will
>> re-establish that
>> >   tradition as a new judicial precedent within this judgment.  If
>> there is issue with this interpretation, I will be happy to reconsider as
>> DISMISS,
>> >   but I will follow with the rest of my judgment.
>> >
>> > Next: The CFJ in question asks "Can this statement have a Judge?".  I
>> find this CFJ to be trivially TRUE and judge it as such.  Even giving the
>> > interesting barring attempt (Which I'll discuss shortly) only two
>> realities exist:
>> > Reality One: I am the judge of this CFJ, and if this is true then the
>> barring attempt failed.
>> > Reality Two: I am not the judge of this CFJ, but once thats established
>> ais523 will simply assign a new judge, and E will likely agree with my
>> statement
>> > that e is the judge of the CFJ.
>> >
>> > In either reality there eventually is a judge for this CFJ, and thus
>> the CFJ is TRUE (Meaning YES to the yes/no question presented).
>> >
>> > To be honest, I could end the judgment here.  CuddleBeam should've
>> CFJed on "A player, other than CuddleBeam, is barred on this CFJ".  That
>> would've
>> > required someone to judge if the barring worked.  I note to CuddleBeam:
>> Be more careful of your wording next time. I'm unsure if your $2.99 Super
>> CFJs
>> > are all their cracked up to be if I feel comfortable not judging the
>> question you seemed to intend to raise.  But, I've got an opinion on the
>> matter, and
>> > I believe it's controversial, and I've got some words to say.
>> >
>> > So... let's get into the question at hand:
>> >
>> > Was anyone barred from judging this CFJ?
>> >
>> > It seems like ais523 didn't attempt to assign anyone else first (E gave
>> no indication that E did so, and in fact noted that e didn't believe e had
>> to).
>> > {{{
>> >   (My own current understanding
>> >   is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
>> >   action based on information that will only be available in the future;
>> >   presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this
>> >   understanding.)
>> > }}}
>> >
>> > The thing is, I don't see it that way.
>> >
>> > Conditional activities are defined, in a general way, by R1023
>> > {{{
>> >   (c) If a regulated value, or the value of a conditional, or a
>> > value otherwise required to determine the outcome of a
>> > regulated action, CANNOT be reasonably determined (without
>> > circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
>> > available, or if it alternates instantaneously and
>> > indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to
>> > be Indeterminate, otherwise it is Determinate.
>> > }}}
>> >
>> > The burden here is reasonability - is it reasonable to allow an
>> conditional activity to happen?
>> >
>> > I agree, there's a long standing tradition (Potentially
>> established/enforced through CFJ 3381 or CFJ 2926, this information
>> gathering is left up to the
>> > reader) that future conditional actions aren't valid, and I will uphold
>> that logic for most cases.
>> >
>> > I agree that it's wrong for the game to allow an action to resolve at
>> an arbitrary date in the future.
>> > (e.g. "I give  1 shiny if they send a photo of a sloth via a
>> public forum." should not actually send the Sloth-Sender a shiny.  That
>> requires an
>> > officer (or in simpler cases just the playerbase) to keep track of an
>> action for an indeterminate amount of time which is unreasonable.)
>> >
>> > I agree that it's wrong and bad for the game to make future conditional
>> action's be allowable with a pre-set arbitrary resolution event and time.
>> > (e.g. "I give  1 shiny if, within the next week, they send out
>> a message with unicode characters in it".  Non-rule defined deadlines are
>> > similarly unreasonable, as they non-consensually place an obligation on
>> someone else to track the conditional to ensure success of a future
>> activity.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Nic Evans]

On 05/29/2017 07:04 AM, CuddleBeam wrote:

> No one seems to understand what unregulated means. All it means is
> that the rules can't say that an action is impossible or prohibited. 
> It doesn't magically make it possible, or convince the rules to care 
> about it. All the unregulated/regulated distinction is intended to 
do > is to prevent the rules from being interpreted so as to stop a 
player > doing something ordinary, for instance walking down the 
street. It > doesn't mean that you can suddenly do game actions that 
you couldn't > before. See also CFJ 2151.
So... Nobody can actually withdraw anything? Because its unregulated, 
and there is no mechanical way to actually do the action of 'withdraw'?


Note the definition of regulated, from R2125:

"An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or 
permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which the 
action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its 
effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a 
recordkeepor."


The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and 
explicitly mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly 
regulated.


For this, there's no explicit definition. However, the rules still imply 
it's a thing players can do, and mention a situation where, if it was 
performed, it would have an effect. Combining that with the fact that 
this form of 'withdrawing' is semantically similar to the other two 
explicitly defined, and I think most people would accept that 
withdrawing consent is regulated. And if people do disagree here, it's a 
reasonable thing to CFJ.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[CuddleBeam]

>Although I do think grok's "If I am still an objector, but my objection

>has been withdrawn [by someone else], can I withdraw my objection?" is
>a valid question.


We don't even have a mechanic to *withdraw* in the first place. If you
can pull out of the ether that you can "withdraw", I believe its
reasonable to pull out of the ether too that you can "withdraw
withdrawn" things.


Or withdraw my withdrawal. Then withdraw the objection (because its no
longer withdrawn).


>As far as I can tell, nothing prevents people withdrawing other

>people's objections, but doing so doesn't do anything (apart from
>possibly triggering the 24 hour lockout); objections only cease to be
>counted if they're withdrawn by the objector.


Gah, I was so close lol. Just one eensy teensy conjugation away.


>Um... You usually have  to prove you can do a thing that seems obvious

>wrong or people will ignore it.


Yes, I will do so next time.


> No one seems to understand what unregulated means. All it means is
> that the rules can't say that an action is impossible or prohibited.
> It doesn't magically make it possible, or convince the rules to care
> about it. All the unregulated/regulated distinction is intended to do
> is to prevent the rules from being interpreted so as to stop a player
> doing something ordinary, for instance walking down the street. It
> doesn't mean that you can suddenly do game actions that you couldn't
> before. See also CFJ 2151.


So... Nobody can actually withdraw anything? Because its unregulated,
and there is no mechanical way to actually do the action of
'withdraw'?

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Revised Full Logical Ruleset

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 28 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Online documents:
>  https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/slr.txt (SLR)
>  https://agoranomic.github.io/ruleset/flr.txt (FLR)

You might want to check your flr link Gaelan - it looks like it goes
to an older (9-May) copy.