Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 23:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I'm not seeing how Organizations are any different though? > It cloaks things in "appropriate" changes of switches to different > text values, but that's just amending legal codes just the same...? It was meant to be a pragmatised but non-subjective enforcement mechanism based on having penalties that were fixed in advance, as a method of backing a currency. (Remember that we didn't have an economy at the time, and contract-based currencies tend to massively inflate due to not being backed by anything.) In other words, a "breach" changed a number in a predictable way, and unlike SHALLs (which you aren't supposed to violate), incurring a penalty on an Organization was intended to be something you could do intentionally if you wished without any ethical problems. I'm not sure it was different enough, though. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 22:34 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say something is > > "different" than contracts. If it's a "supplementary legal code", it > > described a set of usages to follow. If that's what you call a > > contract, it's a tautology to say all SLCs are contracts...? Maybe > > I'm missing your distinctions here. > > I consider something to be contract-like if it works as an agreement > between a set of people, enforced via SHALL-like mechanisms (and > eventually via the courts/Referee). Typically contracts have text and > often internal state, but those aren't really requirements. > > Something like the first version of Promises (effectively, Agencies > that posted a fixed message, and for which the ability to sue them > could be traded) would be an example of an agreement system that's > clearly different from Contracts; they couldn't meaningfully have > internal state, they could (but weren't) be used to form the basis of > an economy, etc.. Ah, I see (I think). Closest we probably came were Bonds and Bond issues, which were very similar to the original Promises. Some of the contests didn't have Shalls, but were "enforced" by CAN and CANNOTs, with CFJ interpretation of course. I'm not seeing how Organizations are any different though? It cloaks things in "appropriate" changes of switches to different text values, but that's just amending legal codes just the same...?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 22:34 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say something is > "different" than contracts. If it's a "supplementary legal code", it > described a set of usages to follow. If that's what you call a > contract, it's a tautology to say all SLCs are contracts...? Maybe > I'm missing your distinctions here. I consider something to be contract-like if it works as an agreement between a set of people, enforced via SHALL-like mechanisms (and eventually via the courts/Referee). Typically contracts have text and often internal state, but those aren't really requirements. Something like the first version of Promises (effectively, Agencies that posted a fixed message, and for which the ability to sue them could be traded) would be an example of an agreement system that's clearly different from Contracts; they couldn't meaningfully have internal state, they could (but weren't) be used to form the basis of an economy, etc.. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 22:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > > I've discovered that it's basically impossible to force Agorans to use > > > what were once called "supplementary legal codes" in any way other than > > > Contracts. If you create a mechanic, either it turns into Contracts, or > > > else it ends up unused. I know there's a lot of support for doing > > > things differently, but this doesn't seem to be part of it. > > > > The one exception I think of is Contests (er, Tournaments right now). A > > good contest can catch on, without being a contract. People have to be > > in the mood to try it though, can be hit-or-miss (as with any new ruleset). > > Are you aware of a period of Agoran history in which Contests worked in > a way significantly different to typical Contract behaviour? I'd like > to read up on it; the versions of Contests I'm aware of were very > Contract-like (having rules for their participants which were generally > SHALL-enforced, internal gamestate, and the like). The only real > difference between those and Contracts is that Contests are normally > allocated assets by the Ruleset to give out as prizes. I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say something is "different" than contracts. If it's a "supplementary legal code", it described a set of usages to follow. If that's what you call a contract, it's a tautology to say all SLCs are contracts...? Maybe I'm missing your distinctions here. We also had (political) Parties and Teams. These mainly gave shared bonuses for belonging, without necessarily having contract-like regulations for using the bonuses, although some did.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
I believe that actions that happen without a message that explicitly causes them to happen are a Bad Idea due to the challenges they cause in record keeping. In general, “any player may cause x to happen” is way better than “x happens.” In fact, the former is already possible via agencies. Gaelan > On Aug 23, 2017, at 10:15 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 23:46 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:37 PM, Cuddle Beam >>> wrote: >>> >>> like playing I Want To Be The Guy >> >> Steady on! >> >> Actually, I broadly agree with your overall thesis. Precedent and >> history are _important_, and I think it’s worth understanding why >> things are the way they are before tearing them down or rebuilding >> them another way - but the way things are is fairly knob-heavy, and I >> cannot in the slightest blame K for deregistering out of concern for >> comprehension. >> >> My personal coping strategy has been to ignore the mechanics that >> don’t immediately interest me, more or less, and to focus intently on >> the ones that do. However, that’s a coping strategy, not a solution: >> I’m surely missing interesting opportunities by mostly-disregarding >> ribbons and patent titles, or by not trying terribly hard to win. > > The issue with games like Agora is that it's very difficult for a nomic > to contain both a) little enough that it's possible to comprehend the > whole thing at once, and b) enough that there's something to actually > do. Agora tends to go through long periods of inactivity as a > consequence of b); in other words, whenever people decide the rules are > getting too complex, there's mass repeal, then activity peters out and > stops for several months. We still haven't really recovered from the > last mass repeal. > > I don't think anyone usually comprehends much of the ruleset (which is > what Read The Ruleset Week is about). Given that having a playable game > and having an understandable game are in conflict, it's usual to just > give up on understanding the whole thing. Many new players conclude > that they're at a disadvantage because they can't keep track of > everything that's going on, but that's not really the case; they might > not be able to do it, but the experienced players can't do it either. > For example, I'm infamous for mostly ignoring the proposal system > except when I have a particularly good idea for a proposal, or feel > strongly enough about a proposal to want to go and vote. (Or am > operating a scam, but really those can touch any part of the rules and > tend to be one-offs that don't leave you interested in the rule's > intended functionality.) > > In fact, this is arguably a case for /increasing/ the number of > mechanics involved; if you're going to ignore a large subset of them > anyway, may as well increase the variety so that players can find ones > that they do care about. The key is to design most of the game > mechanics so that players who aren't interested can safely ignore them. > >> As a sketch, I’d like to draft two broad proposals: >> >> # Repeal the Referee >> >> * Convert SHALL NOT et al into something equivalent to CANNOT or >> IMPOSSIBLE >> * Modify SHALLs to allow any player to fulfil them if the obliged >> party does not do so >> * Destroy the office of Referee entirely, as well as the associated >> card rules >> >> We can always reinvent it, but punishment is probably the wrong >> paradigm for Agora as it is today, on the whole. A much more >> narrowly-scoped punishment system for dealing with specific >> malfeasance might be a practical replacement, and clearing the ground >> will make it easier to re-draft. > > SHALLs aren't really about punishment. They're about handling > situations in which the pragmatic reality of the real world (including > the players who play in it) doesn't match the platonic ideality that > the rules want to live in (both by giving the rules a way to handle > "hey, this shouldn't have happened, but it did", and by giving the > players notice to say "hey, the rules tell me do to X to avoid things > breaking, I'd better do X"). There are several cases, in fact, where we > explicitly make something both possible and illegal to indicate that a) > we don't want people to do it, but b) if people do do it, the action > should stand. How would that fit into a system like that? > > The punishments are mostly a side show to all that, but it's been > proven over time that we do actually need them; many players aren't > law-abiding enough to do something merely because a rule tells them to. > > (Note that there are some things that do fit better into a punishment > system than a pragmatism system; the rule against breaking pledges is > an obvious example. Note that pledges are a special case of what used > to be called Contracts. Interestingly, Organisations were an attempt to > bring an explicit punishment system to Contracts, rather than the old > system which was SHALL-enforced, so what
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 22:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > I've discovered that it's basically impossible to force Agorans to use > > what were once called "supplementary legal codes" in any way other than > > Contracts. If you create a mechanic, either it turns into Contracts, or > > else it ends up unused. I know there's a lot of support for doing > > things differently, but this doesn't seem to be part of it. > > The one exception I think of is Contests (er, Tournaments right now). A > good contest can catch on, without being a contract. People have to be > in the mood to try it though, can be hit-or-miss (as with any new ruleset). Are you aware of a period of Agoran history in which Contests worked in a way significantly different to typical Contract behaviour? I'd like to read up on it; the versions of Contests I'm aware of were very Contract-like (having rules for their participants which were generally SHALL-enforced, internal gamestate, and the like). The only real difference between those and Contracts is that Contests are normally allocated assets by the Ruleset to give out as prizes. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
Uh oh, I think we might need to fire up there registration CFJ machine again. Gaelan > On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not rule >> or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things. >> >> I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard on >> weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier for >> more people. >> >> Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register. > > Oh, and also: AOL. > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
Nttpf On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 20:32 Cuddle Beam wrote: > This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not > rule or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things. > > I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard on > weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier for > more people. > > Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register. > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Kyle Anderson > wrote: > >> It has become apparent that I require more time for research and >> observation before I can begin to grasp all that is going on and what I >> should be doing. Unfortunately, I don't feel as though I have the requisite >> time to play the game to it's fullest. I will, however, remain on the >> lists, and continue to ask questions in discussion if it's not too much of >> a bother. >> >> -K >> >> On Aug 23, 2017 9:10 PM, "Aris Merchant" < >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Kyle Anderson >>> wrote: >>> > I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30 >>> days, in >>> > accordance with Rule 869. >>> > >>> > -K >>> >>> I'm sorry to see you go. Could you explain why you wanted to leave? >>> >>> -Aris >>> >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > I've discovered that it's basically impossible to force Agorans to use > what were once called "supplementary legal codes" in any way other than > Contracts. If you create a mechanic, either it turns into Contracts, or > else it ends up unused. I know there's a lot of support for doing > things differently, but this doesn't seem to be part of it. The one exception I think of is Contests (er, Tournaments right now). A good contest can catch on, without being a contract. People have to be in the mood to try it though, can be hit-or-miss (as with any new ruleset).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 23:46 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:37 PM, Cuddle Beam > > wrote: > > > > like playing I Want To Be The Guy > > Steady on! > > Actually, I broadly agree with your overall thesis. Precedent and > history are _important_, and I think it’s worth understanding why > things are the way they are before tearing them down or rebuilding > them another way - but the way things are is fairly knob-heavy, and I > cannot in the slightest blame K for deregistering out of concern for > comprehension. > > My personal coping strategy has been to ignore the mechanics that > don’t immediately interest me, more or less, and to focus intently on > the ones that do. However, that’s a coping strategy, not a solution: > I’m surely missing interesting opportunities by mostly-disregarding > ribbons and patent titles, or by not trying terribly hard to win. The issue with games like Agora is that it's very difficult for a nomic to contain both a) little enough that it's possible to comprehend the whole thing at once, and b) enough that there's something to actually do. Agora tends to go through long periods of inactivity as a consequence of b); in other words, whenever people decide the rules are getting too complex, there's mass repeal, then activity peters out and stops for several months. We still haven't really recovered from the last mass repeal. I don't think anyone usually comprehends much of the ruleset (which is what Read The Ruleset Week is about). Given that having a playable game and having an understandable game are in conflict, it's usual to just give up on understanding the whole thing. Many new players conclude that they're at a disadvantage because they can't keep track of everything that's going on, but that's not really the case; they might not be able to do it, but the experienced players can't do it either. For example, I'm infamous for mostly ignoring the proposal system except when I have a particularly good idea for a proposal, or feel strongly enough about a proposal to want to go and vote. (Or am operating a scam, but really those can touch any part of the rules and tend to be one-offs that don't leave you interested in the rule's intended functionality.) In fact, this is arguably a case for /increasing/ the number of mechanics involved; if you're going to ignore a large subset of them anyway, may as well increase the variety so that players can find ones that they do care about. The key is to design most of the game mechanics so that players who aren't interested can safely ignore them. > As a sketch, I’d like to draft two broad proposals: > > # Repeal the Referee > > * Convert SHALL NOT et al into something equivalent to CANNOT or > IMPOSSIBLE > * Modify SHALLs to allow any player to fulfil them if the obliged > party does not do so > * Destroy the office of Referee entirely, as well as the associated > card rules > > We can always reinvent it, but punishment is probably the wrong > paradigm for Agora as it is today, on the whole. A much more > narrowly-scoped punishment system for dealing with specific > malfeasance might be a practical replacement, and clearing the ground > will make it easier to re-draft. SHALLs aren't really about punishment. They're about handling situations in which the pragmatic reality of the real world (including the players who play in it) doesn't match the platonic ideality that the rules want to live in (both by giving the rules a way to handle "hey, this shouldn't have happened, but it did", and by giving the players notice to say "hey, the rules tell me do to X to avoid things breaking, I'd better do X"). There are several cases, in fact, where we explicitly make something both possible and illegal to indicate that a) we don't want people to do it, but b) if people do do it, the action should stand. How would that fit into a system like that? The punishments are mostly a side show to all that, but it's been proven over time that we do actually need them; many players aren't law-abiding enough to do something merely because a rule tells them to. (Note that there are some things that do fit better into a punishment system than a pragmatism system; the rule against breaking pledges is an obvious example. Note that pledges are a special case of what used to be called Contracts. Interestingly, Organisations were an attempt to bring an explicit punishment system to Contracts, rather than the old system which was SHALL-enforced, so what you're making here is actually two points that contradict each other to some extent.) > # Repeal Organizations > > They’re moribund, really. No organization presently has more than one > active member. I've discovered that it's basically impossible to force Agorans to use what were once called "supplementary legal codes" in any way other than Contracts. If you create a mechanic, either it turns into Contracts, or else it ends up unused. I know there's a lot of support for doing things di
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
You're seeing a very small slice of time and making generalizations based on your very short time here. Looking back, the majority of game time is when one particular type of play dominated, with people trying to Win it via "legit" methods. Sometimes Cards. Sometimes Contracts. Sometimes Points. Sometimes Economies. You came in-between times. We were (and are) trying to get an economy going. Unfortunately, it suffered a large series of distractions when some parties decided to Demand Attention without first trying to understand what was going on, using a series of nonsense scams that distracted everyone and detracted greatly from putting the "legit" game together. Interestingly, several other players who joined during the same time period didn't have the same issues. That all said, some pruning is needed. Several of the stubs attempted over the last year didn't really go anywhere and should be swept up (e.g. Organizations). On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > In the end, Agora is an attention distribution machine. A game of attention > economy. If we didn't need attention from other people, we would be playing > nomic alone. > > And in the end everyone wants their own things to gain the most attention, > whether it be rules for others to use, obscure history you care about, your > scams, etc. > > I feel like there just isn't enough attention to go around for the attention > demands that we create for others. There are more attention-requiring things > than > the average player can give. > > And we demand an unfair amount of attention from newcomers, I feel. They have > to > give attention to our coolio clubhouse unwritten house rules and vast obscure > history, or listen to us talk about that vast obscure history and written > rules, in > order to play the game at all. It's a huge tax.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
In the end, Agora is an attention distribution machine. A game of attention economy. If we didn't need attention from other people, we would be playing nomic alone. And in the end everyone wants their own things to gain the most attention, whether it be rules for others to use, obscure history you care about, your scams, etc. I feel like there just isn't enough attention to go around for the attention demands that we create for others. There are more attention-requiring things than the average player can give. And we demand an unfair amount of attention from newcomers, I feel. They have to give attention to our coolio clubhouse unwritten house rules and vast obscure history, or listen to us talk about that vast obscure history and written rules, in order to play the game at all. It's a huge tax.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/AOL . Read the whole page. -Aris On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:15 PM Cuddle Beam wrote: > ...American Online? > > wut lol > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> > This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not >> rule or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things. >> > >> > I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard >> on weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier >> for more people. >> > >> > Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register. >> >> Oh, and also: AOL. >> >> >> >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
...American Online? wut lol On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not > rule or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things. > > > > I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard > on weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier > for more people. > > > > Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register. > > Oh, and also: AOL. > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > My personal coping strategy has been to ignore the mechanics that don’t > immediately interest me, more or less, and to focus intently on the ones > that do. However, that’s a coping strategy, not a solution: I’m surely > missing interesting opportunities by mostly-disregarding ribbons and > patent titles, or by not trying terribly hard to win. I go through periods of ignoring stuff and getting engaged in gameplay. One reason I haven't jumped in recently is I haven't gotten too engaged in the latest, though I'm watching to see if it gets interesting. > * Convert SHALL NOT et al into something equivalent to CANNOT or IMPOSSIBLE As long as you have things you want to make illegal to say (e.g. illegal to reveal secrets, illegal to deceive someone, illegal to attempt etc.) this can't work, as once someone says something, it's not possible to pretend the information wasn't revealed. Looking through, I think that's many (but not all) of the current SHALL NOTs.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:37 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > like playing I Want To Be The Guy Steady on! Actually, I broadly agree with your overall thesis. Precedent and history are _important_, and I think it’s worth understanding why things are the way they are before tearing them down or rebuilding them another way - but the way things are is fairly knob-heavy, and I cannot in the slightest blame K for deregistering out of concern for comprehension. My personal coping strategy has been to ignore the mechanics that don’t immediately interest me, more or less, and to focus intently on the ones that do. However, that’s a coping strategy, not a solution: I’m surely missing interesting opportunities by mostly-disregarding ribbons and patent titles, or by not trying terribly hard to win. As a sketch, I’d like to draft two broad proposals: # Repeal the Referee * Convert SHALL NOT et al into something equivalent to CANNOT or IMPOSSIBLE * Modify SHALLs to allow any player to fulfil them if the obliged party does not do so * Destroy the office of Referee entirely, as well as the associated card rules We can always reinvent it, but punishment is probably the wrong paradigm for Agora as it is today, on the whole. A much more narrowly-scoped punishment system for dealing with specific malfeasance might be a practical replacement, and clearing the ground will make it easier to re-draft. # Repeal Organizations They’re moribund, really. No organization presently has more than one active member. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:32 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not rule > or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things. > > I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard on > weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier for > more people. > > Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register. Welcome back! I’d cause you to receive a welcome package, but Agora’s broke. Probably. I think you might enjoy looking closely at the implementation of proposal 7867. Your knack for finding alternate interpretations of the rules might be handy - I think it’s possible we actually had two completely independent kinds of Shinies in play briefly, and that I mishandled them by conflating old-Shinies with new-Shinies. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Overdue CFJs roundup
Quick, someone point a finger! Wish cards were appealable... On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> > > On Aug 23, 2017, at 10:04 PM, V.J Rada wrote: >> > > >> > > More interestingly, I believe some of those are more than a week >> > > overdue. If failing to judge triggers the statute of limitations on >> > > the point the judgments become overdue, these might be invalid. >> > >> > It depends on whether failing to complete a duty in a timely fashion >> > is an infraction that happens at a specific time, or whether it happens >> > continuously until the duty is completed or obviated. I had a brief look >> > through the CFJ archives, but didn’t find any obvious candidates for >> > case law… anyone else? If not, do we need a CFJ to resolve this? >> >> My imperfect memory is that a there's a CFJ that says the rule is violated >> at the moment the clock expires, and it's a single violation that happens >> at that moment. >> >> Can't remember the statement context so some digging is needed. If anyone >> else also digs, for search purposes "In a timely fashion" used to be called >> "as soon as possible". >> >> -G. > > It's covered in three cases: CFJs 2393-2395. > > > > -- >From V.J Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
More on that social gerontocracy issue, it's very similar to the monkey and ladder experiment. Newcomers trip on unwritten things are just like the new monkeys who are tripping on the error of going up the ladder. There is no clear warning for it until you run into it, and it gets frustrating to run into it repeatedly like playing I Want To Be The Guy. It's easily solved though. Changing from an implicit culture to an explicit one (or one that much more actively turns implicit content into explicit). On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not > rule or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things. > > I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard on > weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier for > more people. > > Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register. > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Kyle Anderson > wrote: > >> It has become apparent that I require more time for research and >> observation before I can begin to grasp all that is going on and what I >> should be doing. Unfortunately, I don't feel as though I have the requisite >> time to play the game to it's fullest. I will, however, remain on the >> lists, and continue to ask questions in discussion if it's not too much of >> a bother. >> >> -K >> >> On Aug 23, 2017 9:10 PM, "Aris Merchant" > l.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Kyle Anderson >>> wrote: >>> > I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30 >>> days, in >>> > accordance with Rule 869. >>> > >>> > -K >>> >>> I'm sorry to see you go. Could you explain why you wanted to leave? >>> >>> -Aris >>> >> >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Overdue CFJs roundup
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Aug 23, 2017, at 10:04 PM, V.J Rada wrote: > > > > > > More interestingly, I believe some of those are more than a week > > > overdue. If failing to judge triggers the statute of limitations on > > > the point the judgments become overdue, these might be invalid. > > > > It depends on whether failing to complete a duty in a timely fashion > > is an infraction that happens at a specific time, or whether it happens > > continuously until the duty is completed or obviated. I had a brief look > > through the CFJ archives, but didn’t find any obvious candidates for > > case law… anyone else? If not, do we need a CFJ to resolve this? > > My imperfect memory is that a there's a CFJ that says the rule is violated > at the moment the clock expires, and it's a single violation that happens > at that moment. > > Can't remember the statement context so some digging is needed. If anyone > else also digs, for search purposes "In a timely fashion" used to be called > "as soon as possible". > > -G. It's covered in three cases: CFJs 2393-2395.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
This has been a problem for me too, the game is very gerontocratic. Not rule or rights-wise, but socially, in unwritten things. I thought that it was only an issue for me because I throttle too hard on weird, fringe stuff but it's disheartening to find that it's a barrier for more people. Maybe I could do something (eventually). Anyway, I register. On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Kyle Anderson wrote: > It has become apparent that I require more time for research and > observation before I can begin to grasp all that is going on and what I > should be doing. Unfortunately, I don't feel as though I have the requisite > time to play the game to it's fullest. I will, however, remain on the > lists, and continue to ask questions in discussion if it's not too much of > a bother. > > -K > > On Aug 23, 2017 9:10 PM, "Aris Merchant" gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Kyle Anderson >> wrote: >> > I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30 days, >> in >> > accordance with Rule 869. >> > >> > -K >> >> I'm sorry to see you go. Could you explain why you wanted to leave? >> >> -Aris >> >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Overdue CFJs roundup
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2017, at 10:04 PM, V.J Rada wrote: > > > > More interestingly, I believe some of those are more than a week > > overdue. If failing to judge triggers the statute of limitations on > > the point the judgments become overdue, these might be invalid. > > It depends on whether failing to complete a duty in a timely fashion > is an infraction that happens at a specific time, or whether it happens > continuously until the duty is completed or obviated. I had a brief look > through the CFJ archives, but didn’t find any obvious candidates for > case law… anyone else? If not, do we need a CFJ to resolve this? My imperfect memory is that a there's a CFJ that says the rule is violated at the moment the clock expires, and it's a single violation that happens at that moment. Can't remember the statement context so some digging is needed. If anyone else also digs, for search purposes "In a timely fashion" used to be called "as soon as possible". -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
It has become apparent that I require more time for research and observation before I can begin to grasp all that is going on and what I should be doing. Unfortunately, I don't feel as though I have the requisite time to play the game to it's fullest. I will, however, remain on the lists, and continue to ask questions in discussion if it's not too much of a bother. -K On Aug 23, 2017 9:10 PM, "Aris Merchant" wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Kyle Anderson > wrote: > > I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30 days, > in > > accordance with Rule 869. > > > > -K > > I'm sorry to see you go. Could you explain why you wanted to leave? > > -Aris >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
Oh speaking of momentary players, could the Agoraculture proposal submitted by o be changed to make someone other than babalien the agoraculturor, given he was around for like two days? On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Kyle Anderson wrote: >> I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30 days, in >> accordance with Rule 869. >> >> -K > > I'm sorry to see you go. Could you explain why you wanted to leave? > > -Aris -- >From V.J Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Kyle Anderson wrote: > I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30 days, in > accordance with Rule 869. > > -K I'm sorry to see you go. Could you explain why you wanted to leave? -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Moot (plz support)
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 02:54 +, Aris Merchant wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:53 PM Owen Jacobson >> wrote: >> >> > >> > > On Aug 23, 2017, at 10:52 PM, V.J Rada >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > I intend to moot the judgment in 3537 with two support. >> > >> > I support. >> > >> > -o >> > >> > I support and do so. >> >> -Aris > > Something seems to be wrong with your email client's quoting style; > your "I support and do so" was written as though it were a quote of o. > Does that work? At any rate, it'd be nice to make it unambiguous > whether the CFJ has been mooted, given all the other stuff that's been > going on with it… The moot failed anyway, so it doesn't really matter. > Also, it's fairly surprising that there's no time limit on mooting > CFJs. I actually think this is very reasonable. It provides a way of overturning precedents we don't like without a special proposal and without the Rule 217 precedent factor weighing against the argument to overturn. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Moot (again)
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Aug 23, 2017, at 10:56 PM, V.J Rada wrote: >> >> I'm not a player this didn't work. Should write it on my hand or something. > > Sigh. > > I intend to enter CFJ 3537 into moot, with two support. > > -o > I support. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Moot (plz support)
I'm not a player this didn't work. Should write it on my hand or something. On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:53 PM Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >> >> > On Aug 23, 2017, at 10:52 PM, V.J Rada wrote: >> > >> > I intend to moot the judgment in 3537 with two support. >> >> I support. >> >> -o >> > I support and do so. > > -Aris -- >From V.J Rada
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Overdue CFJs roundup
>From my perspective the timeline is this: I judged FALSE. I made a motion to reconsider. I judged FALSE. I sent a message to A-D purporting to recuse myself entirely. I made a motion to reconsider. I judged FALSE. It was pointed out that one person cannot move twice to reconsider. PSS and CB supported a moot but nobody else did. Weeks passed. The judgment was incorrectly reassigned to o. There was no _vote_ to moot at any time. o judged FALSE. I pointed out this situation. PSS again moved to moot, with no support. On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > >> CFJs for which the status is more complicated (and I could do with a >> summary of the current status for anyone who's aware of it): >> >> by o: 3537 > > If I was the judge at the time, then I resolved it (AFFIRM, of V.J Rada’s > original FALSE verdict) in this message: > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28943.html > > It’s not completely clear whether any of the motions to reconsider or motions > to enter 3537 into moot succeeded, either before or after I made that call, > and therefore not clear whether I correctly responded to a mooted judgement. > > -o > -- >From V.J Rada
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Overdue CFJs roundup
On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > CFJs for which the status is more complicated (and I could do with a > summary of the current status for anyone who's aware of it): > > by o: 3537 If I was the judge at the time, then I resolved it (AFFIRM, of V.J Rada’s original FALSE verdict) in this message: http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28943.html It’s not completely clear whether any of the motions to reconsider or motions to enter 3537 into moot succeeded, either before or after I made that call, and therefore not clear whether I correctly responded to a mooted judgement. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Overdue CFJs roundup
> On Aug 23, 2017, at 10:04 PM, V.J Rada wrote: > > More interestingly, I believe some of those are more than a week > overdue. If failing to judge triggers the statute of limitations on > the point the judgments become overdue, these might be invalid. It depends on whether failing to complete a duty in a timely fashion is an infraction that happens at a specific time, or whether it happens continuously until the duty is completed or obviated. I had a brief look through the CFJ archives, but didn’t find any obvious candidates for case law… anyone else? If not, do we need a CFJ to resolve this? -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Overdue CFJs roundup
More interestingly, I believe some of those are more than a week overdue. If failing to judge triggers the statute of limitations on the point the judgments become overdue, these might be invalid. On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:01 PM, V.J Rada wrote: > << > Two fingers a week. The third is ineffective, although you can still > "issue summary judgement" with no finger. > > Operative text > "A player CANNOT point a finger more than twice per Agoran week, or > more than once per Agoran week at the same player." > "The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose > Summary Judgment on a player by issuing a card to em by announcement." > "The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger or impose Summary Judgment more > than five total times per week, or more than twice per week at or on > the same player." > > There's no exception to the first rule. Luckily this is a CANNOT and > the finger retraction doesn't change the card so you're good. > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> >>> CFJs that are definitely overdue: >>> >>> by Quazie: 3542 (and 3550 but that has special circumstances) >>> by Murphy: 3548 >>> by omd:3547, 3553 >> >> I point my finger at the following players for violating rule 591: >> >> * Quazie >> * Murphy >> * omd >> >> Having confirmed the information above, and as rule 591 (“Delivering >> Judgement”) imposes a duty to judge in a timely fashion: >> >>> When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign a valid >>> judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion after >>> this becomes possible. >> >> I issue each of the above-listed players a Green Card by summary judgement. >> The overall lapse in Agoran activity renders the specific lapses harmless. >> >> -o >> > > > > -- > From V.J Rada -- >From V.J Rada
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Overdue CFJs roundup
<< wrote: > On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > >> CFJs that are definitely overdue: >> >> by Quazie: 3542 (and 3550 but that has special circumstances) >> by Murphy: 3548 >> by omd:3547, 3553 > > I point my finger at the following players for violating rule 591: > > * Quazie > * Murphy > * omd > > Having confirmed the information above, and as rule 591 (“Delivering > Judgement”) imposes a duty to judge in a timely fashion: > >> When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign a valid >> judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion after >> this becomes possible. > > I issue each of the above-listed players a Green Card by summary judgement. > The overall lapse in Agoran activity renders the specific lapses harmless. > > -o > -- >From V.J Rada
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Overdue CFJs roundup
On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:50 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > CFJs that are definitely overdue: > > by Quazie: 3542 (and 3550 but that has special circumstances) > by Murphy: 3548 > by omd:3547, 3553 I point my finger at the following players for violating rule 591: * Quazie * Murphy * omd Having confirmed the information above, and as rule 591 (“Delivering Judgement”) imposes a duty to judge in a timely fashion: > When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign a valid > judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion after > this becomes possible. I issue each of the above-listed players a Green Card by summary judgement. The overall lapse in Agoran activity renders the specific lapses harmless. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Overdue CFJs roundup
<<<(V.J. Rada mentioned «the CFJ re << wrote: > It looks like the recent lull in activity has caused a few CFJs to go > unjudged for a while. (One of them was mine *oops*; I've judged it > now.) > > CFJs that are definitely overdue: > > by Quazie: 3542 (and 3550 but that has special circumstances) > by Murphy: 3548 > by omd:3547, 3553 > > CFJs for which the status is more complicated (and I could do with a > summary of the current status for anyone who's aware of it): > > by Quazie: 3529 > by o: 3537 > > I'd appreciate anyone letting me know if there are any corrections to > the above list, or any CFJs that have been called but not yet assigned, > as I'm a rather error-prone Arbitor. (V.J. Rada mentioned «the CFJ re > the ratification "scam"» but I'm not clear on what e's talking about; > anyone know what's going on there?) > > If the judges of these overdue CFJs don't show up soon, I'll find new > judges for them a few days from now. > > -- > ais523 > Arbitor -- >From V.J Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Elections
> On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:42 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 21:24 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2017, at 2:09 AM, V.J Rada wrote: >> >>> Because I am rather bored, I initiate elections for Prime Minister, >>> Herald and Report or by announcement. >> >> As this appears not to have “stuck,” and as V.J Rada specifically >> requested that someone finish the job: >> >> I initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new Prime Minister. >> For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 2.0, >> and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). >> >> I initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new Prime Minister. >> For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 2.0, >> and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > You can't initiate two concurrent elections for the same office (rule > 2154). Additionally, people are acting like there's already a Prime > Minister election; are you claiming there actually isn't, or did you > miss it? Neither. I meant to edit those two intents after pasting them in, and then got interrupted and forgot to actually do it before sending the message. I believe I’ve cleaned up the mess, but feel free to point any fingers you think may be appropriate. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Elections
On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 21:24 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > On Jun 27, 2017, at 2:09 AM, V.J Rada wrote: > > > Because I am rather bored, I initiate elections for Prime Minister, > > Herald and Report or by announcement. > > As this appears not to have “stuck,” and as V.J Rada specifically > requested that someone finish the job: > > I initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new Prime Minister. > For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 2.0, > and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > I initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new Prime Minister. > For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 2.0, > and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). You can't initiate two concurrent elections for the same office (rule 2154). Additionally, people are acting like there's already a Prime Minister election; are you claiming there actually isn't, or did you miss it? -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
Could you consider removing the HTML from your emails? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Aug 23, 2017, at 12:47 AM, Kyle Anderson wrote: > > I was actually given my 50 Shinies, as Owen pointed out earlier. The issue is > regarding the next player who registers. Unless your intent is to give me > more Shinies in addition to the 50 I received in the Welcome Package, in > which case I have no objection! > > -K > > From: V.J Rada > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 10:42 PM > To: Agora Nomic discussions (DF) > Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering > > No that's correct, I was assuming it was all one rule but of course > nichdel had the foresight to avoid negative integers. > > I think it's possible to deregister ienpw III, tmanthe2nd and Zachary > Watterson on the grounds that I've been around longer than a month and > have never to my knowledge seen them. That money could be used to give > K money. > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > >> On Aug 23, 2017, at 12:27 AM, V.J Rada wrote: > >> > > As an academic question, how do the current rules resolve welcome > > packages when Agora holds less than 50 shinies? K’s welcome package is > > complete, but there aren’t enough shinies left for the next one. > >> > >> I assume the parts of the rules banning negative transfers conflicts > >> with the part of the rules demanding a transfer of 50 shinies and the > >> conflict of rules provisions control. The welcome package rule is > >> "Assets" with power 3. I think without looking that the same rule bans > >> negative transfers and does so earlier? So the later provision > >> overrides the earlier & puts Agora into debt? Does that make CFJs > >> actually give you money? > > > > > > I believe that CFJs, as currently implemented, cannot change the game > > state, only clarify ambiguous states. If it appears that CFJs create > > shinies de novo, then you should try it and find out, I guess. > > > > So here’s my theory: > > > > Under the previous implementation of shinies, it was possible for Agora to > > have a negative balance, because Agora’s balance was a switch taking > > integer values. The current implementation is in terms of the Assets rules, > > though, and I’m fairly sure that rule 2166 (“Assets”, power 3) does not > > permit the existence of a negative number of a fungible asset: > > > >> An asset is an entity defined as such by the ruleset (hereafter its > >> backing document), and existing solely because its backing document > >> defines its existence. > > > > Agora’s “balance” is a straight count of the number of distinct Shinies it > > holds, not an abstract quantity; as a count, it must be non-negative. > > > > Since rule 2499 (“Welcome Packages”) has power 1, it cannot override rule > > 2166. Rule 2499 only authorizes welcome packages of exactly 50 shinies, > > specifically to be transferred from Agora, so I -think- that no welcome > > packages are possible while Agora’s balance is below 50. > > > > Anyone see any holes in this? > > > > -o > > > > > > -- > From V.J Rada > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
DIS: Re: BUS: Elections
On Jun 27, 2017, at 2:09 AM, V.J Rada wrote: > Because I am rather bored, I initiate elections for Prime Minister, Herald > and Report or by announcement. As this appears not to have “stuck,” and as V.J Rada specifically requested that someone finish the job: I initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new Prime Minister. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 2.0, and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). I initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new Prime Minister. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 2.0, and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Registering
I would also be happy to give you the office of Superintendent. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On Aug 23, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On Aug 23, 2017, at 12:12 AM, Kyle Anderson wrote: > >> Thank you! I gladly except the Welcome Package of 50 Shinies. >> >> Any advice to get started? I’ve subscribed to the three lists: Business, >> Official, and Discussion. I have read the meager information available on >> the Agora Wiki, and have perused a fair chunk of the rules. All without >> really gathering the point or how the game operates. > > “How the game operates” is fairly easy. In fact, you’ve already figured it > out and put it into practice just by registering: game actions take place by > way of public announcements, as defined and enabled by the rules. Or, as rule > 101 (“The Game of Agora”) puts it: > >> Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance with the >> Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these actions via >> Fora in order to play the game. The game may be won, but the game never ends. >> >> Please treat Agora Right Good Forever. > > However, that’s a fairly dry distinction. As a starting point, the core ludic > activities of the game right now are proposing and passing proposals (as in > any Nomic), and in manipulating various systems created by the rules. The > systems in action right now include, but are not limited to > > * Shinies (which approximate money) > * Estates (which approximate a landed gentry) > * Trust tokens (which can be collected and used to declare victory, or traded > around) > * Stamps (which are both investment vehicles and a commodity in their own > right) > * Organizations (which are too complex to summarize; start with rule 2459 and > the most recent monthly Secretary’s report on agora-official) > * Agencies (which allow players to empower other players to act on their > behalf in controlled ways) > * Offices (which supervise the operation of Agora and ensure that players > have a clear picture of the state of the game) > > There’s a round of proposals in flight right now that make serious changes to > Cards (the system by which unpreventable rule-breaking is punished), and to > Estates, and as a player you can introduce your own proposals, too. > > As for the point of the game… This[0] message from nichdel, published last > year, may be a good starting point. People appear to get out of Agora more or > less what they put into it, but nichdel’s thesis, that Agora’s core product > is the story of Agora, is compelling. > > Personally, I play for a couple of reasons: it’s fun to twiddle rules > systems, and I find Agora extremely helpful for working on collaborative > decision-making skills that I apply elsewhere in my life. I know others play > to win the game, either using the victory conditions defined in the rules > (which are, of course, subject to change) or by creating surprising or > unintended interactions between rules to “break” the game or to subvert the > spirit of the rules. > > [0] http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg33653.html > > If you want to get more deeply involved in conducting the game, there are a > few low-impact offices that are currently under-attended: the Reportor is > vacant entirely, and the current Prime Minister is unlikely to do much to > stop you if you were to campaign to replace em. You’re also fairly likely to > get some attention on your first proposal, so if there’s something you’d like > Agora to become, throw a draft rule change at agora-discussion and see what > sticks. > > -o > signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3550 assigned to Quazie
I intend to Ratify this document Without Objection: {{{
CFJ 3550 has never been assigned, and was withdrawn by its creator.
}}}
To satisfy rule 2202, I acknowledge that this document is incorrect due to the
fact that CFJ 3550 has in fact been assigned and was not successfully
withdrawn. I believe that ratifying this document would reduce the amount of
unnecessary work to be done by all parties.
Gaelan
> On Aug 23, 2017, at 6:10 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 02:03 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 8:21 AM, Alex Smith
>> wrote:
>>
I spend an action point, if it is possible for me to do so, to
call
for judgement on the following statement:
Nichdel has 1 Stamp (nichdel) and 9 Shinies.
>>>
>>> This is CFJ 3550 and was paid for using AP. I assign it to Quazie.
>>
>> If it is possible for me to do so, I withdraw this CFJ.
>
> It only appears to be possible if the CFJ has never had a judge. We
> might want to change that. I can just let the CFJ languish in the
> oblivion of CFJs that nobody cares about if necessary, until the rules
> are changed?
>
> --
> ais523
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3550 assigned to Quazie
That’s devious. -o > On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:15 PM, V.J Rada wrote: > > o, you could probably just use quazie's agency to judge your own CFJ. > Unethical but. > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >>> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 02:03 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Aug 1, 2017, at 8:21 AM, Alex Smith wrote: >> I spend an action point, if it is possible for me to do so, to >> call >> for judgement on the following statement: >> >> Nichdel has 1 Stamp (nichdel) and 9 Shinies. > > This is CFJ 3550 and was paid for using AP. I assign it to Quazie. If it is possible for me to do so, I withdraw this CFJ. >>> >>> It only appears to be possible if the CFJ has never had a judge. We >>> might want to change that. I can just let the CFJ languish in the >>> oblivion of CFJs that nobody cares about if necessary, until the rules >>> are changed? >> >> Crud. Sorry, Quazie. >> >> As both the caller (myself) and the subject (nichdel) of the CFJ agree on >> the outcome, you can _probably_ quote my arguments and call it a day. The >> results of the event in question have ratified at this point, anyways, >> though of course if you found otherwise then we’d responsibly correct the >> record with all due haste. >> >> -o >> > > > > -- >> From V.J Rada signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3550 assigned to Quazie
o, you could probably just use quazie's agency to judge your own CFJ. Unethical but. On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 02:03 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 8:21 AM, Alex Smith >>> wrote: >>> > I spend an action point, if it is possible for me to do so, to > call > for judgement on the following statement: > >Nichdel has 1 Stamp (nichdel) and 9 Shinies. This is CFJ 3550 and was paid for using AP. I assign it to Quazie. >>> >>> If it is possible for me to do so, I withdraw this CFJ. >> >> It only appears to be possible if the CFJ has never had a judge. We >> might want to change that. I can just let the CFJ languish in the >> oblivion of CFJs that nobody cares about if necessary, until the rules >> are changed? > > Crud. Sorry, Quazie. > > As both the caller (myself) and the subject (nichdel) of the CFJ agree on the > outcome, you can _probably_ quote my arguments and call it a day. The results > of the event in question have ratified at this point, anyways, though of > course if you found otherwise then we’d responsibly correct the record with > all due haste. > > -o > -- >From V.J Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3550 assigned to Quazie
On Aug 23, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 02:03 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> On Aug 1, 2017, at 8:21 AM, Alex Smith >> wrote: >> I spend an action point, if it is possible for me to do so, to call for judgement on the following statement: Nichdel has 1 Stamp (nichdel) and 9 Shinies. >>> >>> This is CFJ 3550 and was paid for using AP. I assign it to Quazie. >> >> If it is possible for me to do so, I withdraw this CFJ. > > It only appears to be possible if the CFJ has never had a judge. We > might want to change that. I can just let the CFJ languish in the > oblivion of CFJs that nobody cares about if necessary, until the rules > are changed? Crud. Sorry, Quazie. As both the caller (myself) and the subject (nichdel) of the CFJ agree on the outcome, you can _probably_ quote my arguments and call it a day. The results of the event in question have ratified at this point, anyways, though of course if you found otherwise then we’d responsibly correct the record with all due haste. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3550 assigned to Quazie
On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 02:03 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > On Aug 1, 2017, at 8:21 AM, Alex Smith > wrote: > > > > I spend an action point, if it is possible for me to do so, to > > > call > > > for judgement on the following statement: > > > > > > Nichdel has 1 Stamp (nichdel) and 9 Shinies. > > > > This is CFJ 3550 and was paid for using AP. I assign it to Quazie. > > If it is possible for me to do so, I withdraw this CFJ. It only appears to be possible if the CFJ has never had a judge. We might want to change that. I can just let the CFJ languish in the oblivion of CFJs that nobody cares about if necessary, until the rules are changed? -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Remarks and a few actions
> On Aug 23, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Josh T wrote: > > I'm kind of reluctant to spend my Shinies since I don't actually do the > things which award Shinies. Maybe when I'm not super busy with moving and > such I should deputize for Reporter and publish newspapers, but that doesn't > solve the problem that I don't earn Shinies, so I can't replace them if I > spend them. You _can_, but it’s certainly not easy. I’m hoping babelian’s Agoraculture proposal passes and adds another way to turn a profit, even if that mechanism is zero-sum as well. Right now, you can turn a profit by * Having someone pay you for a thing. I’m tempted to buy your stamp off of you, if you care to name a price, just as an example. * Relatedly, creating stamps at low cost and destroying them at high cost. * Authoring _and_ pending proposals with shinies, which then pass. The profit margin on this is fixed by rule, and is currently an underwhelming 1 sh. per proposal, but it’s still profitable. * Judging CFJs called with shinies. * Scams, probably -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
DIS: Re: BUS: Accounting error
> On Aug 23, 2017, at 12:14 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > 5 ShiniesQuazie > 50 ShiniesQuazie, This will be corrected in the next Secretary’s report, incidentally. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Registering
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2017, at 1:03 AM, V.J Rada wrote: > > > > You can also take Reportor by deputization as I deregistered while holding > > the office. > > Why are there so many mechanisms for filling offices when there are like 8 > > players? Good question! > > Historical reasons, but I’d be inclined to keep them. The following is based > on reverse-engineering intent from mechanics, but: > > * Deputization... > * Election... Look at it as "how do you fill a job if nobody or 1 person wants it" and "how do you fill a job if 2+ people want it." It used to be that Elections were the only way[*], but since the default state was "too many jobs, not enough volunteers", drawn-out elections were often pointless, so deputizing was added so a single person could grab it quickly and without contest. (doing it as a "deputy" rather than just allowing someone to say "I take this vacant office" was to prevent people from grabbing offices without doing any work whatsoever). The *real* question is: why do we have many of these offices in the first place? Do we have too many half-used game ideas for too few players? [*]Proposals and ratification work for *everything* in the game, so that's more general than offices.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Registering
> On Aug 23, 2017, at 1:03 AM, V.J Rada wrote: > > You can also take Reportor by deputization as I deregistered while holding > the office. Why are there so many mechanisms for filling offices when there > are like 8 players? Good question! Historical reasons, but I’d be inclined to keep them. The following is based on reverse-engineering intent from mechanics, but: * Deputization is only possible on elected offices, and only practical if the office has regular duties, and only effective if the officeholder is not fulfilling those duties. It effectively allows anyone willing to do an elected job to step in if the current officeholder steps out. However, it does not reset the election timer for that office, and only the player willing to deputise and perform the office’s duties immediately is able to take office this way. * Election is possible for all but one office, but only three months after the most recent election, or immediately after a victory, unless the person calling the election is the ADoP or the caller can garner enough support. Any player willing to take office can take office this way, if they can convince enough other people to vote for em; they don’t need to immediately perform the office’s responsibilities to do so. * Direct appointment is only relevant to two offices, and has special cases that are clear enough without further exploration. * Appointment by proposal is possible for all offices, given a proposal with sufficiently-high Adoption Index. This is actually _harder_ than being elected to an office, in most cases, but it allows people to take office even in spite of restrictions that might otherwise prevent them from doing so. It’s one of the more common ways for newly-created offices to be assigned. * Appointment by ratification is technically possible, but only works if we’re all asleep at the switch or if it’s clear the office should have been held by the ratified officeholder all along. It’s even more challenging to pull this off illegitimately than appointment by proposal. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Initiation for the Office of Prime Minister
@K You may want to "TTttPF" (This Time to the Proper Forum) your post as is usual when making such an error. 天火狐 On 23 August 2017 at 16:14, Quazie wrote: > No you don't - This is a message to the discussion forum, and thus is just > a statement, not an action. > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:29 AM Kyle Anderson > wrote: > >> I vote for myself. >> >> >> >> -K >> >> >> >> *From: *Aris Merchant >> *Sent: *Tuesday, August 22, 2017 11:55 PM >> *To: *agora-busin...@agoranomic.org >> *Subject: *Re: BUS: Election Initiation for the Office of Prime Minister >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Kyle Anderson >> wrote: >> >> > I initiate an election for the office of Prime Minister, as no election >> for >> >> > this office has occurred within the last 90 days. I initiate an Agoran >> >> > decision to determine the new Prime Minister. For this decision, the >> vote >> >> > collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 2.0, and the valid options are the >> >> > players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> I vote for K, followed by every other player who publicly announces >> >> their candidacy, in the order they do so, followed by the incumbent. >> >> >> >> -Aris >> >> >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Initiation for the Office of Prime Minister
No you don't - This is a message to the discussion forum, and thus is just a statement, not an action. On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 7:29 AM Kyle Anderson wrote: > I vote for myself. > > > > -K > > > > *From: *Aris Merchant > *Sent: *Tuesday, August 22, 2017 11:55 PM > *To: *agora-busin...@agoranomic.org > *Subject: *Re: BUS: Election Initiation for the Office of Prime Minister > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Kyle Anderson > wrote: > > > I initiate an election for the office of Prime Minister, as no election > for > > > this office has occurred within the last 90 days. I initiate an Agoran > > > decision to determine the new Prime Minister. For this decision, the vote > > > collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 2.0, and the valid options are the > > > players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > > > > > > > > > I vote for K, followed by every other player who publicly announces > > their candidacy, in the order they do so, followed by the incumbent. > > > > -Aris > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > Welcome, K! I guess single letter names are turning into a thing. hey now, some of us include the full stop. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Election Initiation for the Office of Prime Minister
I vote for myself. -K From: Aris Merchant Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 11:55 PM To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org Subject: Re: BUS: Election Initiation for the Office of Prime Minister On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Kyle Anderson wrote: > I initiate an election for the office of Prime Minister, as no election for > this office has occurred within the last 90 days. I initiate an Agoran > decision to determine the new Prime Minister. For this decision, the vote > collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 2.0, and the valid options are the > players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > I vote for K, followed by every other player who publicly announces their candidacy, in the order they do so, followed by the incumbent. -Aris
