Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Gaelan Steele]

> On Aug 24, 2017, at 8:35 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 20:02 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset
>> (agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to
>> give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are
>> important to understand at the beginning. Thoughts?
> 
> "Miscellaneous" (one of the section headings) is misspelled.

Bah. I’ll do a batch of ruleset fixes tomorrow.

> 
> It strikes me that things that aren't immediately relevant to a new
> player should be sent down to the bottom. This includes both things
> like Festivals (which are an emergency mechanism that's unlikely to get
> used except for counterscamming, or possibly regular scamming;
> important to have, unimportant to use 99% of the time),

So that’s what festivals are for.

> and things that
> are fundamental to the game (like rule precedence) but that only come
> in relevant when shooting down particularly tortured arguments about
> what the rules say. The definitions section, despite being moderately
> important in the SLR and FLR (it's historically been somewhere in the
> middle, IIRC), could safely be sent near the bottom of the HLR because
> of how the links work (unless there's some technical reason to have all
> the rulesets in the same order).

Currently, the ordering of the rules is defined in one file (rules/index) and 
used in the generation of all three rulesets. That could change, at the cost of 
me needing to change things in 2 places when adding rules, etc. While I’m fine 
with putting festivals at the bottom, I’m not sure how I feel about putting the 
“fundamental but unimportant” bits at the bottom. While I guess it makes sense 
for reading the ruleset, it feels rather weird from a logical perspective.

> 
> Some of the section summaries make me think that the current division
> into sections isn't as useful as it could be. Ribbons and Patent Titles
> go together from the point of view of an experienced player, for
> example, but for a new player it doesn't really make sense. (I'd be
> inclined to create a "history" section containing the First Speaker
> rule, the Agora's Birthday rule, the Reportor, and the Patent Title
> rules; these reflect history in different ways but have a similar
> purpose. It's no coincidence that the Herald's report is the report
> that's historically been most likely to have a history lesson on the
> earlier days of Agora. Meanwhile, Ribbons would go along with Trust
> Tokens, Apathy, and the like.) There are likely other sections that
> could plausibly be split up the same way.

Yeah, the section split leaves some things to be desired. I’m not sure about 
the “history” section; the proposed rules seem only tangentially related, and I 
don’t think I’d expect to find any of those rules under a “History” section. 
One of my main goals when organizing the sections at the start of my career was 
making it easy to guess which section a rule would be under; maybe that’s not 
as important with ctrl-F.
> 
> -- 
> ais523



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Gaelan Steele]

> On Aug 24, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 04:35 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 20:02 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>> I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset
> (agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to
>>> give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are
>>> important to understand at the beginning. Thoughts?
> 
> A further thought: back when I did my "ruleset for new players" thesis
> (which isn't so useful nowadays as the ruleset has changed considerably
> since), I either considered making, or actually did make, a section for
> rules that can be broken by accident/ignorance. Having something
> similar in the HLR (and maybe other ruleset formats?), trumping any
> other categorisation, strikes me as being very useful for new players.

I tried to cover everything that could be broken by accident/ignorance in the 
new section annotations. Also, I’m not sure about the idea of rearranging the 
HLR to be more useful for new players; while the HLR is more useful than other 
formats for new players, it is also designed to be a useful tool for 
experienced Agorans. I, for example, do all of my rule lookups via the HLR. 
Also, the organization of rules is currently defined in one place and used to 
generate all three formats, but that could change.

> And something I forgot to mention in my previous email: a lot more
> emphasis needs to be made on acting by announcement. It's a very easy
> concept to miss, and yet it's fundamental to basically everything we do
> here. (Actually, this is making me wonder if we should change that rule
> somewhat just to mix things up. It's been years and years since it was
> meaningfully amended, and the CFJ space surrounding it is likely pretty
> comprehensively mined out by now. There were some fun CFJs, though!)

Interestingly, I avoid the term “by announcement” at all in the annotations, 
instead saying things like “by sending an email to agora-business.” I’m not 
sure if that’s a good thing; it makes the summaries simpler to understand, but 
also doesn’t help the new player when they need to move beyond the summaries.

> 
> -- 
> ais523



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

[V.J Rada]

u have to pay. i would tell you how but nah can't be bothered.

Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

[V.J Rada]

And unfortunately, I don't think this CFJ is retractable so the two
CFJs should be assigned to the same person.

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:58 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> CFJs can't be assigned to non-players, right? Only judged by them. So,
> someone point a finger at ais. ais, give CB's valid CFJ to someone
> else. That person, obviously non-players can't be speaker.
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM, grok (caleb vines)  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2017 10:15 PM, "Ørjan Johansen"  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Luckily, your CFJ isn't valid; you can't call a CFJ nowadays without
>>> paying for it. So it hasn't actually been called yet. Also luckily, we
>>> still have some vestiges of the old officer system in which officers
>>> had, in lieu of pay, a certain allowance for abuses of the office. That
>>> means that it's totally legal, and in fact somewhat encouraged (see the
>>> penultimate paragraph of rule 991), for me to do this:
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, eir registration attempt was sent to the wrong forum, and
>> IIRC non-Players don't have to pay.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>>
>>
>> In defense, that does make the judgment much easier.
>>
>> -grok
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

[V.J Rada]

CFJs can't be assigned to non-players, right? Only judged by them. So,
someone point a finger at ais. ais, give CB's valid CFJ to someone
else. That person, obviously non-players can't be speaker.

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM, grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2017 10:15 PM, "Ørjan Johansen"  wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>
>> Luckily, your CFJ isn't valid; you can't call a CFJ nowadays without
>> paying for it. So it hasn't actually been called yet. Also luckily, we
>> still have some vestiges of the old officer system in which officers
>> had, in lieu of pay, a certain allowance for abuses of the office. That
>> means that it's totally legal, and in fact somewhat encouraged (see the
>> penultimate paragraph of rule 991), for me to do this:
>
>
> Unfortunately, eir registration attempt was sent to the wrong forum, and
> IIRC non-Players don't have to pay.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
>
> In defense, that does make the judgment much easier.
>
> -grok



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

[V.J Rada]

I replied to it just then, G. The theory is that Quazie has to and can
appoint a speaker from within the set of winners. On two occasions
(the recent tournament or my Apathy attempt) we might have all won. It
might also have been the case that just CB and G are winners, or that
CB and G won and then we all won. Or that nobody won. But this CFJ
isn't meritless, it's quite possible, even likely,  that CB is now the
speaker.

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> I CFJ: Cuddlebeam has a Platinum Ribbon.
>
> For crying out loud, for someone who wanted things "written down", you
> sure don't put a lot (read: *any*) effort into arguments.  Maybe take
> an example from most other players?  I recommend Dismissal on those
> grounds.
>
> VJ Rada, could you point me to your ratification attempt?
>
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Going through the motions (likely frivolous "scam")

[V.J Rada]

I misremembered: I had everyone win by apathy. But here you go, G. The
textual theory was based on the fact that the rules that make "without
objection" actions have to wait 4 days actually says "with
objections". If that worked, it's been fixed (I believe by Aris). If
it didn't work, my Minor Fixes proposal will be fixed when it ends up
getting assessed.

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:57 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> Sorry sorry sorry. But the rules do textually allow me to do this,
> although I am sure the rules will be construed by the already pending
> CFJ to obviously not allow me to do this because it would be silly.
> But I can't not *try*
>
> I intend in the next sentence to have every player win by apathy,
> without objection.
>
> Every player wins by apathy.
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 04:35 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 20:02 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset
> > > > (agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to
> > give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are
> > important to understand at the beginning. Thoughts?

A further thought: back when I did my "ruleset for new players" thesis
(which isn't so useful nowadays as the ruleset has changed considerably
since), I either considered making, or actually did make, a section for
rules that can be broken by accident/ignorance. Having something
similar in the HLR (and maybe other ruleset formats?), trumping any
other categorisation, strikes me as being very useful for new players.

And something I forgot to mention in my previous email: a lot more
emphasis needs to be made on acting by announcement. It's a very easy
concept to miss, and yet it's fundamental to basically everything we do
here. (Actually, this is making me wonder if we should change that rule
somewhat just to mix things up. It's been years and years since it was
meaningfully amended, and the CFJ space surrounding it is likely pretty
comprehensively mined out by now. There were some fun CFJs, though!)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 20:02 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset
> (agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to
> give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are
> important to understand at the beginning. Thoughts?

"Miscellaneous" (one of the section headings) is misspelled.

It strikes me that things that aren't immediately relevant to a new
player should be sent down to the bottom. This includes both things
like Festivals (which are an emergency mechanism that's unlikely to get
used except for counterscamming, or possibly regular scamming;
important to have, unimportant to use 99% of the time), and things that
are fundamental to the game (like rule precedence) but that only come
in relevant when shooting down particularly tortured arguments about
what the rules say. The definitions section, despite being moderately
important in the SLR and FLR (it's historically been somewhere in the
middle, IIRC), could safely be sent near the bottom of the HLR because
of how the links work (unless there's some technical reason to have all
the rulesets in the same order).

Some of the section summaries make me think that the current division
into sections isn't as useful as it could be. Ribbons and Patent Titles
go together from the point of view of an experienced player, for
example, but for a new player it doesn't really make sense. (I'd be
inclined to create a "history" section containing the First Speaker
rule, the Agora's Birthday rule, the Reportor, and the Patent Title
rules; these reflect history in different ways but have a similar
purpose. It's no coincidence that the Herald's report is the report
that's historically been most likely to have a history lesson on the
earlier days of Agora. Meanwhile, Ribbons would go along with Trust
Tokens, Apathy, and the like.) There are likely other sections that
could plausibly be split up the same way.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset 
> (agoranomic.org/ruleset). 
> They try to give a quick summary of each section, and mention which sections 
> are important to
> understand at the beginning. Thoughts?
> Gaelan

I haven't read all of them closely but the look&feel is very nice.

Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Aug 24, 2017 10:15 PM, "Ørjan Johansen"  wrote:

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:

Luckily, your CFJ isn't valid; you can't call a CFJ nowadays without
> paying for it. So it hasn't actually been called yet. Also luckily, we
> still have some vestiges of the old officer system in which officers
> had, in lieu of pay, a certain allowance for abuses of the office. That
> means that it's totally legal, and in fact somewhat encouraged (see the
> penultimate paragraph of rule 991), for me to do this:
>

Unfortunately, eir registration attempt was sent to the wrong forum, and
IIRC non-Players don't have to pay.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


In defense, that does make the judgment much easier.

-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kyle Anderson]

Incredibly useful. While the information contained in those descriptions
can, of course, be gleaned from the rules themselves, they catch the eye
and simplify the language in a way that promotes quick understanding.

-K

On Aug 24, 2017 9:02 PM, "Gaelan Steele"  wrote:

> I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset (
> agoranomic.org/ruleset). They try to give a quick summary of each
> section, and mention which sections are important to understand at the
> beginning. Thoughts?
>
> Gaelan
>
> On Aug 24, 2017, at 7:21 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
>
> That separation between "core" and "subsytems" would be extremely helpful.
> The sheer volume of information that makes up the current ruleset is not
> necessarily a problem, except for when someone is trying to sort through it
> and put together the pieces for the first time. I think that a main draw of
> the game is its complexity (or perceived complexity). I would rather
> reorganize the ruleset than get rid of that complexity.
> Another "bar on the door" for me has already been brought up, I can't
> remember by who. There is no guidance on the form in which the game should
> be played, other than precedence (which can prove difficult to navigate)
> and trial and error. Perhaps that is all well, but it is a bit intimidating.
>
> On Aug 24, 2017 7:38 PM, "Nic Evans"  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/24/17 20:15, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> >> * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of
> >> them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at
> >> once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges,
> >> organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove
> >> the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?
> > On the contrary, I think the relative lack of activity in Agora is that
> > there isn't actually anything to /do/. Much of what you list (like the
> > winning conditions) is harmless. On that subject, I don't think we have
> > nearly enough win conditions (most of the ones we do have are either
> > scam release valves, or very long term goals). It used to be that you
> > could win Agora every couple of months by outplaying people on the
> > economy and on regular gameplay. That's no longer the case, and I don't
> > think there have been any non-scam wins for a very long time (maybe a
> > historically long time?).
> >
> > The thing about Agoran complexity is that there are two sorts: the
> > rules you have to know about, and the rules that are only relevant when
> > you interact with them. (Perhaps these should actually be in separate
> > rulesets, at least presentationally? Most real-life rulesets work like
> > that, after all.) If you don't know what a Trust Token is, it's
> > unlikely ever to bother you. If you do, you can keep track of them and
> > try to make progress in that direction (although with the mechanic
> > unpopular, it's unlikely it'll ever result in a win).
>
> We actually largely agree here, I think I was just poorly worded. It's
> not that there's too much to do, it's that, from the perspective of a
> new player looking at rules, it looks like there's too much to do and
> that makes it really hard to see how everything fits together. A new
> player doesn't know they don't need to worry about Trust Tokens, or that
> the 7 rules about Organizations and 8 about Punishments are largely
> irrelevant to them. In that regard I agree having a separation between
> 'Core' and 'Subsystems' in the rules would be nice. But I also think
> that we should seriously consider scaling back and simplifying the
> underutilized systems, at least for now. Add back the complexity as needed.
>
> >
> > Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
> > officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
> > defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
> > game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
> > new player if they apply to everyone.
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:


Luckily, your CFJ isn't valid; you can't call a CFJ nowadays without
paying for it. So it hasn't actually been called yet. Also luckily, we
still have some vestiges of the old officer system in which officers
had, in lieu of pay, a certain allowance for abuses of the office. That
means that it's totally legal, and in fact somewhat encouraged (see the
penultimate paragraph of rule 991), for me to do this:


Unfortunately, eir registration attempt was sent to the wrong forum, and 
IIRC non-Players don't have to pay.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET

I CoE this ruleset, on the basis that it includes Rule 2942, "Scam
Reward". That rule was repealed:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28705.html
. I would suggest checking for any other problems.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Gaelan Steele]

I’ve added some annotations to each section of the online ruleset 
(agoranomic.org/ruleset ). They try to give a 
quick summary of each section, and mention which sections are important to 
understand at the beginning. Thoughts?

Gaelan
> On Aug 24, 2017, at 7:21 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
> 
> That separation between "core" and "subsytems" would be extremely helpful. 
> The sheer volume of information that makes up the current ruleset is not 
> necessarily a problem, except for when someone is trying to sort through it 
> and put together the pieces for the first time. I think that a main draw of 
> the game is its complexity (or perceived complexity). I would rather 
> reorganize the ruleset than get rid of that complexity.
> Another "bar on the door" for me has already been brought up, I can't 
> remember by who. There is no guidance on the form in which the game should be 
> played, other than precedence (which can prove difficult to navigate) and 
> trial and error. Perhaps that is all well, but it is a bit intimidating.
> 
> On Aug 24, 2017 7:38 PM, "Nic Evans"  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/24/17 20:15, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> >> * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of
> >> them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at
> >> once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges,
> >> organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove
> >> the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?
> > On the contrary, I think the relative lack of activity in Agora is that
> > there isn't actually anything to /do/. Much of what you list (like the
> > winning conditions) is harmless. On that subject, I don't think we have
> > nearly enough win conditions (most of the ones we do have are either
> > scam release valves, or very long term goals). It used to be that you
> > could win Agora every couple of months by outplaying people on the
> > economy and on regular gameplay. That's no longer the case, and I don't
> > think there have been any non-scam wins for a very long time (maybe a
> > historically long time?).
> >
> > The thing about Agoran complexity is that there are two sorts: the
> > rules you have to know about, and the rules that are only relevant when
> > you interact with them. (Perhaps these should actually be in separate
> > rulesets, at least presentationally? Most real-life rulesets work like
> > that, after all.) If you don't know what a Trust Token is, it's
> > unlikely ever to bother you. If you do, you can keep track of them and
> > try to make progress in that direction (although with the mechanic
> > unpopular, it's unlikely it'll ever result in a win).
> 
> We actually largely agree here, I think I was just poorly worded. It's
> not that there's too much to do, it's that, from the perspective of a
> new player looking at rules, it looks like there's too much to do and
> that makes it really hard to see how everything fits together. A new
> player doesn't know they don't need to worry about Trust Tokens, or that
> the 7 rules about Organizations and 8 about Punishments are largely
> irrelevant to them. In that regard I agree having a separation between
> 'Core' and 'Subsystems' in the rules would be nice. But I also think
> that we should seriously consider scaling back and simplifying the
> underutilized systems, at least for now. Add back the complexity as needed.
> 
> >
> > Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
> > officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
> > defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
> > game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
> > new player if they apply to everyone.
> >
> 
> 
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:48 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> My personal opinion on this whole business is that we should get rid of
> organizations (no one uses them), but shouldn't eliminate cards.

I know the main reason I'm not using them more is that I'm finding it
very hard to word Organization charters in a way that actually works;
it's much harder than I thought it would be when I wrote the rule.
That's probably one of the best arguments for, if we don't repeal
Organizations, at least changing the way they work somewhat.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3555 assigned to grok

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 18:13 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> I CFJ on the following (using AP if I am a Player) and barring
> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
> >>
> >>  G. and Cuddlebeam, and no one else, have won the game via tournament
> >>  since July 1, 2017.
> >
> > This is CFJ 3555 and does not have a judgement reward. I assign it to
> > grok.
> >
> 
> Arguments: this is actually a fairly clear cut case, owing to a
> mistake on my part. When proposal 7865 was adopted, fundamentally
> changing the structure on which tournaments operate (from being
> unstructured to occupying a title in the ACORN) no transition
> mechanism was provided. As such, the tournament probably stopped
> existing, because having a title is a perquisite for a tournament to
> exist under the new rules. When I pointed out this problem, it was
> generally agreed that any win would be awarded by
> ratification/proposal (see discussion [1]). I believe that no player
> has won.
> 
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg36866.html

But 7865 was adopted on 27 June, and the tournament begun on 2 July,
and it looks like the post-7865 ruleset supports creating the tournament
on 2 July... (I checked all this before the CFJ).  So what am I missing
on timing here?  Does the FLR have some dates wrong?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Aris Merchant]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:20 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
> > officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
> > defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
> > game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
> > new player if they apply to everyone.
>
> And also, the only really effective use of Cards currently IMO is if
> someone needs to be removed from office.
>
> I think Card punishments short of this extreme should be turned into
> Shiny fines.
>

My personal opinion on this whole business is that we should get rid of
organizations (no one uses them), but shouldn't eliminate cards. Getting
rid of all or most SHALLs/SHALL NOTs is also overkill. Our card system is
pretty simple and rational at the moment. I would support the addition of
discretionary fines with cards, and/or the addition of a card type whose
sole penalty was a fine.

-Aris

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Fun fact

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I CFJ: Cuddlebeam has a Platinum Ribbon.

For crying out loud, for someone who wanted things "written down", you
sure don't put a lot (read: *any*) effort into arguments.  Maybe take
an example from most other players?  I recommend Dismissal on those
grounds.

VJ Rada, could you point me to your ratification attempt?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> In that regard I agree having a separation between
> 'Core' and 'Subsystems' in the rules would be nice.

I made a few attempts, while rulekeepor, to try "core and subsystem"
re-arrangements.  The issue I kept running into was within each
individual rule.  A single rule is written:

[Main point (two sentences)]

[Edge case Edge case Edge case Edge case (5 paragraphs)]

This made it hard to re-write cleanly into "core" and "sub".  I wrote
out a few rules with labels:

Rule:  (main point)
Legalese:  (edge cases)

with the idea that there could be a version that only had the Main
Point, and Legalese that could expand (in non plaintext versions).
It was a lot of work and I didn't finish.

That's not to say someone else couldn't/shouldn't experiment with
alternate LR arrangements as they're currently written, that was 
just my  experience.

Another thought is that, when I first joined, there were a lot more
rules, but they were a lot shorter, just because of the style of
the time which has gradually changed.  Not sure if it would be
clearer to break up some rules, just an observation.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kyle Anderson]

That separation between "core" and "subsytems" would be extremely helpful.
The sheer volume of information that makes up the current ruleset is not
necessarily a problem, except for when someone is trying to sort through it
and put together the pieces for the first time. I think that a main draw of
the game is its complexity (or perceived complexity). I would rather
reorganize the ruleset than get rid of that complexity.
Another "bar on the door" for me has already been brought up, I can't
remember by who. There is no guidance on the form in which the game should
be played, other than precedence (which can prove difficult to navigate)
and trial and error. Perhaps that is all well, but it is a bit intimidating.

On Aug 24, 2017 7:38 PM, "Nic Evans"  wrote:



On 08/24/17 20:15, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
>> * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of
>> them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at
>> once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges,
>> organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove
>> the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?
> On the contrary, I think the relative lack of activity in Agora is that
> there isn't actually anything to /do/. Much of what you list (like the
> winning conditions) is harmless. On that subject, I don't think we have
> nearly enough win conditions (most of the ones we do have are either
> scam release valves, or very long term goals). It used to be that you
> could win Agora every couple of months by outplaying people on the
> economy and on regular gameplay. That's no longer the case, and I don't
> think there have been any non-scam wins for a very long time (maybe a
> historically long time?).
>
> The thing about Agoran complexity is that there are two sorts: the
> rules you have to know about, and the rules that are only relevant when
> you interact with them. (Perhaps these should actually be in separate
> rulesets, at least presentationally? Most real-life rulesets work like
> that, after all.) If you don't know what a Trust Token is, it's
> unlikely ever to bother you. If you do, you can keep track of them and
> try to make progress in that direction (although with the mechanic
> unpopular, it's unlikely it'll ever result in a win).

We actually largely agree here, I think I was just poorly worded. It's
not that there's too much to do, it's that, from the perspective of a
new player looking at rules, it looks like there's too much to do and
that makes it really hard to see how everything fits together. A new
player doesn't know they don't need to worry about Trust Tokens, or that
the 7 rules about Organizations and 8 about Punishments are largely
irrelevant to them. In that regard I agree having a separation between
'Core' and 'Subsystems' in the rules would be nice. But I also think
that we should seriously consider scaling back and simplifying the
underutilized systems, at least for now. Add back the complexity as needed.

>
> Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
> officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
> defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
> game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
> new player if they apply to everyone.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Nic Evans]

On 08/24/17 20:15, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
>> * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of
>> them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at
>> once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges,
>> organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove
>> the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?
> On the contrary, I think the relative lack of activity in Agora is that
> there isn't actually anything to /do/. Much of what you list (like the
> winning conditions) is harmless. On that subject, I don't think we have
> nearly enough win conditions (most of the ones we do have are either
> scam release valves, or very long term goals). It used to be that you
> could win Agora every couple of months by outplaying people on the
> economy and on regular gameplay. That's no longer the case, and I don't
> think there have been any non-scam wins for a very long time (maybe a
> historically long time?).
>
> The thing about Agoran complexity is that there are two sorts: the
> rules you have to know about, and the rules that are only relevant when
> you interact with them. (Perhaps these should actually be in separate
> rulesets, at least presentationally? Most real-life rulesets work like
> that, after all.) If you don't know what a Trust Token is, it's
> unlikely ever to bother you. If you do, you can keep track of them and
> try to make progress in that direction (although with the mechanic
> unpopular, it's unlikely it'll ever result in a win).

We actually largely agree here, I think I was just poorly worded. It's
not that there's too much to do, it's that, from the perspective of a
new player looking at rules, it looks like there's too much to do and
that makes it really hard to see how everything fits together. A new
player doesn't know they don't need to worry about Trust Tokens, or that
the 7 rules about Organizations and 8 about Punishments are largely
irrelevant to them. In that regard I agree having a separation between
'Core' and 'Subsystems' in the rules would be nice. But I also think
that we should seriously consider scaling back and simplifying the
underutilized systems, at least for now. Add back the complexity as needed.

>
> Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
> officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
> defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
> game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
> new player if they apply to everyone.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Fun fact

[V.J Rada]

Assuming either PSSs announcement or my ratification worked, anyone
can use Quazie's agency to appoint themselves speaker. If G's recent
CFJ is correct and my ratification didn't work, Cuddle can still do
so.
-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Josh T]

I feel that I would rather get a Yellow Card than get Shiny fines since I
currently lack a consistent way to earn Shiny. But I support the idea to
get something going well, and sideline everything else until it needs to
get addressed. I have a few ideas bouncing around, and maybe I should get
around to writing my first proposal.

天火狐

On 24 August 2017 at 21:20, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
> > officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
> > defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
> > game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
> > new player if they apply to everyone.
>
> And also, the only really effective use of Cards currently IMO is if
> someone needs to be removed from office.
>
> I think Card punishments short of this extreme should be turned into
> Shiny fines.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
> officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
> defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
> game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
> new player if they apply to everyone.

And also, the only really effective use of Cards currently IMO is if
someone needs to be removed from office.

I think Card punishments short of this extreme should be turned into
Shiny fines.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> This is hard for me because I really want multilateral entities to exist
> within an economy, but I do see the point here. At the very least we
> should probably scale back the expenditure and bankruptcy mechanics. I
> love them but they seem to be mostly unused.

Counter-proposal:  Put Organizations "on ice" by making the reporting monthly,
and focus on getting "one good game" (buying shiny stuff?) running really
smoothly rather than focusing on repeals.  If the "good game" is running
transparently (and the Rulekeepor puts the rules for it near the top of the
ruleset), we can give Organizations a little more time without detracting.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of
> them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at
> once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges,
> organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove
> the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?

On the contrary, I think the relative lack of activity in Agora is that
there isn't actually anything to /do/. Much of what you list (like the
winning conditions) is harmless. On that subject, I don't think we have
nearly enough win conditions (most of the ones we do have are either
scam release valves, or very long term goals). It used to be that you
could win Agora every couple of months by outplaying people on the
economy and on regular gameplay. That's no longer the case, and I don't
think there have been any non-scam wins for a very long time (maybe a
historically long time?).

The thing about Agoran complexity is that there are two sorts: the
rules you have to know about, and the rules that are only relevant when
you interact with them. (Perhaps these should actually be in separate
rulesets, at least presentationally? Most real-life rulesets work like
that, after all.) If you don't know what a Trust Token is, it's
unlikely ever to bother you. If you do, you can keep track of them and
try to make progress in that direction (although with the mechanic
unpopular, it's unlikely it'll ever result in a win).

Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
new player if they apply to everyone.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Nic Evans]

On 08/23/17 22:46, 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.

I think we've fallen into Bad Game Design lately. This is something I'm
working on a thesis for, so I may reserve some thoughts, but generally:

We should look at Agora like a boardgame primarily. Sure there's some
automation, but it's off to the side. Equivalent to the many helpful
apps for more complex games. Primarily, rules are understood and
administered by players. With that in mind:

* We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of
them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at
once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges,
organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove
the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?

* We've conflated complexity and ambiguity unpleasantly. Some of this
has to do with the proliferation of SHALL NOTs and punishments. Some of
this is the sheer volume of rule text that currently exists. The
interesting complexity should come from how players react to situations,
and how does reactions collectively change the gamestate. It shouldn't
come from ambiguity about what can and can't be done, or what the
mechanical outcome of a purported action is. We're playing a social
game, not a single-player simulation.

* We just generate too much gamestate right now. It's hard to get people
to track all of it, and it's hard to keep up with that tracking. I think
this is primarily emergent from the above two, but it's still a distinct
problem.

> 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.

As a result of my above thinking, I agree here but for separate reasons.
SHALL NOTs and punishments encourage more ambiguity than they're worth
generally. We should limit them to behaviors we can't platonically
control, like repeated sloppiness or belligerence. Most actions should
be platonic, with some pragmatic-platonic backups that mostly already
exist (the way reports ratify and get CoE'd is a great example).

>
> # Repeal Organizations
>
> They’re moribund, really. No organization presently has more than one active 
> member.

This is hard for me because I really want multilateral entities to exist
within an economy, but I do see the point here. At the very least we
should probably scale back the expenditure and bankruptcy mechanics. I
love them but they seem to be mostly unused.

> -o
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: tournament results CFJs

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 17:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > (Yet another reason why I'm not the greatest of Arbitors…)
> 
> Well it's not like you're being paid... ;)

Indeed. I'm getting more money from Tailor even though it's orders of
magnitude easier. (There's been the occasional mistake even in the
Tailor report, but typically it's easily fixed once CoEd.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: tournament results CFJs

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> (Yet another reason why I'm not the greatest of Arbitors…)

Well it's not like you're being paid... ;)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Remarks and a few actions

[Josh T]

At the moment I am planning to give my organization the ability to hold
stamps, then give it to them because reasons.

As for the other non-stamp related things, I agree that those are things I
could do, but since since joining the game I have done none of them, I
don't plan on changing that when I can't devote a reasonable amount of time
to things.

天火狐

On 23 August 2017 at 19:50, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > 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
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: tournament results CFJs

[V.J Rada]

You should recall them yes: I agree with your interpretation which is
different to PSS's. Just add "by tournament" to those statements or
w/e it is.

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 14:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
>> > Notably relevant to the second CFJ is the incident in which I ratified
>> > everyone as winners after that date. If that worked, the second one
>> > would be FALSE.
>>
>> Ah, thanks.  About when did you do that?
>>
>> I withdraw my recently-called CFJs (though I plan on re-calling them in
>> some form if anyone has opinions to express).
>
> I somehow forgot to comment on this at the original time, but I'd
> recommend focusing on a specific win reason; IIRC there have at least
> been attempts to win in other ways in the time period, and you wouldn't
> want the same judge to have to judge all of them.
>
> I was planning to comment and see if you retracted/changed the CFJs,
> but somehow forgot all about it and neither commented nor assigned it.
> (Yet another reason why I'm not the greatest of Arbitors…) At least
> things seem to have worked out this time.
>
> --
> ais523



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: tournament results CFJs

[V.J Rada]

Notably relevant to the second CFJ is the incident in which I ratified
everyone as winners after that date. If that worked, the second one
would be FALSE.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I CFJ on the following, barring Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
> G. and Cuddlebeam have won the game since July 1, 2017.
>
> I CFJ on the following, barring Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
> No persons other than G. and Cuddlebeam have won the game since July 1, 
> 2017.
>
>
> ARGUMENTS:
>
> For the first CFJ, the relevant clause of the Tournament is:
>> At the conclusion of the 4 week period, the Herald will carry out any further
>> investigatory work needed and will notify all players of punishments with an
>> option for appeals. After this period, the Herald shall publicize all records
>> pertaining to the game including, but not limited to: investigation files,
>> punishment logs, scoresheets, and case logs. At that time, the Herald will 
>> also
>> state the winner and award Badges.
>
> My reading of the tournament rules is that the tournament winner is
> "determined" (for the purposes of R2464) when the tournament automatically
> ended 4 weeks after initiation, with P.S.S.'s announcement not altering the
> deadline, because e was required to "state" the winner but not determine the
> winner - the winner was "determined" by the events of the game.  The pause
> for punishment/appeals is no different than CFJs that can happen after the
> fact to determine past events.
>
>
> For the second CFJ, the relevant clause is:
>> All participants (people who have notified the Herald secretly of their 
>> intent
>> to participate via a message addressed only to the Herald’s registered 
>> address
>> and no other person) in this tournament CAN and SHALL be awarded the “Badge 
>> of
>> Participation in the 2017 Birthday Tournament”. The winner of this tournament
>> shall be the person(s) who is/are able to gain the most karma, described 
>> below,
>> over the course of the 4 week game.
>
> Given that only participants are "able" to gain karma, the winners are 
> limited to
> persons who are also participants.  (maybe?  I'm really not sure here.)
>
>
> EVIDENCE
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> Speaking of tournaments, I end the tournament and declare all persons
>> the winner, given that no one had gained any karma. I intend to award
>> without objection the "Badge of Participation in the 2017 Birthday
>> Tournament” to G. and Cuddle Beam.
>
>
> Rule 2464/1 (Power=1)
> Tournaments
>
>A Tournament is a sub-game of Agora specifically sanctioned
>to be initiated as a tournament by the Rules.  If a winner of a
>tournament is determined within 4 weeks of its initiation, that
>person or persons win the game, otherwise the tournament
>concludes with no winner. A Tournament is governed by a special 
> temporary
>title of the ACORN, created in accordance with its parent rule,
>which have binding control over those who freely agree to play the 
> tournament
>and over the tournament itself. Once the tournament is concluded, these
>regulations cease to have any effect, and may be repealed by any 
> player by
>announcement.
>
>
> [Full tournament, initiated 2 Jul 2017]
>
> All participants (people who have notified the Herald secretly of their
> intent to participate via a message addressed only to the Herald’s
> registered address and no other person) in this tournament CAN
> and SHALL be awarded the “Badge of Participation in the 2017 Birthday
> Tournament”. The winner of this tournament shall be the person(s) who
> is/are able to gain the most karma, described below, over the
> course of the 4 week game.
>
> Giving karma to another person may be done by sending a private [1]
> notification to them including the code word and sending the code word
> to the Herald. The person receiving the karma must send the
> original code word and a separate code word to the Herald.
>
> By giving karma, one gains 2 karma and by receiving karma, one gains 5
> karma. One does not gain karma unless the person receiving karma accepts
> it. No participant shall give karma more than 3 times in one
> day [2] and no participant shall state in any publicly visible manner
> [3] any actions that they have taken in regards to the game.
>
> Any person believing the regulations have been violated MUST immediately
> report such violations to the Herald. Any violations brought to the
> attention of the Herald shall be investigated and handled in a
> fair, documented, and equitable manner. The Herald may institute any
> punishment, allowed by these regulations, decided through any means
> after the conclusion of the investigation. No punishment for an
> individual action shall exceed a deduction of 5 karma. However, the
> Herald may remove participants or limit eir actions at eir discretion.
> The Herald shall notify the pla

Re: DIS: all work and no pay?

[Nic Evans]

On 08/24/17 15:46, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Does the Arbitor get paid at all for doing eir duties?
> What about the Assessor?
>

For Assessor: "Resolving an Agoran Decision
 for the first time this week: 5
shinies." So only if there is something to resolve.

I might have messed up on Arbitor.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: all work and no pay?

[Kerim Aydin]

Does the Arbitor get paid at all for doing eir duties?
What about the Assessor?

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

[Nic Evans]

On 08/24/17 11:56, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I thought people were over that.

I just think it's a poor blueprint to model yourself after, apt as it
may be.

>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Nic Evans  > wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/24/17 10:06, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> I bring up Blognomic a lot tbh but I bring Agora up a lot in
>> Blognomic too. I strive to improve stuff for both via sharing
>> stuff between them, a bit like how tea was brought from China to
>> Britain and become super cool stuff in both places.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
> 
>
>>
>> Also, it's cool to know that a guide has been made historically.
>> I think that coalescing that tendency into a rule or something
>> somehow would make it more perpetual.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin
>> mailto:ke...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > However, turning into a dynastic nomic would be too much of a 
>> drastic change I feel,
>> > so I feel like a better solution would be to make
>> "tradition" and "play custom" EXPLICIT, if we want
>> > to make it matter. Or at least, much more easily
>> accessible, like a handbook, so that without needing
>> > to run into problems or having to suckle on teats, someone
>> can have enough independence to play the
>> > game on their own, just like how someone can grab a
>> playstation controller and instantly play versus
>> > needing to pester others or deal with a massive, not
>> particularly didactic archive which is only going
>> > to get larger and harder to use for any newcomer. 
>>
>> Sorry if the previous post was too snarky.  So, I think all
>> of us totally agree that it would
>> be great to have a guide.  The rules annotations are out of
>> date.  We don't have a simplified
>> intro.  But beyond saying that, no one's sat down to produce
>> one.  Or produce cross-linked
>> rules and cases, or some other nice interface.  If someone
>> did, it would be welcomed.  I think,
>> every few years, someone makes one, maintains it for a year,
>> then stops.  It would be great if
>> someone did again.
>>
>> But also, remember that some board games are simple, some are
>> long and involved.  And sometimes
>> players want a game long and involved.  You don't cut all the
>> rules out of Star Fleet Battles to
>> make it more like Flux - if you want Flux, you go play Flux. 
>> Similarly, if you want BlogNomic,
>> you know where to find it :).
>>
>> -G.
>>
>>
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

[Cuddle Beam]

I thought people were over that.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:

>
>
> On 08/24/17 10:06, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I bring up Blognomic a lot tbh but I bring Agora up a lot in Blognomic
> too. I strive to improve stuff for both via sharing stuff between them, a
> bit like how tea was brought from China to Britain and become super cool
> stuff in both places.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
>
>
> Also, it's cool to know that a guide has been made historically. I think
> that coalescing that tendency into a rule or something somehow would make
> it more perpetual.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > However, turning into a dynastic nomic would be too much of a drastic
>> change I feel,
>> > so I feel like a better solution would be to make "tradition" and "play
>> custom" EXPLICIT, if we want
>> > to make it matter. Or at least, much more easily accessible, like a
>> handbook, so that without needing
>> > to run into problems or having to suckle on teats, someone can have
>> enough independence to play the
>> > game on their own, just like how someone can grab a playstation
>> controller and instantly play versus
>> > needing to pester others or deal with a massive, not particularly
>> didactic archive which is only going
>> > to get larger and harder to use for any newcomer.
>>
>> Sorry if the previous post was too snarky.  So, I think all of us totally
>> agree that it would
>> be great to have a guide.  The rules annotations are out of date.  We
>> don't have a simplified
>> intro.  But beyond saying that, no one's sat down to produce one.  Or
>> produce cross-linked
>> rules and cases, or some other nice interface.  If someone did, it would
>> be welcomed.  I think,
>> every few years, someone makes one, maintains it for a year, then stops.
>> It would be great if
>> someone did again.
>>
>> But also, remember that some board games are simple, some are long and
>> involved.  And sometimes
>> players want a game long and involved.  You don't cut all the rules out
>> of Star Fleet Battles to
>> make it more like Flux - if you want Flux, you go play Flux.  Similarly,
>> if you want BlogNomic,
>> you know where to find it :).
>>
>> -G.
>>
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

[Nic Evans]

On 08/24/17 10:06, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I bring up Blognomic a lot tbh but I bring Agora up a lot in Blognomic
> too. I strive to improve stuff for both via sharing stuff between
> them, a bit like how tea was brought from China to Britain and become
> super cool stuff in both places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

>
> Also, it's cool to know that a guide has been made historically. I
> think that coalescing that tendency into a rule or something somehow
> would make it more perpetual.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin  > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > However, turning into a dynastic nomic would be too much of a drastic 
> change I feel,
> > so I feel like a better solution would be to make "tradition"
> and "play custom" EXPLICIT, if we want
> > to make it matter. Or at least, much more easily accessible,
> like a handbook, so that without needing
> > to run into problems or having to suckle on teats, someone can
> have enough independence to play the
> > game on their own, just like how someone can grab a playstation
> controller and instantly play versus
> > needing to pester others or deal with a massive, not
> particularly didactic archive which is only going
> > to get larger and harder to use for any newcomer. 
>
> Sorry if the previous post was too snarky.  So, I think all of us
> totally agree that it would
> be great to have a guide.  The rules annotations are out of date. 
> We don't have a simplified
> intro.  But beyond saying that, no one's sat down to produce one. 
> Or produce cross-linked
> rules and cases, or some other nice interface.  If someone did, it
> would be welcomed.  I think,
> every few years, someone makes one, maintains it for a year, then
> stops.  It would be great if
> someone did again.
>
> But also, remember that some board games are simple, some are long
> and involved.  And sometimes
> players want a game long and involved.  You don't cut all the
> rules out of Star Fleet Battles to
> make it more like Flux - if you want Flux, you go play Flux. 
> Similarly, if you want BlogNomic,
> you know where to find it :).
>
> -G.
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I bring up Blognomic a lot tbh but I bring Agora up a lot in Blognomic too.
> I strive to improve stuff for both via sharing stuff between them, a bit
> like how tea was brought from China to Britain and become super cool stuff
> in both places.

this would not be my first example of cultural mutualism

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Yes, it's easy to find the archive but it's hellish to use. For example, 
> here: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3289 , there's a 
> reference to R105 and explains some
> important parts about that version of it.
> Imagine now that I raise a CFJ that involves R105. How am I going to find 
> that reference to R105 hidden in 3289?

I completely agree.  We should put a clause back in the rules governing CFJ 
annotations.
It used to read like the below.  The annotations in the FLR are now 
"unofficial" and as
a result aren't happening.

omd also used to maintain a rules-browser with old versions of the rules. E 
recently
talked about updating it, when that happens I was hoping to spend some time 
cross-linking.
Gaelan also talked about cross-linking with current rules.  And search would be 
very nice,
it's on my list.

Rule 789/5 (Power=1)
Orders to Annotate Rules

   The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule
   should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE,
   may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor
   to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement of that CFJ.
   Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of
   that Rule.

   [deleted some stuff about getting rid of old annotations if the
rule is changed].

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

[Cuddle Beam]

I bring up Blognomic a lot tbh but I bring Agora up a lot in Blognomic too.
I strive to improve stuff for both via sharing stuff between them, a bit
like how tea was brought from China to Britain and become super cool stuff
in both places.

Also, it's cool to know that a guide has been made historically. I think
that coalescing that tendency into a rule or something somehow would make
it more perpetual.

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > However, turning into a dynastic nomic would be too much of a drastic
> change I feel,
> > so I feel like a better solution would be to make "tradition" and "play
> custom" EXPLICIT, if we want
> > to make it matter. Or at least, much more easily accessible, like a
> handbook, so that without needing
> > to run into problems or having to suckle on teats, someone can have
> enough independence to play the
> > game on their own, just like how someone can grab a playstation
> controller and instantly play versus
> > needing to pester others or deal with a massive, not particularly
> didactic archive which is only going
> > to get larger and harder to use for any newcomer.
>
> Sorry if the previous post was too snarky.  So, I think all of us totally
> agree that it would
> be great to have a guide.  The rules annotations are out of date.  We
> don't have a simplified
> intro.  But beyond saying that, no one's sat down to produce one.  Or
> produce cross-linked
> rules and cases, or some other nice interface.  If someone did, it would
> be welcomed.  I think,
> every few years, someone makes one, maintains it for a year, then stops.
> It would be great if
> someone did again.
>
> But also, remember that some board games are simple, some are long and
> involved.  And sometimes
> players want a game long and involved.  You don't cut all the rules out of
> Star Fleet Battles to
> make it more like Flux - if you want Flux, you go play Flux.  Similarly,
> if you want BlogNomic,
> you know where to find it :).
>
> -G.
>
>

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> However, turning into a dynastic nomic would be too much of a drastic change 
> I feel, 
> so I feel like a better solution would be to make "tradition" and "play 
> custom" EXPLICIT, if we want
> to make it matter. Or at least, much more easily accessible, like a handbook, 
> so that without needing 
> to run into problems or having to suckle on teats, someone can have enough 
> independence to play the
> game on their own, just like how someone can grab a playstation controller 
> and instantly play versus
> needing to pester others or deal with a massive, not particularly didactic 
> archive which is only going
> to get larger and harder to use for any newcomer. 

Sorry if the previous post was too snarky.  So, I think all of us totally agree 
that it would
be great to have a guide.  The rules annotations are out of date.  We don't 
have a simplified
intro.  But beyond saying that, no one's sat down to produce one.  Or produce 
cross-linked
rules and cases, or some other nice interface.  If someone did, it would be 
welcomed.  I think,
every few years, someone makes one, maintains it for a year, then stops.  It 
would be great if
someone did again.

But also, remember that some board games are simple, some are long and 
involved.  And sometimes
players want a game long and involved.  You don't cut all the rules out of Star 
Fleet Battles to
make it more like Flux - if you want Flux, you go play Flux.  Similarly, if you 
want BlogNomic,
you know where to find it :).

-G.

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

[Cuddle Beam]

Yes, it's easy to find the archive but it's hellish to use. For example,
here: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3289 , there's a
reference to R105 and explains some important parts about that version of
it.

Imagine now that I raise a CFJ that involves R105. How am I going to find
that reference to R105 hidden in 3289?

How am I (or the average player or newcomer) supposed to find all other
references to R105 in your archive?

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Seeing how obscure basic features of the game can become to be for
> newcomers (and current players),
> > to improve gameplay, I proto-propose the following competition: "The
> Ruleset is our Joystick"
>
> We used to regularly update a FAQ that did this.  Fell out of use.
> Feel free to do it yourself, it would be useful.
>
> > - Remove all references to "tradition" and "play custom" and make them
> EXPLICIT. Those words are
> > euphemisms for "consult a veteran player", and we can very much just
> write them down
> > instead
>
> Just about every other player has found where the writing actually exists.
> It's here:  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/
>
> "New" players frequently find things in there to contradict what veteran
> players state.
> It happens.  It's written.  If you find it in there, it overrides
> "custom".  If you,
> personally, don't want to read it, and want to pretend the game is
> something other
> than it is, that's up to you.  But as you found a couple months ago,
> you'll have a
> bad time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Seeing how obscure basic features of the game can become to be for newcomers 
> (and current players), 
> to improve gameplay, I proto-propose the following competition: "The Ruleset 
> is our Joystick"

We used to regularly update a FAQ that did this.  Fell out of use. 
Feel free to do it yourself, it would be useful.

> - Remove all references to "tradition" and "play custom" and make them 
> EXPLICIT. Those words are 
> euphemisms for "consult a veteran player", and we can very much just write 
> them down
> instead

Just about every other player has found where the writing actually exists.
It's here:  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/

"New" players frequently find things in there to contradict what veteran 
players state.
It happens.  It's written.  If you find it in there, it overrides "custom".  If 
you, 
personally, don't want to read it, and want to pretend the game is something 
other
than it is, that's up to you.  But as you found a couple months ago, you'll 
have a
bad time.

DIS: Re: BUS: tournament results CFJs

[Kerim Aydin]

Addendum:  Reading through Rule 2464 a few times, it looks like the tournament 
"concluded" for the purposes of that Rule exactly 4 weeks after it started 
(whether or not it had a winner at the time).  Since "Once the tournament is
concluded, these regulations cease to have any effect", P.S.S.'s recent
announcement of winning had no effect - if a winner was determined, it happened
automatically at the 4 week deadline.

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I CFJ on the following, barring Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
> G. and Cuddlebeam have won the game since July 1, 2017.
> 
> I CFJ on the following, barring Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
> No persons other than G. and Cuddlebeam have won the game since July 1, 
> 2017.
> 
> 
> ARGUMENTS:
> 
> For the first CFJ, the relevant clause of the Tournament is:
> > At the conclusion of the 4 week period, the Herald will carry out any 
> > further 
> > investigatory work needed and will notify all players of punishments with an
> > option for appeals. After this period, the Herald shall publicize all 
> > records
> > pertaining to the game including, but not limited to: investigation files, 
> > punishment logs, scoresheets, and case logs. At that time, the Herald will 
> > also 
> > state the winner and award Badges.
> 
> My reading of the tournament rules is that the tournament winner is
> "determined" (for the purposes of R2464) when the tournament automatically
> ended 4 weeks after initiation, with P.S.S.'s announcement not altering the
> deadline, because e was required to "state" the winner but not determine the
> winner - the winner was "determined" by the events of the game.  The pause
> for punishment/appeals is no different than CFJs that can happen after the
> fact to determine past events.
> 
> 
> For the second CFJ, the relevant clause is:
> > All participants (people who have notified the Herald secretly of their 
> > intent 
> > to participate via a message addressed only to the Herald’s registered 
> > address
> > and no other person) in this tournament CAN and SHALL be awarded the “Badge 
> > of 
> > Participation in the 2017 Birthday Tournament”. The winner of this 
> > tournament
> > shall be the person(s) who is/are able to gain the most karma, described 
> > below,
> > over the course of the 4 week game.
> 
> Given that only participants are "able" to gain karma, the winners are 
> limited to
> persons who are also participants.  (maybe?  I'm really not sure here.)
> 
> 
> EVIDENCE
> 
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Speaking of tournaments, I end the tournament and declare all persons 
> > the winner, given that no one had gained any karma. I intend to award
> > without objection the "Badge of Participation in the 2017 Birthday 
> > Tournament” to G. and Cuddle Beam.
> 
> 
> Rule 2464/1 (Power=1)
> Tournaments
> 
>A Tournament is a sub-game of Agora specifically sanctioned
>to be initiated as a tournament by the Rules.  If a winner of a
>tournament is determined within 4 weeks of its initiation, that
>person or persons win the game, otherwise the tournament
>concludes with no winner. A Tournament is governed by a special 
> temporary
>title of the ACORN, created in accordance with its parent rule,
>which have binding control over those who freely agree to play the 
> tournament
>and over the tournament itself. Once the tournament is concluded, these
>regulations cease to have any effect, and may be repealed by any 
> player by
>announcement.
> 
> 
> [Full tournament, initiated 2 Jul 2017]
> 
> All participants (people who have notified the Herald secretly of their
> intent to participate via a message addressed only to the Herald’s
> registered address and no other person) in this tournament CAN
> and SHALL be awarded the “Badge of Participation in the 2017 Birthday
> Tournament”. The winner of this tournament shall be the person(s) who
> is/are able to gain the most karma, described below, over the
> course of the 4 week game.
> 
> Giving karma to another person may be done by sending a private [1]
> notification to them including the code word and sending the code word
> to the Herald. The person receiving the karma must send the
> original code word and a separate code word to the Herald.
> 
> By giving karma, one gains 2 karma and by receiving karma, one gains 5
> karma. One does not gain karma unless the person receiving karma accepts
> it. No participant shall give karma more than 3 times in one
> day [2] and no participant shall state in any publicly visible manner
> [3] any actions that they have taken in regards to the game.
> 
> Any person believing the regulations have been violated MUST immediately
> report such violations to the Herald. Any violations brought to the
> attention of the Herald shall be investigated and handled in a
> fair, documented, and equitable manner. The Herald may institute a

DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

[Cuddle Beam]

Seeing how obscure basic features of the game can become to be for
newcomers (and current players), to improve gameplay, I proto-propose the
following competition:

"The Ruleset is our Joystick"

Our Ruleset is essentially the "joystick" to our game, because it lets you
know how you can push and turn the various knobs in Agora. However, we have
the problem of it not being sufficient for the newcomer player to
effectively play with us, because we have a set of unwritten rules granted
by our culture which are necessary for play.

Basically, the Agoran "joystick" looks like this:
https://i.gyazo.com/bb8464b339b7b179d9ff3bcc4c0612bf.png

It's supposed to be a tool that you can use. But what does it do? How do
you use it? Could someone who has never seen it before use it effectively?
No, and that's a problem Agora currently has.

Compare it to to the Playstation joystick: http://i.imgur.com/kQOvFCG.png

People, without having ever seen it before or having ever seen someone else
use it, instinctively put their hands on each handle, which leads their
grip to the buttons, which allows them to easily and quite instantaneously
acquire the basic skills needed to use the tool.

When we make rules, it's very easy to resort to more complexity to solve
problems, but that kind of patching isn't *efficient*. Think of human
attention as RAM resources. The more you have to use to run your code for a
certain goal, the worse it is. And it gets worse when we start to depend on
those unwritten rules - it's like writing code without providing enough
libraries to run it.

So, with "Our Ruleset is our Joystick", the goals shall be: (something
something)

---

I personally believe that a solution could be:

- Recognize which mechanics are Essential for play (proposals,
anti-ossification, etc)
- Establish a maximum wordcount for Essential mechanics

Like that, we help make sure that it's clear and easy to play at least the
basics of the game. But we also have to add:

- Remove all references to "tradition" and "play custom" and make them
EXPLICIT. Those words are euphemisms for "consult a veteran player", and we
can very much just write them down instead, or make such knowledge more
easily accessible. Players are pretty much unable to play more interesting
things without needing to suckle on the teats of veterans so that they can
provide them with the milk of ancient CFJs. What if the veterans, the
holders of all the ancient tradition and what "should be" are gone? We
wouldn't be able to play Agora? There's a big gerontocracy problem with
unwritten rules and tradition.

In Blognomic, there's a simple solution. Unwritten gerontocracy simply
doesn't matter for current gameplay. Of course, the history of play is
generously recorded in the wiki with each dynasty, but unwritten content
from a past dynasty is hardly relevant in any current dynasty.

However, turning into a dynastic nomic would be too much of a drastic
change I feel, so I feel like a better solution would be to make
"tradition" and "play custom" EXPLICIT, if we want to make it matter. Or at
least, much more easily accessible, like a handbook, so that without
needing to run into problems or having to suckle on teats, someone can have
enough independence to play the game on their own, just like how someone
can grab a playstation controller and instantly play versus needing to
pester others or deal with a massive, not particularly didactic archive
which is only going to get larger and harder to use for any newcomer.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

However, I see that as fair because everyone had to go through that at some 
point.

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



> On Aug 24, 2017, at 12:54 AM, 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.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

NttPF.

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



> On Aug 24, 2017, at 12:15 AM, 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I support these and would be happy to assist with implementation. Additionally, 
I would be interested in repealing agencies and replacing them with 
non-rule-based entities for some interesting CFJs.

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



> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:46 PM, 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.
> 
> 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 using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Once K’s estate is processed, there will be money to pay you.

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



> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:38 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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 using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

NttPF.

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



> 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.
> 
> 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"  
> 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
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Not necessarily, because registration by announcement is time-limited, but 
there is no limit on other forms of registration.

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



> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:08 PM, Kyle Anderson  wrote:
> 
> I hereby deregister myself as a player for a minimum period of 30 days, in 
> accordance with Rule 869.
> 
> -K



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Moot (again)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Now, I believe o can resolve the intent and enter the judgment moot.

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



> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:01 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> 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
> 
> TTttPF.
> 
> -Aris



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: Moot (plz support)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

The CFJ has not yet been mooted.

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



> On Aug 23, 2017, at 10:58 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…
> 
> Also, it's fairly surprising that there's no time limit on mooting
> CFJs.
> 
> --
> ais523



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail