Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Josh T]

I like coming up with interesting wordlists. They're fun to compile and
evidently the result is reasonably well-received, although I think o is the
only person whose been on the receiving end of my lists.

天火狐

On 14 July 2017 at 00:58, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2017, at 9:53 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
>
>
> I find this finger-pointing to be Shenanigans, based on the testimony of
> the accused:
>
> > I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe it had at
> least a slither of chance of working.
>
>
> Quite a number of scams in Agora’s past have relied on creative
> interpretations of the rules, and while I personally believe there’s no way
> this scam could work, I believe carding Cuddlebeam would unjustifiably
> punish em for a bona fide attempt.
>
> Had I found otherwise, I would have issued a Yellow Card, not a Red Card.
> In spite of the colour theme of the Cards, I find that a Yellow Card is
> considerably more severe than a Red Card, especially if paired with a
> challenging word list. It’s also easier to justify a Yellow Card in the
> face of the accusations against Cuddlebeam in this finger-pointing. (This
> is, perhaps, not working as intended.)
>
> Instead, I’ll reinforce ais523’s advice to find a co-conspirator for
> future scams, and 天火狐’s observation that such tactics have very much worn
> out their welcome.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jul 9, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> I would support, with a fair implementation.
> 
> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good Forever.
> 
> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response to CB
> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB does
> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player.
> 
> I challenge people who are on the fence about this to point to a single
> time that CB has considered other players, or done necessary work, or
> done anything at all to make the game better or more enjoyable to anyone
> but emself.

It is unfortunate that I have only seven days to review and decide on this, as 
these are serious allegations that merit serious consideration.

Would any interested parties please submit arguments within the next 36 hours? 
I believe that leaves me time to review them, and to review relevant CFJs, 
before the deadline of July 17th, 01:50:23 UTC. In the absence of arguments, 
I’ll still pass judgement, but I fear my knowledge of Agoran custom and rules 
may not be up to the task, and there’s no appeals process for Cards.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jul 9, 2017, at 8:53 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> Via "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner 
> to another entity by announcement", I announce that I transfer all assets to 
> myself.

Absent a CFJ to the contrary, I see no way this can possibly work as evidently 
intended.

There’s a fair degree of practice and precedent around “generally” clauses 
already. Rule 105 (“Rule Changes”), for example, allows instruments to 
“generally” amend the text of a rule - but there’s no dispute that rule 1030 
(“Precedence between Rules”) restricts instruments from amending rules if such 
an amendment would allow a rule to directly take precedence over rule 1030 for 
the purposes of determining rule precedence, or that rule 1689 (“Agora Is A 
Nomic”) prevents an instrument from causing Agora to become ossified by 
amending a rule. These are long-standing norms and necessary safety features to 
keep poorly-considered rule changes from completely stalling the game.

Thus, I shall, for the purposes of the offices I hold, record the actions in 
Cuddlebeam's message in the following manner:

* e created a proposal.
* e paid all of eir shinies (I believe the amount to be 18, but hold for the 
report) to pend it.
* e created a second proposal.
* e paid zero shinies, and presumably failed to pend it.
* e destroyed any destructible assets e holds. I believe there are no such 
assets.

If there is a contrary CFJ, then I’ll mark the appropriate report entries as 
provisional in future reports until the CFJ is resolved, then publish future 
reports following the result of the CFJ, as normal. I’m not interested in 
starting this CFJ, unless someone feels like supporting Cuddlebeam’s 
interpretation of the rules - in which case, if you beat me to it, please enter 
this message in evidence!

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Two Related Protos: Judicial Expansion and Criminal Cases

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 18:00 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> A compromise that I considered (and rejected just because the other is
> simpler): Have three pools: Nonjudges, Available Judges, Unavailable
> Judges. You can choose anyone from the Available Judges pool, which also
> makes the Unavailable. When you're out of Available Judges, everyone in
> the Unavailable pool becomes Available. I think there was something
> similar to this when I first joined.

This (and/or minor variations on it) was the system for years, although
 the terminology was more open to wordplay.

Theory: the reason our current economic system doesn't really seem to
be working is that it doesn't contain enough puns.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Two Related Protos: Judicial Expansion and Criminal Cases

[Nic Evans]

On 07/13/17 17:44, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 15:23 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
>>> (I already have a good deal of text written for these, but wanted
>>> feedback on the abstracts before getting too committed.)
>>>
>>> Judicial Expansion
>>> --
>>>
>>> Players opt-in to the judge list. When a judge is needed, assign to the
>>> first on the list that isn't ineligible, then move them to the end of
>>> the list. If the proto below also passes, both CFJs and Criminal Cases
>>> are assigned using the same list, keeping the workload for judges balanced.
>> I currently try to pick appropriate judges for CFJs, while keeping
>> things balanced. I'm not necessarily opposed to this change, but it'd
>> likely lead to a more even distribution of cases to judges, which might
>> or might not be seen as a good thing. Note also that it effectively
>> allows a CFJ caller to "choose their judge" via changing the timing of
>> the CFJ.
> Do you think Favoring/Disfavoring should still be a thing in a new system?
> I'm of two minds:  on one hand I like the idea of "forcing" someone to put
> their mind to whatever comes up as it leads to diversity of opinion; on the
> other hand I think we get better judgements (and better avoid lateness
> recusals) when the judge actually cares.  Just on past experience I'd lean
> towards the latter (i.e. keeping favoring).  -G.
>
>
>
>

A compromise that I considered (and rejected just because the other is
simpler): Have three pools: Nonjudges, Available Judges, Unavailable
Judges. You can choose anyone from the Available Judges pool, which also
makes the Unavailable. When you're out of Available Judges, everyone in
the Unavailable pool becomes Available. I think there was something
similar to this when I first joined.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Two Related Protos: Judicial Expansion and Criminal Cases

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 15:23 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> > (I already have a good deal of text written for these, but wanted
> > feedback on the abstracts before getting too committed.)
> > 
> > Judicial Expansion
> > --
> > 
> > Players opt-in to the judge list. When a judge is needed, assign to the
> > first on the list that isn't ineligible, then move them to the end of
> > the list. If the proto below also passes, both CFJs and Criminal Cases
> > are assigned using the same list, keeping the workload for judges balanced.
> 
> I currently try to pick appropriate judges for CFJs, while keeping
> things balanced. I'm not necessarily opposed to this change, but it'd
> likely lead to a more even distribution of cases to judges, which might
> or might not be seen as a good thing. Note also that it effectively
> allows a CFJ caller to "choose their judge" via changing the timing of
> the CFJ.

Do you think Favoring/Disfavoring should still be a thing in a new system?
I'm of two minds:  on one hand I like the idea of "forcing" someone to put
their mind to whatever comes up as it leads to diversity of opinion; on the
other hand I think we get better judgements (and better avoid lateness
recusals) when the judge actually cares.  Just on past experience I'd lean
towards the latter (i.e. keeping favoring).  -G.

Re: DIS: Two Related Protos: Judicial Expansion and Criminal Cases

[Nic Evans]

On 07/13/17 17:16, Alex Smith wrote:
> I currently try to pick appropriate judges for CFJs, while keeping
> things balanced. I'm not necessarily opposed to this change, but it'd
> likely lead to a more even distribution of cases to judges, which might
> or might not be seen as a good thing.

I have no qualms with your system as it stands, but if we have two
separate officers assigning judges, you either need coordination or
something more formal.

> Note also that it effectively
> allows a CFJ caller to "choose their judge" via changing the timing of
> the CFJ.

Good to note, but not too worrisome since we have a robust appeals system.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Two Related Protos: Judicial Expansion and Criminal Cases

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 15:23 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> (I already have a good deal of text written for these, but wanted
> feedback on the abstracts before getting too committed.)
> 
> Judicial Expansion
> --
> 
> Players opt-in to the judge list. When a judge is needed, assign to the
> first on the list that isn't ineligible, then move them to the end of
> the list. If the proto below also passes, both CFJs and Criminal Cases
> are assigned using the same list, keeping the workload for judges balanced.

I currently try to pick appropriate judges for CFJs, while keeping
things balanced. I'm not necessarily opposed to this change, but it'd
likely lead to a more even distribution of cases to judges, which might
or might not be seen as a good thing. Note also that it effectively
allows a CFJ caller to "choose their judge" via changing the timing of
the CFJ.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Two Related Protos: Judicial Expansion and Criminal Cases

[Nic Evans]

(I already have a good deal of text written for these, but wanted
feedback on the abstracts before getting too committed.)

Judicial Expansion
--

Players opt-in to the judge list. When a judge is needed, assign to the
first on the list that isn't ineligible, then move them to the end of
the list. If the proto below also passes, both CFJs and Criminal Cases
are assigned using the same list, keeping the workload for judges balanced.

Criminal Cases
--

Players can accuse each other of crimes. Weekly, an officer collects the
accusations and creates cases, each being a collection of accusations
made towards the same player (this allows accusations related to the
same action(s) to be grouped together). Then assign them to judges
(arbitrarily, or using the above). For each charge in a case, the judge
rules GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.

That same officer takes all the finished cases and creates Punishment
Packages. A Punishment Package is a list of effects, chosen from the
list of appropriate punishments for each crime, that requires Agoran
Consent. When a Punishment Package reaches Agoran Consent, its effects
apply to the perp.

As for crimes themselves, what follows is the proto text:

{

Crimes are divided into Classes, and Levels. Each Class specifies
general qualifications and appropriate punishments. Low Level
crimes are variants that occur through negligence and/or have minimal
impact on game flow. High Level crimes are variants that occur
intentionally and/or have significant impact on game flow. Punishments
appropriate to Low variants of a crime class are also appropriate to
High variants of the same class.

For any punishment that states a range, the Punisseor MAY choose any
value within the range.

Faux Pas is a class of crime that represents poor form and violations of
procedure that do not involve abusing agreements or specially granted
powers.

Appropriate Low Punishments:

-Cause the perp to transfer 1-5 shinies to Agora.
-The perp SHALL write an apology, including up to 10 required words
chosen at the Punisseor's discretion.

Appropriate High Punishments:

-Reduce the perp's weekly AP by 1-2 for up to 4 weeks.

Vow Breaking is a class of crime that represents breakages of
agreements.

Appropriate Low Punishments:

-If the crime involved not giving or receiving promised assets, cause
the perp to transfer the amount (of the same type(s)) of assets
promised, to the entity they were promised to.
-The perp SHALL write an apology, including up to 10 required words
chosen at the Inquistor's discretion.

Appropriate High Punishments:

-If the breakage involved not giving or receiving assets, cause the perp
to transfer up to twice the amount (of the same type(s)) of assets
promised, to the entity they were promised to.
-If the breakage involved an Agency created by the perp, dissolve that
Agency.
-If the breakage involved an Organization, cause the perp to no longer
be a member of that Organization.
-If the breakage involved a Promise, the perp SHALL NOT make promises
for up to 4 weeks.

Malfeasance is a class of crime that represents misuse of elevated
privileges or negligence in elevated duties, particularly those granted
by offices.

Appropriate Low Punishments:

-Cause the perp to transfer 1-10 shinies to Agora.
-The perp SHALL write an apology, including up to 10 required words
chosen at the Punisseor's discretion.

Appropriate High Punishments:

-If the crime involved an office, cause the perp to resign from
that office.

}

Thus, Low Variants are similar to Yellow Cards, whereas High variants
are more egregious.

Violations of non officer SHALLS and SHALL NOTS, Faking, Making My Eyes
Bleed, (potentially) Endorsing Forgery, and excessive NttPF posts would
be potential Faux Pas.

Vow Breaking is basically just an expansion of breaking Pledges that
adds on a way to equalize the situation.

Malfeasance is mostly for SHALLS and SHALL NOTS of offices.

I'm debating a fourth category for Endorsing Forgery and other extremely
serious crimes. Haven't decided yet.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature