Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 24, 2017, at 1:36 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> On Sep 23, 2017, at 3:04 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
>> Oh yeah, I'm late on my ADoP report. By notifying you here it makes it
>> probably illegal to list that you believe no un-remedied rules
>> violations have occurred the preceding week. So you might have to use
>> your fifth summary judgement.
> 
> I issue V.J Rada a Green Card by summary judgement for violating rule 2143. E 
> failed to perform eir weekly duties as ADoP.


My personal practice has been to carefully avoid tracking weekly duty deadlines 
or reading the relevant parts of the ADoP’s report. Annoying players by 
punishing them for trivial lapses due to inattention or to outside obligations 
is of no help to anyone, and in any case, a seriously delinquent officer can be 
replaced by deputization. I’m looking out for apparently-intentional failures 
to report amd for abusive reporting, not for officers taking slack time.

If you don’t specifically call my attention to it, I can say with a straight 
face that I believe that there are no unpunished violations, but once someone 
brings it to my attention, that would be a lie.

-o


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

assigned to _a_ judge, singular, implies or dictates only one judge at 
once.


I don't think it does, especially in the context of the last part of the 
sentence.  It's perfectly readable as just an existential.



   When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN
   assign a valid judgement to it by announcement,


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[VJ Rada]

assigned to _a_ judge, singular, implies or dictates only one judge at once.

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> And if there happen to ever to be two judges assigned to a case, the
>> following:
>>At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
>>assigned exactly one judgement.
>> says nothing about, if two judgements are delivered, if the first one
>> prevents the second one from being delivered, or the second one replaces
>> the first one...
>
> Oh never mind on this part, it's here (R591).  First to judgement stops the
> second one from judging - so it turns into a judges' race... (of course
> easily winnable by the Prime Minister by judging when e assigns emself the
> case):
>When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN
>assign a valid judgement to it by announcement,
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> And if there happen to ever to be two judges assigned to a case, the 
> following:
>At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
>assigned exactly one judgement.
> says nothing about, if two judgements are delivered, if the first one 
> prevents the second one from being delivered, or the second one replaces
> the first one...

Oh never mind on this part, it's here (R591).  First to judgement stops the 
second one from judging - so it turns into a judges' race... (of course
easily winnable by the Prime Minister by judging when e assigns emself the
case):
   When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN
   assign a valid judgement to it by announcement,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Kerim Aydin]

Interestingly, it doesn't say that assigning yourself the judge using 
certiorari removes the previous judge from the case, or relieve the first
judge from the duty of delivering judgement.

There's no explicit indication I can find that cases can't have more than
one judge.  The Arbitor doesn't have any mechanism for assigning a second
judge to a case, but maybe certiorari does...?

And if there happen to ever to be two judges assigned to a case, the 
following:
   At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
   assigned exactly one judgement.
says nothing about, if two judgements are delivered, if the first one 
prevents the second one from being delivered, or the second one replaces
the first one...

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Yeah, it's for "open cases" not unassigned ones.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >> Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in
> >> R991.
> >>
> >> Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for
> >> me
> >> with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same
> >> message.
> >
> >
> > You'll need to judge it in the same message as well.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Ørjan.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[VJ Rada]

Yeah, it's for "open cases" not unassigned ones.

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>> Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in
>> R991.
>>
>> Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for
>> me
>> with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same
>> message.
>
>
> You'll need to judge it in the same message as well.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in R991.

Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for me
with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same
message.


You'll need to judge it in the same message as well.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Kerim Aydin]

Oh sorry, I confused certiorari with the "without 3 objections" method in R991.

Folks, if someone end up wanting to call a CFJ on this, make an Agency for me
with this exact purpose and I can have it called and assigned in the same
message.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> No no, I was just saying what I want to do or will do. That was not a
> formal statement of intent and it doesn't need to be.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> I intend to use certiorari to
> >> >> assign CFJs coming out of this to myself.
> >
> > A side note on this scam:  this part is likely ineffective as "CFJs
> > coming out of this" does not (by R1729) "unambiguously and clearly
> > specify the action", because you're not referring to a specific CFJ.
> >
> > I'll have to dig it up if you try to follow through on this, but the
> > old CFJ precedent is basically that it's not possible to "clearly" or
> > "unambiguously" specify hypothetical future items that do not yet exist.
> >
> > -G.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:


I have aimed to make this response as concise as possible.

我反对。我反对。


Like others, I'm doubtful that this works, but possibly for a different 
reason.


Although you may have many enough "我反对"s, _each_ of them is an action 
that is ambiguous as to which intent it is objecting to, thus they all 
fail.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Owen Jacobson]

Rule 2143, penultimate paragraph.

With tongue firmly in cheek,

-o

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 9:46 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Quazie's tables were worse, so I assumed it didn't matter. I can make
> more of an effort next week.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> 
>>> ===Metareport===
>> 
>> 
>> Your tables are horribly misaligned.  I suggest using a programming editor
>> that can actually handle monospace text.  (And don't use tab characters.)
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
> 
> 
> 
> --
>> From V.J. Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[VJ Rada]

Quazie's tables were worse, so I assumed it didn't matter. I can make
more of an effort next week.

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> ===Metareport===
>
>
> Your tables are horribly misaligned.  I suggest using a programming editor
> that can actually handle monospace text.  (And don't use tab characters.)
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[VJ Rada]

No no, I was just saying what I want to do or will do. That was not a
formal statement of intent and it doesn't need to be.

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> I intend to use certiorari to
>> >> assign CFJs coming out of this to myself.
>
> A side note on this scam:  this part is likely ineffective as "CFJs
> coming out of this" does not (by R1729) "unambiguously and clearly
> specify the action", because you're not referring to a specific CFJ.
>
> I'll have to dig it up if you try to follow through on this, but the
> old CFJ precedent is basically that it's not possible to "clearly" or
> "unambiguously" specify hypothetical future items that do not yet exist.
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


===Metareport===


Your tables are horribly misaligned.  I suggest using a programming editor 
that can actually handle monospace text.  (And don't use tab characters.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote:


To be honest - I only did it cuz I'm unsure if subject line only actions,
even if noted by the rules, even work.


I really cannot see why giving effect to subject lines shouldn't work when 
a rule (2463) _explicitly_ mentions it.


I still don't think rule 2463 works in the way tried here, though. 
The way we usually interpret dependent actions, the subject line would be 
on the _resolving_ message - the _intent_ still needs to be an ordinary 
announcement.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:01 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> 
>>> You can dereg and reset within a day, always.
>> 
>> Right now, it doesn’t even take that long. If it’s been 30 days since your 
>> last
>> deregistration, an unsporting “I register. I claim a welcome package.” 
>> appears to
>> cause Agora to transfer you 50 sh., even if you’re already a player when you 
>> send it.
> 
> No, I just judged that you can't do it while you're a player (CFJ 3529, 
> finally resolved).

So you did. My mistake!

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


This is Cuddlebeam-esque and I'm ashamed of myself. But I
will now copy and paste "Without objection, I intend to win by
apathy", until there is thousands of  copies of that text, each of
which is a seperate action. Under the precedent of several CFJs,


[snip]

I object - to the horrible formatting.

I am also just not quite tempted enough to register just to propose 
either/both:


* outlawing quoting huge parts of messages when not specifically 
responding to those parts
* nullifying actions buried after huge quotes or inside published 
documents


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:01 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > 
> > You can dereg and reset within a day, always.
> 
> Right now, it doesn’t even take that long. If it’s been 30 days since your 
> last 
> deregistration, an unsporting “I register. I claim a welcome package.” 
> appears to 
> cause Agora to transfer you 50 sh., even if you’re already a player when you 
> send it.

No, I just judged that you can't do it while you're a player (CFJ 3529, finally 
resolved).

DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I intend to use certiorari to
> >> assign CFJs coming out of this to myself.

A side note on this scam:  this part is likely ineffective as "CFJs
coming out of this" does not (by R1729) "unambiguously and clearly
specify the action", because you're not referring to a specific CFJ.

I'll have to dig it up if you try to follow through on this, but the
old CFJ precedent is basically that it's not possible to "clearly" or
"unambiguously" specify hypothetical future items that do not yet exist.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


Oh yeah, I'm late on my ADoP report. By notifying you here it makes it
probably illegal to list that you believe no un-remedied rules
violations have occurred the preceding week. So you might have to use
your fifth summary judgement.


Hm, an actual obligation caused by a -discussion message...

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:01 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> You can dereg and reset within a day, always.

Right now, it doesn’t even take that long. If it’s been 30 days since your last 
deregistration, an unsporting “I register. I claim a welcome package.” appears 
to cause Agora to transfer you 50 sh., even if you’re already a player when you 
send it.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 23, 2017, at 7:09 PM, Josh T  wrote:

> I have an idea for making goods which is bouncing around in my mind, but I 
> haven't the time to sit down and write it out. It'd also be my first 
> proposal, so I'm a bit apprehensive at throwing it out into the wild without 
> double-checking some basic things first.
> 
> 天火狐

I’d be more than happy to give your proposal a once-over, either publicly or 
privately. My From: address is live if you want to contact me off-list.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A CFJ on Pledges

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Jack Henahan  wrote:
> 
> 
> My reading of the rules also suggests that a pledge without a defined
> completion state may be considered broken by design, and therefore could
> be argued to be invalid.
> 
> To use the example which I presume prompted this CFJ, nichdel's pledge
> 
>> I pledge not to acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or
>> to respond in a-d to anything CB does.
> 
> I would argue that such a pledge is by broken [1]  by definition because it
> cannot be completed in a timely fashion as defined by Rule 1023 [2]
> after it becomes possible to do so, precisely because it is impossible
> to reach a condition under which it might be considered complete.
> 
> By this reading, there is a legal definition of a broken pledge, to wit,
> "a pledge not completed in a timely manner after it is possible to do
> so", and "a pledge which proscribes certain behavior whose terms have
> been violated by the actions of the pledger".
> 
> Perhaps this calls for a Pledge Switch, so that a Pledge may be either
> Active, Fulfilled, or Broken. Then we might legislate the events which
> alter the position of the switch.
> 
> All that said, though, there are no explicit limits on what constitutes
> a pledge, so my reading is purely speculative.

This is, in large part, my motivation for trying to _remove_ rules-defined 
boundaries for determining when a pledge is or is not broken. I’m convinced 
we’ll never get it right, and that any formal criteria are liable to have this 
sort of edge case lurking in them, so replacing formal criteria with a general 
system that leaves it to the players to determine what constitutes a broken 
pledge is, in my view, likely to capture the intent of pledges (to be binding 
promises) more perfectly.

Informally, I endorse ProofTechnique as judge for this CFJ, if e is willing to 
do so.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A CFJ on Pledges

[Aris Merchant]

Please hang on everyone. I have some brief arguments, which I'll try to
post later today.

-Aris

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:36 PM Jack Henahan  wrote:

>
> Certainly. I'm admittedly a bit new to judging, but I'll read some older
> CFJs to get a feel for it.
>
> After considering a bit further, I would amend
>
> > precisely because it is impossible to reach a condition under which it
> > might be considered complete.
>
> to state instead
>
> > precisely because it is impossible to reach a condition under which it
> > might be considered complete except by breaking it.
>
> but my reasoning remains otherwise unchanged at this time.
>
> Kerim Aydin  writes:
>
> > If you're interested in judging, I'm happy to assign this to you!
> > While your conclusion is still speculative your reasoning so far is
> > solid.
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Jack Henahan wrote:
> >> My reading of the rules also suggests that a pledge without a defined
> >> completion state may be considered broken by design, and therefore could
> >> be argued to be invalid.
> >>
> >> To use the example which I presume prompted this CFJ, nichdel's pledge
> >>
> >> > I pledge not to acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or
> >> > to respond in a-d to anything CB does.
> >>
> >> I would argue that such a pledge is by broken [1]  by definition
> because it
> >> cannot be completed in a timely fashion as defined by Rule 1023 [2]
> >> after it becomes possible to do so, precisely because it is impossible
> >> to reach a condition under which it might be considered complete.
> >>
> >> By this reading, there is a legal definition of a broken pledge, to wit,
> >> "a pledge not completed in a timely manner after it is possible to do
> >> so", and "a pledge which proscribes certain behavior whose terms have
> >> been violated by the actions of the pledger".
> >>
> >> Perhaps this calls for a Pledge Switch, so that a Pledge may be either
> >> Active, Fulfilled, or Broken. Then we might legislate the events which
> >> alter the position of the switch.
> >>
> >> All that said, though, there are no explicit limits on what constitutes
> >> a pledge, so my reading is purely speculative.
> >>
> >> [1]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2450
> >> [2]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule1023
> >>
> >> Nic Evans  writes:
> >>
> >> > I call the following CFJ, using AP: "A pledge can only be broken
> once."
> >> >
> >> > Arguments:
> >> >
> >> > Consider the text of R2450:
> >> >
> >> > "A player  SHALL NOT
> >> >  break eir own publicly-made
> >> > pledges.
> >> >
> >> > A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete it
> in
> >> > a timely  manner after it
> >> > becomes possible to do so. A pledge may be considered broken at the
> >> > moment the pledger engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge."
> >> >
> >> > There's no legal definition of 'broken' in the ruleset. In common
> usage,
> >> > we have several type of breaking:
> >> >
> >> > * Breaking a contract. Doing so leaves you up for punishment, but it
> >> > also nullifies the contract.
> >> >
> >> > * Breaking a promise.'By default' doing so nullifies the promise. In
> >> > cases where it doesn't, it's because the involved parties discuss
> >> > continuing it (arguably creating a new promise).
> >> >
> >> > * Breaking a system. Once a physical or conceptual system is broken it
> >> > remains so until repaired. You can do further damage and even 'break
> it
> >> > more' but it's already broken and you can't break it anew.
> >> >
> >> > Under all these, it appears you can't break what's broken until it's
> >> > remade or repaired. There is no rule defined method to repair a
> pledge.
> >> > Thus, when someone first breaks a pledge it remains broken, and cannot
> >> > be broken again.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ProofTechnique
> >>
>
>
> --
> ProofTechnique
>

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 09/23/2017 06:55 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>   What fatal mistakes can a new player make?
> 
> 
> Right now, since we lack a basic income or enough 'easy' rewards, new players 
> can burn 
> through their Welcome Package and not be able to replenish it.

That's exactly it.  We don't right now have a gerontocracy problem, in that some
players having funds isn't actually stopping newer players from doing anything.
The only direct competition is auctions and we haven't had enough of those
yet for it to be an issue.

The problem is just basic supply for any non-officer, once the package is gone.

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[VJ Rada]

You can dereg and reset within a day, always.

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> On 09/23/2017 06:55 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> What fatal mistakes can a new player make?
>
>
> Right now, since we lack a basic income or enough 'easy' rewards, new
> players can burn through their Welcome Package and not be able to replenish
> it.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>>
>> On 09/23/2017 06:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 01:30 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:

 Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:
 http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#g
 erontocracy-syndrome
>>>
>>> One obvious fix is to make it so that it's possible to cash in an
>>> economic advantage for a win. That way, before long (if the economy is
>>> functioning correctly), the experienced players will have won and then
>>> will end up behind the newer players as they've spent all their assets
>>> on the win.
>>
>>
>> That's the general idea behind stamp wins. You destroy 10 stamps to gain a
>> win.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In general, though, I suspect gerontocracy issues are less of an issue
>>> than many players think. The most recent time I've seen it be a
>>> noticeable problem was in the era of permanently accumulable VLOP, and
>>> that went away soon after I initially joined the game, many years ago
>>> now. Since then, I don't think we've had an economic system that didn't
>>> reset either as a result of people using economic assets to win, or as
>>> a result of it being repealed and replaced with something else that had
>>> a cap on how much economic advantage you could accrue. (I also note
>>> that with the typical rate at which players become inactive,
>>> deregister, etc., it tends to be fairly hard to get a considerable age
>>> advantage over another player, especially given how often the economic
>>> rules reset.)
>>>
>>> Note that there are two separate issues here: "can new players do
>>> something?" and "can experienced players do more?". Making sure that
>>> new players aren't locked out is very important. Making sure that
>>> they're on a level playing field with experienced players is hard to do
>>> fairly, though, as otherwise deregistering and reregistering is a
>>> simple way to get rid of any economic disadvantage you might have. In
>>> general, I'd suspect that the perfect system involves a) enough
>>> starting assets for new players to be able to participate in the game
>>> at a reasonable rate (I'd argue AP is sufficient for this), and b) a
>>> way to get semipermanent advantages which will fade over time if not
>>> maintained, and for which a skilled new player who's trying to
>>> accumulate advantage and a skilled existing player who's trying to
>>> accumulate advantage will both end up as roughly level frontrunners
>>> within a medium timescale (say, a few months; Agora tends not to do
>>> anything quickly).
>>
>>
>> Pretty much entirely agree with the above. The way I see it a game should:
>>
>> - Be interesting to both new and old players
>> - Prevent new players from fatal mistakes
>> - Reward both long term planning and short term cleverness
>>
>> Admittedly, we're failing the second point right now. But that's not
>> because of any perceived 'gerontology'.
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Nic Evans]

On 09/23/2017 06:55 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:

What fatal mistakes can a new player make?


Right now, since we lack a basic income or enough 'easy' rewards, new 
players can burn through their Welcome Package and not be able to 
replenish it.




On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Nic Evans > wrote:


On 09/23/2017 06:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:

On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 01:30 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:

http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#g


erontocracy-syndrome

One obvious fix is to make it so that it's possible to cash in an
economic advantage for a win. That way, before long (if the
economy is
functioning correctly), the experienced players will have won
and then
will end up behind the newer players as they've spent all
their assets
on the win.


That's the general idea behind stamp wins. You destroy 10 stamps
to gain a win.



In general, though, I suspect gerontocracy issues are less of
an issue
than many players think. The most recent time I've seen it be a
noticeable problem was in the era of permanently accumulable
VLOP, and
that went away soon after I initially joined the game, many
years ago
now. Since then, I don't think we've had an economic system
that didn't
reset either as a result of people using economic assets to
win, or as
a result of it being repealed and replaced with something else
that had
a cap on how much economic advantage you could accrue. (I also
note
that with the typical rate at which players become inactive,
deregister, etc., it tends to be fairly hard to get a
considerable age
advantage over another player, especially given how often the
economic
rules reset.)

Note that there are two separate issues here: "can new players do
something?" and "can experienced players do more?". Making
sure that
new players aren't locked out is very important. Making sure that
they're on a level playing field with experienced players is
hard to do
fairly, though, as otherwise deregistering and reregistering is a
simple way to get rid of any economic disadvantage you might
have. In
general, I'd suspect that the perfect system involves a) enough
starting assets for new players to be able to participate in
the game
at a reasonable rate (I'd argue AP is sufficient for this),
and b) a
way to get semipermanent advantages which will fade over time
if not
maintained, and for which a skilled new player who's trying to
accumulate advantage and a skilled existing player who's trying to
accumulate advantage will both end up as roughly level
frontrunners
within a medium timescale (say, a few months; Agora tends not
to do
anything quickly).


Pretty much entirely agree with the above. The way I see it a game
should:

- Be interesting to both new and old players
- Prevent new players from fatal mistakes
- Reward both long term planning and short term cleverness

Admittedly, we're failing the second point right now. But that's
not because of any perceived 'gerontology'.

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Cuddle Beam]

What fatal mistakes can a new player make?

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> On 09/23/2017 06:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 01:30 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>
>>> Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:
>>> http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#g
>>> erontocracy-syndrome
>>>
>> One obvious fix is to make it so that it's possible to cash in an
>> economic advantage for a win. That way, before long (if the economy is
>> functioning correctly), the experienced players will have won and then
>> will end up behind the newer players as they've spent all their assets
>> on the win.
>>
>
> That's the general idea behind stamp wins. You destroy 10 stamps to gain a
> win.
>
>
>
>> In general, though, I suspect gerontocracy issues are less of an issue
>> than many players think. The most recent time I've seen it be a
>> noticeable problem was in the era of permanently accumulable VLOP, and
>> that went away soon after I initially joined the game, many years ago
>> now. Since then, I don't think we've had an economic system that didn't
>> reset either as a result of people using economic assets to win, or as
>> a result of it being repealed and replaced with something else that had
>> a cap on how much economic advantage you could accrue. (I also note
>> that with the typical rate at which players become inactive,
>> deregister, etc., it tends to be fairly hard to get a considerable age
>> advantage over another player, especially given how often the economic
>> rules reset.)
>>
>> Note that there are two separate issues here: "can new players do
>> something?" and "can experienced players do more?". Making sure that
>> new players aren't locked out is very important. Making sure that
>> they're on a level playing field with experienced players is hard to do
>> fairly, though, as otherwise deregistering and reregistering is a
>> simple way to get rid of any economic disadvantage you might have. In
>> general, I'd suspect that the perfect system involves a) enough
>> starting assets for new players to be able to participate in the game
>> at a reasonable rate (I'd argue AP is sufficient for this), and b) a
>> way to get semipermanent advantages which will fade over time if not
>> maintained, and for which a skilled new player who's trying to
>> accumulate advantage and a skilled existing player who's trying to
>> accumulate advantage will both end up as roughly level frontrunners
>> within a medium timescale (say, a few months; Agora tends not to do
>> anything quickly).
>>
>
> Pretty much entirely agree with the above. The way I see it a game should:
>
> - Be interesting to both new and old players
> - Prevent new players from fatal mistakes
> - Reward both long term planning and short term cleverness
>
> Admittedly, we're failing the second point right now. But that's not
> because of any perceived 'gerontology'.
>

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Nic Evans]

On 09/23/2017 06:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:

On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 01:30 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:
http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#g
erontocracy-syndrome

One obvious fix is to make it so that it's possible to cash in an
economic advantage for a win. That way, before long (if the economy is
functioning correctly), the experienced players will have won and then
will end up behind the newer players as they've spent all their assets
on the win.


That's the general idea behind stamp wins. You destroy 10 stamps to gain 
a win.




In general, though, I suspect gerontocracy issues are less of an issue
than many players think. The most recent time I've seen it be a
noticeable problem was in the era of permanently accumulable VLOP, and
that went away soon after I initially joined the game, many years ago
now. Since then, I don't think we've had an economic system that didn't
reset either as a result of people using economic assets to win, or as
a result of it being repealed and replaced with something else that had
a cap on how much economic advantage you could accrue. (I also note
that with the typical rate at which players become inactive,
deregister, etc., it tends to be fairly hard to get a considerable age
advantage over another player, especially given how often the economic
rules reset.)

Note that there are two separate issues here: "can new players do
something?" and "can experienced players do more?". Making sure that
new players aren't locked out is very important. Making sure that
they're on a level playing field with experienced players is hard to do
fairly, though, as otherwise deregistering and reregistering is a
simple way to get rid of any economic disadvantage you might have. In
general, I'd suspect that the perfect system involves a) enough
starting assets for new players to be able to participate in the game
at a reasonable rate (I'd argue AP is sufficient for this), and b) a
way to get semipermanent advantages which will fade over time if not
maintained, and for which a skilled new player who's trying to
accumulate advantage and a skilled existing player who's trying to
accumulate advantage will both end up as roughly level frontrunners
within a medium timescale (say, a few months; Agora tends not to do
anything quickly).


Pretty much entirely agree with the above. The way I see it a game should:

- Be interesting to both new and old players
- Prevent new players from fatal mistakes
- Reward both long term planning and short term cleverness

Admittedly, we're failing the second point right now. But that's not 
because of any perceived 'gerontology'.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Gaelan Steele]

I copypasted his message and find-replaced. 

Gaelan

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> If Gaelan has missed out at least one "I object", a win for VJ will slip 
> through the cracks.
> 
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 23:34, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> > > On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it 
>> > > auto-detects Chinese
>> > > and spits out "I Object."  It's pretty much as clear a translation as 
>> > > you can get
>> > > if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.
>> >
>> > That explains a lot. I left GT on Japanese and got “I antagonize.” Still 
>> > clear to me,
>> > but probably not clear enough to clear the bar previously established by 
>> > CFJ 1460.
>> 
>> In 3471/3472, I noted that technological changes since CFJ 1460 might merit
>> revisiting it, and if that single ubiquitous tool (Google translate) gave
>> a clear and direct answer, it wasn't too much of a burden for people to
>> cut and past into it - but it has to be painfully exact, in those CFJs I
>> didn't allow something that was pretty close but not exact.
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Card limits

[Cuddle Beam]

Without objection is too easy to sidestep

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:51 PM Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> The penalty card limits set out in rules 2478 (“Vigilante Justice”) and
>> 2479 (“Official Justice”) appear to be designed to prevent two problems:
>>
>> * abuses of finger-pointing, such as pointing one’s finger at every
>> player, or repeatedly pointing one’s finger at someone long past the point
>> where the allegations have been settled, and
>>
>> * abuses of the office of Referee, such as issuing an inordinate number
>> of Yellow or Red cards as part of an attempt to scam ballots.
>>
>> These are pro-active protections - they apply to prevent the actions,
>> rather than to address actions that have happened - and I think that’s
>> important. However, they’re structurally a bit shaky - the recent bug found
>> in the Referee rules that forces that officer to card every finger-pointing
>> and the rule requiring that the Referee receive a card for inappropriately
>> issuing cards combined to exhaust some of the limits this week, leaving the
>> office in a slightly odd state. With that in mind, I’d like to propose the
>> following reforms to the office:
>>
>> * Remove the limits on finger-pointing entirely. Replace them with a rule
>> along the lines that a player SHALL NOT point eir finger an excessive
>> number of times, or similar, and leave the determination of what
>> “excessive” is up to CFJs and the patience of the investigator.
>>
>> * Remove the limits on summary judgement. Continue to allow the Referee
>> to issue cards immediately in response to finger-pointing, but remove the
>> ability for the Referee to unilaterally issue cards: if the Referee is the
>> finger-pointer, or if no finger has been pointed, then the Referee can only
>> issue cards without objection.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -o
>>
>
> I generally concur. However, without objection is a mighty high standard
> to meet. I think we can trust that someone will often object to being given
> a card, and certain players have a habit of objecting to random things for
> no apparent reason. That's at least two objections. Maybe with some amount
> of support/ N agora consent would be better (support has the significant
> advantage that there's no minimum time limit, so I might tend to go with
> that).
>
> -Aris
>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 01:30 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:
> http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#g
> erontocracy-syndrome

One obvious fix is to make it so that it's possible to cash in an
economic advantage for a win. That way, before long (if the economy is
functioning correctly), the experienced players will have won and then
will end up behind the newer players as they've spent all their assets
on the win.

In general, though, I suspect gerontocracy issues are less of an issue
than many players think. The most recent time I've seen it be a
noticeable problem was in the era of permanently accumulable VLOP, and
that went away soon after I initially joined the game, many years ago
now. Since then, I don't think we've had an economic system that didn't
reset either as a result of people using economic assets to win, or as
a result of it being repealed and replaced with something else that had
a cap on how much economic advantage you could accrue. (I also note
that with the typical rate at which players become inactive,
deregister, etc., it tends to be fairly hard to get a considerable age
advantage over another player, especially given how often the economic 
rules reset.)

Note that there are two separate issues here: "can new players do
something?" and "can experienced players do more?". Making sure that
new players aren't locked out is very important. Making sure that
they're on a level playing field with experienced players is hard to do
fairly, though, as otherwise deregistering and reregistering is a
simple way to get rid of any economic disadvantage you might have. In
general, I'd suspect that the perfect system involves a) enough
starting assets for new players to be able to participate in the game
at a reasonable rate (I'd argue AP is sufficient for this), and b) a
way to get semipermanent advantages which will fade over time if not
maintained, and for which a skilled new player who's trying to
accumulate advantage and a skilled existing player who's trying to
accumulate advantage will both end up as roughly level frontrunners
within a medium timescale (say, a few months; Agora tends not to do
anything quickly).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Cuddle Beam]

Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:
http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#gerontocracy-syndrome

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Josh T  wrote:

> I have an idea for making goods which is bouncing around in my mind, but I
> haven't the time to sit down and write it out. It'd also be my first
> proposal, so I'm a bit apprehensive at throwing it out into the wild
> without double-checking some basic things first.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 23 September 2017 at 19:01, VJ Rada  wrote:
>
>> I think we need to encourage spending. People ignore the current
>> agoran economy too much. People don't ignore the real economy because
>> they need to eat. My vision is to have it be completely impossible to
>> meaningfully participate without paying for it, thus forcing economic
>> participation.
>>
>> I also think we need inflation to match new players coming in. And we
>> need more incentivisation of inter-player spending, rather than just
>> player-agora spending. The few businesses people have set up right now
>> (Celestial Fire-Fox's vote-buying thing for example) just aren't being
>> used.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > There's two separate issues:
>> >
>> > 1.  How fast should a brand new player be able to catch up with an old
>> player;
>> >
>> > 2.  How much consistent advantage should an officer have over a
>> non-officer.
>> >
>> > It's confounded because most old players are officers, but given the
>> welcome
>> > package I think it's mostly a problem of (2) not (1).
>> >
>> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>> >> On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> >>   I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how
>> much time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will
>> achieve a win (or dictatorship) given their join date.
>> >>
>> >> If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at
>> the start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on that
>> front). For example, the case where the total capital
>> >> of all active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome
>> Pack), grows over time.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome
>> consistently good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't
>> restricted to one-time. New players can still win with as much work as
>> >> old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting
>> sooner.
>> >>
>> >>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin <
>> ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> >>   > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently
>> gerontocratic system.
>> >>   > It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
>> allocation.
>> >>
>> >>   Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and
>> some broad thoughts.
>> >>
>> >>   I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of
>> Economies and
>> >>   think of it in terms of Game Design.
>> >>
>> >>   On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset
>> growth.  Base
>> >>   assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster
>> (I'm
>> >>   particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This
>> can be very
>> >>   fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties
>> start *really*
>> >>   producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early
>> determination of
>> >>   winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a
>> frustrating
>> >>   slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real
>> life), this is
>> >>   the gerontocracy.
>> >>
>> >>   It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of
>> valuable assets
>> >>   is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight
>> lead in
>> >>   your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).
>> Moreover,
>> >>   right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have
>> to compete
>> >>   directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to
>> hoard right now
>> >>   is to have any chance in an auction.
>> >>
>> >>   I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically
>> reducing the
>> >>   buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased
>> land).
>> >>
>> >>   On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough
>> diversity of
>> >>   things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending
>> on.  We need
>> >>   to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.
>> >>
>> >>   There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I
>> personally would
>> >>   add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic
>> system, and
>> >>   simultaneously re-form the 

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Josh T]

I have an idea for making goods which is bouncing around in my mind, but I
haven't the time to sit down and write it out. It'd also be my first
proposal, so I'm a bit apprehensive at throwing it out into the wild
without double-checking some basic things first.

天火狐

On 23 September 2017 at 19:01, VJ Rada  wrote:

> I think we need to encourage spending. People ignore the current
> agoran economy too much. People don't ignore the real economy because
> they need to eat. My vision is to have it be completely impossible to
> meaningfully participate without paying for it, thus forcing economic
> participation.
>
> I also think we need inflation to match new players coming in. And we
> need more incentivisation of inter-player spending, rather than just
> player-agora spending. The few businesses people have set up right now
> (Celestial Fire-Fox's vote-buying thing for example) just aren't being
> used.
>
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There's two separate issues:
> >
> > 1.  How fast should a brand new player be able to catch up with an old
> player;
> >
> > 2.  How much consistent advantage should an officer have over a
> non-officer.
> >
> > It's confounded because most old players are officers, but given the
> welcome
> > package I think it's mostly a problem of (2) not (1).
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> >> On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >>   I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how
> much time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will
> achieve a win (or dictatorship) given their join date.
> >>
> >> If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at the
> start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on that
> front). For example, the case where the total capital
> >> of all active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome
> Pack), grows over time.
> >>
> >>
> >> New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome
> consistently good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't
> restricted to one-time. New players can still win with as much work as
> >> old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting
> sooner.
> >>
> >>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >>   > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently
> gerontocratic system.
> >>   > It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
> allocation.
> >>
> >>   Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some
> broad thoughts.
> >>
> >>   I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of
> Economies and
> >>   think of it in terms of Game Design.
> >>
> >>   On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset
> growth.  Base
> >>   assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster
> (I'm
> >>   particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can
> be very
> >>   fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties
> start *really*
> >>   producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early
> determination of
> >>   winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a
> frustrating
> >>   slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real
> life), this is
> >>   the gerontocracy.
> >>
> >>   It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of
> valuable assets
> >>   is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight
> lead in
> >>   your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).
> Moreover,
> >>   right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have
> to compete
> >>   directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to
> hoard right now
> >>   is to have any chance in an auction.
> >>
> >>   I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically
> reducing the
> >>   buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased
> land).
> >>
> >>   On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough
> diversity of
> >>   things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.
> We need
> >>   to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.
> >>
> >>   There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I
> personally would
> >>   add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic
> system, and
> >>   simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about
> last week.
> >>   This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other
> things we could
> >>   invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think
> about specialized
> >>   roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't
> easily change
> >>   whether you're a farmer or 

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[VJ Rada]

I think we need to encourage spending. People ignore the current
agoran economy too much. People don't ignore the real economy because
they need to eat. My vision is to have it be completely impossible to
meaningfully participate without paying for it, thus forcing economic
participation.

I also think we need inflation to match new players coming in. And we
need more incentivisation of inter-player spending, rather than just
player-agora spending. The few businesses people have set up right now
(Celestial Fire-Fox's vote-buying thing for example) just aren't being
used.

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> There's two separate issues:
>
> 1.  How fast should a brand new player be able to catch up with an old player;
>
> 2.  How much consistent advantage should an officer have over a non-officer.
>
> It's confounded because most old players are officers, but given the welcome
> package I think it's mostly a problem of (2) not (1).
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>> On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>   I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how much 
>> time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will achieve a 
>> win (or dictatorship) given their join date.
>>
>> If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at the 
>> start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on that 
>> front). For example, the case where the total capital
>> of all active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome Pack), 
>> grows over time.
>>
>>
>> New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome consistently 
>> good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't restricted to 
>> one-time. New players can still win with as much work as
>> old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting sooner.
>>
>>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin  
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>   > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently 
>> gerontocratic system.
>>   > It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary 
>> allocation.
>>
>>   Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some 
>> broad thoughts.
>>
>>   I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of 
>> Economies and
>>   think of it in terms of Game Design.
>>
>>   On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset growth.  
>> Base
>>   assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster (I'm
>>   particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can be 
>> very
>>   fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties start 
>> *really*
>>   producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early determination of
>>   winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a 
>> frustrating
>>   slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real life), 
>> this is
>>   the gerontocracy.
>>
>>   It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of valuable 
>> assets
>>   is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight lead in
>>   your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).  Moreover,
>>   right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have to 
>> compete
>>   directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to hoard 
>> right now
>>   is to have any chance in an auction.
>>
>>   I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically reducing 
>> the
>>   buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased land).
>>
>>   On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough diversity of
>>   things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.  We 
>> need
>>   to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.
>>
>>   There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I personally 
>> would
>>   add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic system, and
>>   simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about last 
>> week.
>>   This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other things we 
>> could
>>   invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think about 
>> specialized
>>   roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't easily 
>> change
>>   whether you're a farmer or not).
>>
>>   The total portfolio of things to buy should have a unified game 
>> balance and
>>   different pathways to riches/success, and not just be a grab bag of 
>> random
>>   investment instruments (e.g. stamps, bonds, whatever).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A CFJ on Pledges

[Jack Henahan]

Certainly. I'm admittedly a bit new to judging, but I'll read some older
CFJs to get a feel for it.

After considering a bit further, I would amend

> precisely because it is impossible to reach a condition under which it
> might be considered complete.

to state instead

> precisely because it is impossible to reach a condition under which it
> might be considered complete except by breaking it.

but my reasoning remains otherwise unchanged at this time.

Kerim Aydin  writes:

> If you're interested in judging, I'm happy to assign this to you!
> While your conclusion is still speculative your reasoning so far is
> solid.
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Jack Henahan wrote:
>> My reading of the rules also suggests that a pledge without a defined
>> completion state may be considered broken by design, and therefore could
>> be argued to be invalid.
>>
>> To use the example which I presume prompted this CFJ, nichdel's pledge
>>
>> > I pledge not to acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or
>> > to respond in a-d to anything CB does.
>>
>> I would argue that such a pledge is by broken [1]  by definition because it
>> cannot be completed in a timely fashion as defined by Rule 1023 [2]
>> after it becomes possible to do so, precisely because it is impossible
>> to reach a condition under which it might be considered complete.
>>
>> By this reading, there is a legal definition of a broken pledge, to wit,
>> "a pledge not completed in a timely manner after it is possible to do
>> so", and "a pledge which proscribes certain behavior whose terms have
>> been violated by the actions of the pledger".
>>
>> Perhaps this calls for a Pledge Switch, so that a Pledge may be either
>> Active, Fulfilled, or Broken. Then we might legislate the events which
>> alter the position of the switch.
>>
>> All that said, though, there are no explicit limits on what constitutes
>> a pledge, so my reading is purely speculative.
>>
>> [1]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2450
>> [2]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule1023
>>
>> Nic Evans  writes:
>>
>> > I call the following CFJ, using AP: "A pledge can only be broken once."
>> >
>> > Arguments:
>> >
>> > Consider the text of R2450:
>> >
>> > "A player  SHALL NOT
>> >  break eir own publicly-made
>> > pledges.
>> >
>> > A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete it in
>> > a timely  manner after it
>> > becomes possible to do so. A pledge may be considered broken at the
>> > moment the pledger engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge."
>> >
>> > There's no legal definition of 'broken' in the ruleset. In common usage,
>> > we have several type of breaking:
>> >
>> > * Breaking a contract. Doing so leaves you up for punishment, but it
>> > also nullifies the contract.
>> >
>> > * Breaking a promise.'By default' doing so nullifies the promise. In
>> > cases where it doesn't, it's because the involved parties discuss
>> > continuing it (arguably creating a new promise).
>> >
>> > * Breaking a system. Once a physical or conceptual system is broken it
>> > remains so until repaired. You can do further damage and even 'break it
>> > more' but it's already broken and you can't break it anew.
>> >
>> > Under all these, it appears you can't break what's broken until it's
>> > remade or repaired. There is no rule defined method to repair a pledge.
>> > Thus, when someone first breaks a pledge it remains broken, and cannot
>> > be broken again.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ProofTechnique
>>


--
ProofTechnique


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A CFJ on Pledges

[Kerim Aydin]

If you're interested in judging, I'm happy to assign this to you!
While your conclusion is still speculative your reasoning so far is
solid.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Jack Henahan wrote: 
> My reading of the rules also suggests that a pledge without a defined
> completion state may be considered broken by design, and therefore could
> be argued to be invalid.
> 
> To use the example which I presume prompted this CFJ, nichdel's pledge
> 
> > I pledge not to acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or
> > to respond in a-d to anything CB does.
> 
> I would argue that such a pledge is by broken [1]  by definition because it
> cannot be completed in a timely fashion as defined by Rule 1023 [2]
> after it becomes possible to do so, precisely because it is impossible
> to reach a condition under which it might be considered complete.
> 
> By this reading, there is a legal definition of a broken pledge, to wit,
> "a pledge not completed in a timely manner after it is possible to do
> so", and "a pledge which proscribes certain behavior whose terms have
> been violated by the actions of the pledger".
> 
> Perhaps this calls for a Pledge Switch, so that a Pledge may be either
> Active, Fulfilled, or Broken. Then we might legislate the events which
> alter the position of the switch.
> 
> All that said, though, there are no explicit limits on what constitutes
> a pledge, so my reading is purely speculative.
> 
> [1]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2450
> [2]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule1023
> 
> Nic Evans  writes:
> 
> > I call the following CFJ, using AP: "A pledge can only be broken once."
> >
> > Arguments:
> >
> > Consider the text of R2450:
> >
> > "A player  SHALL NOT
> >  break eir own publicly-made
> > pledges.
> >
> > A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete it in
> > a timely  manner after it
> > becomes possible to do so. A pledge may be considered broken at the
> > moment the pledger engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge."
> >
> > There's no legal definition of 'broken' in the ruleset. In common usage,
> > we have several type of breaking:
> >
> > * Breaking a contract. Doing so leaves you up for punishment, but it
> > also nullifies the contract.
> >
> > * Breaking a promise.'By default' doing so nullifies the promise. In
> > cases where it doesn't, it's because the involved parties discuss
> > continuing it (arguably creating a new promise).
> >
> > * Breaking a system. Once a physical or conceptual system is broken it
> > remains so until repaired. You can do further damage and even 'break it
> > more' but it's already broken and you can't break it anew.
> >
> > Under all these, it appears you can't break what's broken until it's
> > remade or repaired. There is no rule defined method to repair a pledge.
> > Thus, when someone first breaks a pledge it remains broken, and cannot
> > be broken again.
> 
> 
> --
> ProofTechnique
>

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Kerim Aydin]

There's two separate issues:

1.  How fast should a brand new player be able to catch up with an old player;

2.  How much consistent advantage should an officer have over a non-officer.

It's confounded because most old players are officers, but given the welcome
package I think it's mostly a problem of (2) not (1).

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>   I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how much 
> time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will achieve a 
> win (or dictatorship) given their join date.
> 
> If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at the start 
> than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on that front). For 
> example, the case where the total capital
> of all active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome Pack), 
> grows over time. 
> 
> 
> New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome consistently 
> good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't restricted to 
> one-time. New players can still win with as much work as
> old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting sooner.
> 
>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>   > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently 
> gerontocratic system.
>   > It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary 
> allocation.
> 
>   Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some broad 
> thoughts.
> 
>   I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of Economies 
> and
>   think of it in terms of Game Design.
> 
>   On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset growth.  
> Base
>   assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster (I'm
>   particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can be 
> very
>   fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties start 
> *really*
>   producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early determination of
>   winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a 
> frustrating
>   slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real life), 
> this is
>   the gerontocracy.
> 
>   It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of valuable 
> assets
>   is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight lead in
>   your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).  Moreover,
>   right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have to 
> compete
>   directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to hoard 
> right now
>   is to have any chance in an auction.
> 
>   I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically reducing 
> the
>   buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased land).
> 
>   On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough diversity of
>   things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.  We 
> need
>   to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.
> 
>   There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I personally would
>   add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic system, and
>   simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about last 
> week.
>   This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other things we 
> could
>   invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think about 
> specialized
>   roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't easily 
> change
>   whether you're a farmer or not).
> 
>   The total portfolio of things to buy should have a unified game balance 
> and
>   different pathways to riches/success, and not just be a grab bag of 
> random
>   investment instruments (e.g. stamps, bonds, whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Nic Evans]

On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how much 
time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will 
achieve a win (or dictatorship) given their join date.


If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at 
the start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on 
that front). For example, the case where the total capital of all 
active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome Pack), 
grows over time.




New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome 
consistently good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't 
restricted to one-time. New players can still win with as much work as 
old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting sooner.


On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin > wrote:




On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently
gerontocratic system.
> It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
allocation.

Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some
broad thoughts.

I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of
Economies and
think of it in terms of Game Design.

On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset
growth.  Base
assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster (I'm
particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here). This can
be very
fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties
start *really*
producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early determination of
winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a
frustrating
slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real
life), this is
the gerontocracy.

It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of valuable
assets
is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight lead in
your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset). Moreover,
right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have to
compete
directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to hoard
right now
is to have any chance in an auction.

I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically
reducing the
buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased land).

On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough
diversity of
things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on. 
We need
to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.

There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I personally
would
add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic system, and
simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about
last week.
This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other
things we could
invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think
about specialized
roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't
easily change
whether you're a farmer or not).

The total portfolio of things to buy should have a unified game
balance and
different pathways to riches/success, and not just be a grab bag
of random
investment instruments (e.g. stamps, bonds, whatever).

Re: DIS: Card limits

[Aris Merchant]

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:51 PM Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> The penalty card limits set out in rules 2478 (“Vigilante Justice”) and
> 2479 (“Official Justice”) appear to be designed to prevent two problems:
>
> * abuses of finger-pointing, such as pointing one’s finger at every
> player, or repeatedly pointing one’s finger at someone long past the point
> where the allegations have been settled, and
>
> * abuses of the office of Referee, such as issuing an inordinate number of
> Yellow or Red cards as part of an attempt to scam ballots.
>
> These are pro-active protections - they apply to prevent the actions,
> rather than to address actions that have happened - and I think that’s
> important. However, they’re structurally a bit shaky - the recent bug found
> in the Referee rules that forces that officer to card every finger-pointing
> and the rule requiring that the Referee receive a card for inappropriately
> issuing cards combined to exhaust some of the limits this week, leaving the
> office in a slightly odd state. With that in mind, I’d like to propose the
> following reforms to the office:
>
> * Remove the limits on finger-pointing entirely. Replace them with a rule
> along the lines that a player SHALL NOT point eir finger an excessive
> number of times, or similar, and leave the determination of what
> “excessive” is up to CFJs and the patience of the investigator.
>
> * Remove the limits on summary judgement. Continue to allow the Referee to
> issue cards immediately in response to finger-pointing, but remove the
> ability for the Referee to unilaterally issue cards: if the Referee is the
> finger-pointer, or if no finger has been pointed, then the Referee can only
> issue cards without objection.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -o
>

I generally concur. However, without objection is a mighty high standard to
meet. I think we can trust that someone will often object to being given a
card, and certain players have a habit of objecting to random things for no
apparent reason. That's at least two objections. Maybe with some amount of
support/ N agora consent would be better (support has the significant
advantage that there's no minimum time limit, so I might tend to go with
that).

-Aris

>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: A CFJ on Pledges

[Jack Henahan]

My reading of the rules also suggests that a pledge without a defined
completion state may be considered broken by design, and therefore could
be argued to be invalid.

To use the example which I presume prompted this CFJ, nichdel's pledge

> I pledge not to acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or
> to respond in a-d to anything CB does.

I would argue that such a pledge is by broken [1]  by definition because it
cannot be completed in a timely fashion as defined by Rule 1023 [2]
after it becomes possible to do so, precisely because it is impossible
to reach a condition under which it might be considered complete.

By this reading, there is a legal definition of a broken pledge, to wit,
"a pledge not completed in a timely manner after it is possible to do
so", and "a pledge which proscribes certain behavior whose terms have
been violated by the actions of the pledger".

Perhaps this calls for a Pledge Switch, so that a Pledge may be either
Active, Fulfilled, or Broken. Then we might legislate the events which
alter the position of the switch.

All that said, though, there are no explicit limits on what constitutes
a pledge, so my reading is purely speculative.

[1]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2450
[2]: http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule1023

Nic Evans  writes:

> I call the following CFJ, using AP: "A pledge can only be broken once."
>
> Arguments:
>
> Consider the text of R2450:
>
> "A player  SHALL NOT
>  break eir own publicly-made
> pledges.
>
> A pledge may be considered broken if the pledger does not complete it in
> a timely  manner after it
> becomes possible to do so. A pledge may be considered broken at the
> moment the pledger engages in conduct proscribed by that pledge."
>
> There's no legal definition of 'broken' in the ruleset. In common usage,
> we have several type of breaking:
>
> * Breaking a contract. Doing so leaves you up for punishment, but it
> also nullifies the contract.
>
> * Breaking a promise.'By default' doing so nullifies the promise. In
> cases where it doesn't, it's because the involved parties discuss
> continuing it (arguably creating a new promise).
>
> * Breaking a system. Once a physical or conceptual system is broken it
> remains so until repaired. You can do further damage and even 'break it
> more' but it's already broken and you can't break it anew.
>
> Under all these, it appears you can't break what's broken until it's
> remade or repaired. There is no rule defined method to repair a pledge.
> Thus, when someone first breaks a pledge it remains broken, and cannot
> be broken again.


--
ProofTechnique


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

DIS: Card limits

[Owen Jacobson]

The penalty card limits set out in rules 2478 (“Vigilante Justice”) and 2479 
(“Official Justice”) appear to be designed to prevent two problems:

* abuses of finger-pointing, such as pointing one’s finger at every player, or 
repeatedly pointing one’s finger at someone long past the point where the 
allegations have been settled, and

* abuses of the office of Referee, such as issuing an inordinate number of 
Yellow or Red cards as part of an attempt to scam ballots.

These are pro-active protections - they apply to prevent the actions, rather 
than to address actions that have happened - and I think that’s important. 
However, they’re structurally a bit shaky - the recent bug found in the Referee 
rules that forces that officer to card every finger-pointing and the rule 
requiring that the Referee receive a card for inappropriately issuing cards 
combined to exhaust some of the limits this week, leaving the office in a 
slightly odd state. With that in mind, I’d like to propose the following 
reforms to the office:

* Remove the limits on finger-pointing entirely. Replace them with a rule along 
the lines that a player SHALL NOT point eir finger an excessive number of 
times, or similar, and leave the determination of what “excessive” is up to 
CFJs and the patience of the investigator.

* Remove the limits on summary judgement. Continue to allow the Referee to 
issue cards immediately in response to finger-pointing, but remove the ability 
for the Referee to unilaterally issue cards: if the Referee is the 
finger-pointer, or if no finger has been pointed, then the Referee can only 
issue cards without objection.

Thoughts?

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Cuddle Beam]

If Gaelan has missed out at least one "I object", a win for VJ will slip
through the cracks.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 23:34, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > > On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it
> auto-detects Chinese
> > > and spits out "I Object."  It's pretty much as clear a translation as
> you can get
> > > if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.
> >
> > That explains a lot. I left GT on Japanese and got “I antagonize.” Still
> clear to me,
> > but probably not clear enough to clear the bar previously established by
> CFJ 1460.
>
> In 3471/3472, I noted that technological changes since CFJ 1460 might merit
> revisiting it, and if that single ubiquitous tool (Google translate) gave
> a clear and direct answer, it wasn't too much of a burden for people to
> cut and past into it - but it has to be painfully exact, in those CFJs I
> didn't allow something that was pretty close but not exact.
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Cuddle Beam]

I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how much time
the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will achieve a win
(or dictatorship) given their join date.

If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at the
start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on that
front). For example, the case where the total capital of all active
players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome Pack), grows over
time.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently gerontocratic
> system.
> > It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary allocation.
>
> Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some broad
> thoughts.
>
> I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of Economies and
> think of it in terms of Game Design.
>
> On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset growth.  Base
> assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster (I'm
> particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can be very
> fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties start
> *really*
> producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early determination of
> winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a frustrating
> slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real life), this is
> the gerontocracy.
>
> It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of valuable assets
> is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight lead in
> your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).  Moreover,
> right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have to compete
> directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to hoard right
> now
> is to have any chance in an auction.
>
> I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically reducing the
> buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased land).
>
> On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough diversity of
> things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.  We need
> to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.
>
> There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I personally would
> add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic system, and
> simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about last week.
> This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other things we
> could
> invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think about
> specialized
> roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't easily change
> whether you're a farmer or not).
>
> The total portfolio of things to buy should have a unified game balance and
> different pathways to riches/success, and not just be a grab bag of random
> investment instruments (e.g. stamps, bonds, whatever).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it auto-detects 
> > Chinese
> > and spits out "I Object."  It's pretty much as clear a translation as you 
> > can get
> > if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.
> 
> That explains a lot. I left GT on Japanese and got “I antagonize.” Still 
> clear to me, 
> but probably not clear enough to clear the bar previously established by CFJ 
> 1460.

In 3471/3472, I noted that technological changes since CFJ 1460 might merit
revisiting it, and if that single ubiquitous tool (Google translate) gave
a clear and direct answer, it wasn't too much of a burden for people to
cut and past into it - but it has to be painfully exact, in those CFJs I 
didn't allow something that was pretty close but not exact.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:06 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it auto-detects 
> Chinese
> and spits out "I Object."  It's pretty much as clear a translation as you can 
> get
> if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.

That explains a lot. I left GT on Japanese and got “I antagonize.” Still clear 
to me, but probably not clear enough to clear the bar previously established by 
CFJ 1460.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Josh T]

I mean, I guess that's helpful, but I was mostly humoring Gaelan on em
questioning my remark about how I don't think VJ Rada's sentence is a
deceleration or successful action because "it doesn't jive with my
understanding of language which Agora recognizes" (especially since Agora
*doesn't* recognize an official language).

To be a little bit more specific, since this is a nomic, and we've had
minutiae determine the outcome or interpretation of actions / documents, I
think the lack of proper formatting nullifies any effect VJ Rada may have
intended with eir post. That being said, we should talk about this because
they (or someone else) can just try this again after proofreading.

天火狐

On 23 September 2017 at 17:06, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it auto-detects
> Chinese
> and spits out "I Object."  It's pretty much as clear a translation as you
> can get
> if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I can't quite explain it. Could you be so kind as to enlighten me as to
> the meaning of those words,
> > as how it pertains to VJ Rada's sentence?
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 23 September 2017 at 15:43, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >   Why not?
> >
> >   Gaelan
> >   > On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >   >
> >   > I do not believe that this was effective.
> >   > 
> >   > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >   > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >> On Sep 23, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Gaelan Steele 
> wrote:
> >   >>
> >   >> I have aimed to make this response as concise as possible.
> >   >>
> >   >> 我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。
> >   >> 我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反å
> > [...]
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Kerim Aydin]

I agree it's just as reasonable either way - point is that you want stick
with a consistent interpretation, and the last time it came up, that was
the decision.  Perfectly valid to propose an explicit clarifying line to
R478 and put it to a vote.

I would personally always forget to look for the action in the subject
line, so I would vote for a clarification of "message text only".  But
that's preference not logic.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Imo its pretty subjective because it's not standardized as other stuff. 
> I find it just as reasonable for them to count as not.
> 
> Maybe we could make a rule/sentence on what constitutes a valid message to 
> a-b.
> 
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:00, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>   > I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an
>   > email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't
>   > see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I
>   > do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so
>   > you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for
>   > that to work in this particular case.
> 
>   There is no rule.  It comes down to what the definition of "message" is
>   in R478.  Is it the message text, or does it include subject line?  
> That's
>   some place where the rules are silent, so it's left up to "game custom,
>   common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests 
> of
>   the game."
> 
>   The general game custom/past judgements are that, for various 
> reasons[1],
>   it is for the good of the game to not count subject lines, unless the
>   message text explicitly refers to the subject line (e.g. says "I take
>   the action in the subject line").
> 
>   That consensus could always be revisited via CFJ, but in the absence of
>   doing so, we'd assume it holds.
> 
>   [1] Some previously-given reasons, not arguing for or against just 
> listing
>   some considerations:
> 
>   1.  Actions in a message happen in order.  Subject line is "out of the
>   order" and not clear where it comes (unless part of the message text
>   explicitly refers to it).
> 
>   2.  If we allow actions in headers, why not hidden headers?  And that
>   then becomes too easy to hide things in.
> 
>   3.  Subject lines rapidly drift away from their original purpose in
>   threads.  It is often not clear (much less so then for quoted parts
>   of the message) when one is an original action versus a reply.
> 
>   4.  It's very useful to have non-action Titles that contain descriptions
>   of actions.  For example "[Arbitor] CFJ XXX assigned to YYY".
>   This is a convenient label, and players shouldn't have to constantly
>   be worried "did I accidentally put an action in my label?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Kerim Aydin]

If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it auto-detects 
Chinese 
and spits out "I Object."  It's pretty much as clear a translation as you can 
get
if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Josh T wrote:
> I can't quite explain it. Could you be so kind as to enlighten me as to the 
> meaning of those words, 
> as how it pertains to VJ Rada's sentence?
> 天火狐
>
> On 23 September 2017 at 15:43, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>   Why not?
> 
>   Gaelan
>   > On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
>   >
>   > I do not believe that this was effective.
>   > 
>   > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >> On Sep 23, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Gaelan Steele  
> wrote:
>   >>
>   >> I have aimed to make this response as concise as possible.
>   >>
>   >> 我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。
>   >> 我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反å
> [...]

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Cuddle Beam]

Imo its pretty subjective because it's not standardized as other stuff. I
find it just as reasonable for them to count as not.

Maybe we could make a rule/sentence on what constitutes a valid message to
a-b.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:00, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an
> > email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't
> > see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I
> > do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so
> > you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for
> > that to work in this particular case.
>
> There is no rule.  It comes down to what the definition of "message" is
> in R478.  Is it the message text, or does it include subject line?  That's
> some place where the rules are silent, so it's left up to "game custom,
> common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of
> the game."
>
> The general game custom/past judgements are that, for various reasons[1],
> it is for the good of the game to not count subject lines, unless the
> message text explicitly refers to the subject line (e.g. says "I take
> the action in the subject line").
>
> That consensus could always be revisited via CFJ, but in the absence of
> doing so, we'd assume it holds.
>
> [1] Some previously-given reasons, not arguing for or against just listing
> some considerations:
>
> 1.  Actions in a message happen in order.  Subject line is "out of the
> order" and not clear where it comes (unless part of the message text
> explicitly refers to it).
>
> 2.  If we allow actions in headers, why not hidden headers?  And that
> then becomes too easy to hide things in.
>
> 3.  Subject lines rapidly drift away from their original purpose in
> threads.  It is often not clear (much less so then for quoted parts
> of the message) when one is an original action versus a reply.
>
> 4.  It's very useful to have non-action Titles that contain descriptions
> of actions.  For example "[Arbitor] CFJ XXX assigned to YYY".
> This is a convenient label, and players shouldn't have to constantly
> be worried "did I accidentally put an action in my label?"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Player Re-registration

[Cuddle Beam]

Welcome back!

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 20:42, Jack Henahan  wrote:

> According to the Registrar's report, I was deregistered at some point. I
> hereby reregister myself as a player, or register as a new player in the
> event that "reregistration" is ILLEGAL or IMPOSSIBLE.
>

DIS: Judge problems

[Kerim Aydin]

So I have the following "interested" judges:
 -Publius
 -o
 -Aris 
 -G.
 -V.J. Rada[*]
 -Nichdel[*]
 [*] requested a "light" load.

In the below case, G. and Aris are the only ones without a direct conflict
of interest, and both G. and Aris have had heavy case loads recently so I
don't want to assign either of them.  Options?  Did I miss anyone on
the list above?

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I call a CFJ with the following statement: "The Green card o. issued
> emself in the below message was illegally issued, as the green card e
> issued nichdel was legally issued".
> 
> I think the most natural reading of "that reason" is the act itself,
> not the particular rule breached. That is, someone can be carded twice
> for breaking the same pledge on two totally seperate occasions. There
> is also a question as to the interpretation of the pledge rule itself.
> It says "a pledge is considered broken if...", which may mean that the
> pledge is permanently broken, and cannot be broken more than once.
> 
> I bar Publius and use AP.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Josh T]

That sounds like fairly reasonable statistics. If someone writes out some
specific scenarios I suppose I'll take a look and do some number-crunching
when I am slightly less busy.

天火狐

On 23 September 2017 at 16:36, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> It sounds like the kind of thing that could work.  Right now, what I'm
> really
> dying for is for someone to do a very simple simulation.  E.g. assume N
> players,
> M officers, each player pends a random# of proposals a week - how do things
> fluctuate and do holdings diverge between have and have-nots?  Then we
> could
> try various scenarios such as taxes.  (coding this was on my todo list but
> not
> likely soon...)
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > >> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I suspect that welcome packages are considerably too large, but I
> don’t think that
> > >> that was at all obvious at the time. Consider: in the last month or
> so, the pending
> > >> price has fluctuated between 1 and, approximately, 6 sh. repeatedly.
> We’ve actually
> > >> managed to keep most shinies in the hands of player. 50 sh. is enough
> to author
> > >> and pend more proposals than I have written since I started playing,
> more than a
> > >> year ago - and each Welcome Package causes the pend price to drop at
> least one full
> > >> shiny in the following week.
> > >>
> > >> I strongly suspect that that’s more economic impact than intended or
> wanted. I
> > >> know you’re planning to vote against any economy proposals that
> doesn’t enact a
> > >> reliable source of shinies in one form or another, but would you
> consider
> > >> supporting one that shrinks welcome packages?
> > >
> > > You mean instead of fixing basic income, do something that makes the
> problem worse?
> > > No, I don't think I'd support that, and in general I disagree that
> this is the
> > > issue to fix.
> >
> > Fair enough, it never hurts to ask.
> >
> > What about something like:
> >
> > * To “distribute” an amount fungible asset to a set of recipients is to
> transfer one instance of that asset at a time to the recipient with the
> fewest of that asset, until either no more instances of the asset are
> eligible to be distributed or the number of instances so transferred equals
> the amount to be distributed. If two or more recipients are tied for the
> fewest of an asset, then the recipient that most recently became eligible
> to own the asset shall be selected.
> >
> > * The Tax Rate is a singleton natural switch which can take values
> between 0 and 100, inclusive, tracked by the Secretary. The Tax Rate has a
> default value of 50.
> >
> > [It’s a switch for consistency and ease of tracking, but it can only be
> flipped by proposal.]
> >
> > * When a player pays Agora, the Secretary CAN cause Agora to distribute
> a percentage of that payment equal to the Tax Rate to all players, and
> SHALL do so in a timely fashion. As part of eir weekly duties, the
> Secretary SHALL do so for all payments to Agora that have not yet been
> scattered.
> >
> > [This gets rounded up, the Assets rule takes care of that, so the net
> result is that when the Pend Value is 1 sh., every shiny spent pending
> proposals goes to a player. It’s a trickle, but it’s a trickle proportional
> to the amount of activity going on.]
> >
> > -o
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Kerim Aydin]

It sounds like the kind of thing that could work.  Right now, what I'm really
dying for is for someone to do a very simple simulation.  E.g. assume N players,
M officers, each player pends a random# of proposals a week - how do things
fluctuate and do holdings diverge between have and have-nots?  Then we could
try various scenarios such as taxes.  (coding this was on my todo list but not
likely soon...)

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >> 
> >> I suspect that welcome packages are considerably too large, but I don’t 
> >> think that
> >> that was at all obvious at the time. Consider: in the last month or so, 
> >> the pending
> >> price has fluctuated between 1 and, approximately, 6 sh. repeatedly. We’ve 
> >> actually
> >> managed to keep most shinies in the hands of player. 50 sh. is enough to 
> >> author
> >> and pend more proposals than I have written since I started playing, more 
> >> than a
> >> year ago - and each Welcome Package causes the pend price to drop at least 
> >> one full
> >> shiny in the following week.
> >> 
> >> I strongly suspect that that’s more economic impact than intended or 
> >> wanted. I
> >> know you’re planning to vote against any economy proposals that doesn’t 
> >> enact a
> >> reliable source of shinies in one form or another, but would you consider
> >> supporting one that shrinks welcome packages?
> > 
> > You mean instead of fixing basic income, do something that makes the 
> > problem worse?
> > No, I don't think I'd support that, and in general I disagree that this is 
> > the
> > issue to fix.
> 
> Fair enough, it never hurts to ask.
> 
> What about something like:
> 
> * To “distribute” an amount fungible asset to a set of recipients is to 
> transfer one instance of that asset at a time to the recipient with the 
> fewest of that asset, until either no more instances of the asset are 
> eligible to be distributed or the number of instances so transferred equals 
> the amount to be distributed. If two or more recipients are tied for the 
> fewest of an asset, then the recipient that most recently became eligible to 
> own the asset shall be selected.
> 
> * The Tax Rate is a singleton natural switch which can take values between 0 
> and 100, inclusive, tracked by the Secretary. The Tax Rate has a default 
> value of 50.
> 
> [It’s a switch for consistency and ease of tracking, but it can only be 
> flipped by proposal.]
> 
> * When a player pays Agora, the Secretary CAN cause Agora to distribute a 
> percentage of that payment equal to the Tax Rate to all players, and SHALL do 
> so in a timely fashion. As part of eir weekly duties, the Secretary SHALL do 
> so for all payments to Agora that have not yet been scattered.
> 
> [This gets rounded up, the Assets rule takes care of that, so the net result 
> is that when the Pend Value is 1 sh., every shiny spent pending proposals 
> goes to a player. It’s a trickle, but it’s a trickle proportional to the 
> amount of activity going on.]
> 
> -o
> 
>

Re: DIS: Various questions

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> The catching up since that last holders is the hardest part, when I took 
> over the office of Registrar, I had to go back at least five years, 
> updating records.

Just in the specific Tailor case, I was thinking all of the recent doubt
over the Apathy and Tournament wins and CuddleBeam's speaker thing makes
it pretty unclear which recent Ribbon awards were valid unless you were
following along...

Re: DIS: Various questions

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> The history section of the monthly report seems to have been left in extreme 
> disrepair. When I took it, I was told it would be find to leave it behind, 
> but I wanted to update it.

Well, that’s wonderful of you. Thank you for taking the time!

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Economy and Games

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently gerontocratic 
> system. 
> It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary allocation.

Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some broad 
thoughts.

I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of Economies and
think of it in terms of Game Design.

On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset growth.  Base
assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster (I'm 
particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can be very
fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties start *really*
producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early determination of
winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a frustrating
slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real life), this is
the gerontocracy.  

It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of valuable assets
is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight lead in
your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).  Moreover, 
right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have to compete
directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to hoard right now
is to have any chance in an auction.

I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically reducing the
buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased land).

On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough diversity of
things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.  We need
to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.

There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I personally would
add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic system, and
simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about last week.
This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other things we could
invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think about specialized
roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't easily change
whether you're a farmer or not).

The total portfolio of things to buy should have a unified game balance and
different pathways to riches/success, and not just be a grab bag of random
investment instruments (e.g. stamps, bonds, whatever).

 

Re: DIS: Various questions

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

The history section of the monthly report seems to have been left in extreme 
disrepair. When I took it, I was told it would be find to leave it behind, but 
I wanted to update it.

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



> On Sep 23, 2017, at 4:24 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 4:22 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> The catching up since that last holders is the hardest part, when I took 
>> over the office of Registrar, I had to go back at least five years, updating 
>> records.
> 
> The portions of reports which are self-ratifying are supposed to address that 
> need. What happened?
> 
> -o
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Various questions

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 4:22 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> The catching up since that last holders is the hardest part, when I took over 
> the office of Registrar, I had to go back at least five years, updating 
> records.

The portions of reports which are self-ratifying are supposed to address that 
need. What happened?

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 23, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> I suspect that welcome packages are considerably too large, but I don’t 
>> think that
>> that was at all obvious at the time. Consider: in the last month or so, the 
>> pending
>> price has fluctuated between 1 and, approximately, 6 sh. repeatedly. We’ve 
>> actually
>> managed to keep most shinies in the hands of player. 50 sh. is enough to 
>> author
>> and pend more proposals than I have written since I started playing, more 
>> than a
>> year ago - and each Welcome Package causes the pend price to drop at least 
>> one full
>> shiny in the following week.
>> 
>> I strongly suspect that that’s more economic impact than intended or wanted. 
>> I
>> know you’re planning to vote against any economy proposals that doesn’t 
>> enact a
>> reliable source of shinies in one form or another, but would you consider
>> supporting one that shrinks welcome packages?
> 
> You mean instead of fixing basic income, do something that makes the problem 
> worse?
> No, I don't think I'd support that, and in general I disagree that this is the
> issue to fix.

Fair enough, it never hurts to ask.

What about something like:

* To “distribute” an amount fungible asset to a set of recipients is to 
transfer one instance of that asset at a time to the recipient with the fewest 
of that asset, until either no more instances of the asset are eligible to be 
distributed or the number of instances so transferred equals the amount to be 
distributed. If two or more recipients are tied for the fewest of an asset, 
then the recipient that most recently became eligible to own the asset shall be 
selected.

* The Tax Rate is a singleton natural switch which can take values between 0 
and 100, inclusive, tracked by the Secretary. The Tax Rate has a default value 
of 50.

[It’s a switch for consistency and ease of tracking, but it can only be flipped 
by proposal.]

* When a player pays Agora, the Secretary CAN cause Agora to distribute a 
percentage of that payment equal to the Tax Rate to all players, and SHALL do 
so in a timely fashion. As part of eir weekly duties, the Secretary SHALL do so 
for all payments to Agora that have not yet been scattered.

[This gets rounded up, the Assets rule takes care of that, so the net result is 
that when the Pend Value is 1 sh., every shiny spent pending proposals goes to 
a player. It’s a trickle, but it’s a trickle proportional to the amount of 
activity going on.]

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Various questions

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

The catching up since that last holders is the hardest part, when I took over 
the office of Registrar, I had to go back at least five years, updating records.

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



> On Sep 23, 2017, at 4:03 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I was elected to the office in that last big batch of elections (I *think*
> we got the resolutions done correctly now!).
> 
> I'm happy to give it up, it was mainly because no one else volunteered.
> There were several ribbon awards given recently and you might want to
> wait until I catch it up (was planning to do so in the next couple days).
> 
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Sat, 2017-09-23 at 15:26 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
>>> One office that I could go for that doesn't seem too difficult is the
>>> Tailor. If an election for it comes up, I'll definitely vote for
>>> myself.
>>> (Or could I deputize for it? I still don't fully understand the
>>> deputisation thing)
>> 
>> It became vacant when I deregistered, and I'm not sure anyone's taken
>> it yet?
>> 
>> However, the report, despite being due, isn't actually overdue yet
>> (that won't happen until October), so a deputisation attempt would fail
>> rule 2160 condition 2. This seems like a problem in the rules to me; if
>> the office is vacant, there's no reason to expect its tasks to be done
>> on time.
>> 
>> --
>> ais523
>> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Various questions

[Kerim Aydin]

I was elected to the office in that last big batch of elections (I *think*
we got the resolutions done correctly now!).

I'm happy to give it up, it was mainly because no one else volunteered.
There were several ribbon awards given recently and you might want to
wait until I catch it up (was planning to do so in the next couple days).

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-09-23 at 15:26 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
> > One office that I could go for that doesn't seem too difficult is the
> > Tailor. If an election for it comes up, I'll definitely vote for
> > myself.
> > (Or could I deputize for it? I still don't fully understand the
> > deputisation thing)
> 
> It became vacant when I deregistered, and I'm not sure anyone's taken
> it yet?
> 
> However, the report, despite being due, isn't actually overdue yet
> (that won't happen until October), so a deputisation attempt would fail
> rule 2160 condition 2. This seems like a problem in the rules to me; if
> the office is vacant, there's no reason to expect its tasks to be done
> on time.
> 
> -- 
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2017-09-23 at 12:46 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> You mean instead of fixing basic income, do something that makes the
> problem worse?
> No, I don't think I'd support that, and in general I disagree that
> this is the issue to fix.

I believe the correct fix involves a percentage tax on Shiny holdings,
redistributed evenly to every player. That means that doing officer
jobs and the like is always rewarded, but that players can't hoard
indefinitely unless they do a consistently good job, and that players
who do nothing will still have a constant trickle of Shinies.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an
> email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't
> see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I
> do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so
> you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for
> that to work in this particular case.

There is no rule.  It comes down to what the definition of "message" is
in R478.  Is it the message text, or does it include subject line?  That's
some place where the rules are silent, so it's left up to "game custom, 
common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of
the game."

The general game custom/past judgements are that, for various reasons[1],
it is for the good of the game to not count subject lines, unless the
message text explicitly refers to the subject line (e.g. says "I take
the action in the subject line").

That consensus could always be revisited via CFJ, but in the absence of
doing so, we'd assume it holds.

[1] Some previously-given reasons, not arguing for or against just listing
some considerations:

1.  Actions in a message happen in order.  Subject line is "out of the
order" and not clear where it comes (unless part of the message text
explicitly refers to it).

2.  If we allow actions in headers, why not hidden headers?  And that
then becomes too easy to hide things in.

3.  Subject lines rapidly drift away from their original purpose in
threads.  It is often not clear (much less so then for quoted parts
of the message) when one is an original action versus a reply.

4.  It's very useful to have non-action Titles that contain descriptions
of actions.  For example "[Arbitor] CFJ XXX assigned to YYY".
This is a convenient label, and players shouldn't have to constantly
be worried "did I accidentally put an action in my label?"  

Re: Proto: Vacant Deputisation (Was: Re: DIS: Various questions)

[ATMunn .]

typo: offixe

Otherwise sounds good

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Title: Vacant Deputisation Fix
> Power:3
> Text: {
> Replace the second item of the second numbered list of "Deputisation",
> with the following:
>   2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action to be
>  performed has expired or (ii) the offixe is vacant.
> }
>
> I think this should fix that problem.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2017-09-23 at 15:26 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
> >> One office that I could go for that doesn't seem too difficult is the
> >> Tailor. If an election for it comes up, I'll definitely vote for
> >> myself.
> >> (Or could I deputize for it? I still don't fully understand the
> >> deputisation thing)
> >
> > It became vacant when I deregistered, and I'm not sure anyone's taken
> > it yet?
> >
> > However, the report, despite being due, isn't actually overdue yet
> > (that won't happen until October), so a deputisation attempt would fail
> > rule 2160 condition 2. This seems like a problem in the rules to me; if
> > the office is vacant, there's no reason to expect its tasks to be done
> > on time.
> >
> > --
> > ais523
>
>

Proto: Vacant Deputisation (Was: Re: DIS: Various questions)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Title: Vacant Deputisation Fix
Power:3
Text: {
Replace the second item of the second numbered list of "Deputisation", with the 
following:
  2. Either (i) A time limit by which the rules require the action to be
 performed has expired or (ii) the offixe is vacant.
}

I think this should fix that problem.


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



> On Sep 23, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 2017-09-23 at 15:26 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
>> One office that I could go for that doesn't seem too difficult is the
>> Tailor. If an election for it comes up, I'll definitely vote for
>> myself.
>> (Or could I deputize for it? I still don't fully understand the
>> deputisation thing)
> 
> It became vacant when I deregistered, and I'm not sure anyone's taken
> it yet?
> 
> However, the report, despite being due, isn't actually overdue yet
> (that won't happen until October), so a deputisation attempt would fail
> rule 2160 condition 2. This seems like a problem in the rules to me; if
> the office is vacant, there's no reason to expect its tasks to be done
> on time.
> 
> --
> ais523



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Various questions

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2017-09-23 at 15:26 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
> One office that I could go for that doesn't seem too difficult is the
> Tailor. If an election for it comes up, I'll definitely vote for
> myself.
> (Or could I deputize for it? I still don't fully understand the
> deputisation thing)

It became vacant when I deregistered, and I'm not sure anyone's taken
it yet?

However, the report, despite being due, isn't actually overdue yet
(that won't happen until October), so a deputisation attempt would fail
rule 2160 condition 2. This seems like a problem in the rules to me; if
the office is vacant, there's no reason to expect its tasks to be done
on time.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 
> > given that it's so far mostly been the new player award that trips the big
> > drop in Agora balance, automatic right-sizing of the economy to the number
> > of players seems important an stability fix (maybe something to couple with
> > any final minimum wage proposal).
> 
> I suspect that welcome packages are considerably too large, but I don’t think 
> that 
> that was at all obvious at the time. Consider: in the last month or so, the 
> pending 
> price has fluctuated between 1 and, approximately, 6 sh. repeatedly. We’ve 
> actually 
> managed to keep most shinies in the hands of player. 50 sh. is enough to 
> author 
> and pend more proposals than I have written since I started playing, more 
> than a 
> year ago - and each Welcome Package causes the pend price to drop at least 
> one full 
> shiny in the following week.
> 
> I strongly suspect that that’s more economic impact than intended or wanted. 
> I 
> know you’re planning to vote against any economy proposals that doesn’t enact 
> a 
> reliable source of shinies in one form or another, but would you consider 
> supporting one that shrinks welcome packages?

You mean instead of fixing basic income, do something that makes the problem 
worse?
No, I don't think I'd support that, and in general I disagree that this is the
issue to fix.

Re: DIS: Various questions

[ATMunn .]

Thanks, everyone, for your answers.

I'm not too interested in the Superintendent office, so I don't think I'll
go for that.
I could go for the Referee, since o said e wouldn't mind me taking it, but
I'm not really sure I want it either.

One office that I could go for that doesn't seem too difficult is the
Tailor. If an election for it comes up, I'll definitely vote for myself.
(Or could I deputize for it? I still don't fully understand the
deputisation thing)

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> >
> > * Voting to enter a CFJ into moot if there’s a serious doubt about the
> judgement (r. 911, rare),
>
> This has happened for the first time relatively recently and it has come
> up a few times since.
>
> > * Voting to win the game (r. 2482, rare),
>
> Something is supposed to be happening in regards to this
>
> > * Voting for a proposal author to win the Silver Quill for the year (r.
> 2444, rare).
>
> And this...
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Player Re-registration

[Jack Henahan]

ProofTechnique. I have added a signature to aid future searches.

---
ProofTechnique

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 15:05, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> What is your nickname?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Jack Henahan  wrote:
>> 
>> According to the Registrar's report, I was deregistered at some point. I 
>> hereby reregister myself as a player, or register as a new player in the 
>> event that "reregistration" is ILLEGAL or IMPOSSIBLE.
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Player Re-registration

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

What is your nickname?

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



> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Jack Henahan  wrote:
> 
> According to the Registrar's report, I was deregistered at some point. I 
> hereby reregister myself as a player, or register as a new player in the 
> event that "reregistration" is ILLEGAL or IMPOSSIBLE.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Proto: Mother, May I? fix

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2017-09-23 at 14:14 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> What’s the issue this solves? I’m having a rough morning, and I can’t
> see the problem.

It means that you don't incur a rules violation in the situation that
the rules compel you to do something, but you have no way to do so.

We used to define such a case as being something that couldn't be
*punished*. Removing the *obligation* seems like it makes much more
sense.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Proto: Mother, May I? fix

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

This resolves your problem with having to issue cards for bad reasons.

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



> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> On Sep 23, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
>> Title: You SHALL, unless it is ILLEGAL.
>> Power: 2
>> Author: PSS
>> Text: {
>> Append to the end of Item 7 in "Mother, May I?", by removing the period and 
>> inserting the following string in its place, the following text:
>> ", unless performing the described action is ILLEGAL.”
>> }
> 
> What’s the issue this solves? I’m having a rough morning, and I can’t see the 
> problem.
> 
> -o
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Various questions

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
> * Voting to enter a CFJ into moot if there’s a serious doubt about the 
> judgement (r. 911, rare),

This has happened for the first time relatively recently and it has come up a 
few times since.

> * Voting to win the game (r. 2482, rare),

Something is supposed to be happening in regards to this

> * Voting for a proposal author to win the Silver Quill for the year (r. 2444, 
> rare).

And this...


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


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Proto: Mother, May I? fix

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 23, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
 wrote:

> Title: You SHALL, unless it is ILLEGAL.
> Power: 2
> Author: PSS
> Text: {
> Append to the end of Item 7 in "Mother, May I?", by removing the period and 
> inserting the following string in its place, the following text:
> ", unless performing the described action is ILLEGAL.”
> }

What’s the issue this solves? I’m having a rough morning, and I can’t see the 
problem.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Various questions

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 23, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> Assessor, Arbitor, Rulekeepor, Tailor, and Secretary are generally held by 
> more experienced players because they're complex and important.

Objection! I took over Secretary very, very early in my tenure, as Murphy had 
gone idle. My only qualifications were “I think Organizations are neat.”

I still do, but the office now is considerably different from the office then.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Various questions

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 23, 2017, at 10:21 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:

> I've put together a list of various different questions I have. I don't 
> expect all of them to get answered, but feel free to answer any that you can.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the whole "floating value" thing? What determines it, and what does 
> it do? It's not really clear in the rules.

The fundamental idea is that various gameplay actions get cheaper (in shinies) 
the more money players hold. Per a conversation I had with nichdel before the 
proposal passed, the intent is to create a boom-bust dynamic: when actions are 
cheap, many players will do them, driving the cost up, causing players to slow 
down again, causing the price to drop.

The implementation is that once a week, the Secretary (hello!) sets the 
Floating Value to exactly Agora’s balance at that moment. A bunch of prices are 
defined in terms of simple calculations on the FV. I’ve got a proposal in 
flight (proposal 7876, which I expect to pass) that unifies all the calculated 
amounts:

>Floating Value is a natural singleton switch, tracked by the
>Secretary. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Floating
>Value switch CANNOT be flipped to a value other than the number
>of Shinies owned by Agora.
> 
>The following Floating Derived Values are defined:
> 
>* Pend Cost: 1/20th of the Floating Value, rounded up.
>* CFJ Cost: 1/20th of the Floating Value, rounded up.
>* Authorship Reward: 1/40th of the Floating Value, rounded up.
>* Pend Reward: 1/40th of the Floating Value, rounded up.
>* CFJ Reward: 1/20th of the Floating Value, rounded up.
>* Stamp Value: 1/5th of the Floating Value, rounded up.


The proposal also contains a bunch of supporting changes to other rules, and if 
you’re interested, you can read it here: 
> I’d 
be curious to hear if the proposed changes to the wording of the rules makes 
things clearer, since that was one of my goals.

By experience, the boom-bust cycle “works” in as much as it does actually go 
through booms and busts: when the Floating Value is high, and the Pend Cost 
(the number of shinies needed to pend a proposal) goes up, fewer proposals are 
pended. When it goes down - and the lowest we’ve seen it is 1 sh. - people 
write and pend more proposals. The message linked above has, I believe, the 
most proposals distributed in a single distribution in the last year or so.

> In regards to
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> * Write a proposal that is impossible to vote against.
> How would you actually do that? I'm just curious, I don't intend on doing it.

That’s a good question, and I didn’t have a specific answer in mind when I 
asked it. A couple of folks have supposed that I meant “write a proposal nobody 
in their right mind would vote against,” and that’s certainly one way to do it. 
I was also considering the possibilities under CFJ 3559, but I didn’t do any 
work to fully connect “proposals can be more complicatedly self-affecting than 
I realized” with anything.

I will note that the bar for “a proposal nobody in their right mind would vote 
against” is a very weirdly-shaped constraint, since

* There are a couple of pledges in play where specific players have promised to 
vote against specific things until conditions change, which could reasonably be 
read to imply that they’d vote against obviously good ideas if they want to 
uphold their pledges, on the one hand, and

* Proposals that implement obviously-problematic systems, like real estate 
ownership models, sometimes pass unanimously anyways simply because they’re 
interesting. (I’m still stunned, not to say extremely flattered, that nobody 
voted against that proposal.)

> What exactly is an Agoran Decision? Is it just a thing that people vote on?

It’s a gameplay process where the outcome is determined by a vote by the 
players, rather than by direct application of the rules or by someone’s 
unilateral decision. There are a few kinds:

* Voting FOR/AGAINST proposals, initiated by the Promotor and resolved by the 
Assessor (r. 1607),
* Voting for elected officers, initiated by any player and resolved by the ADoP 
in most cases (r. 2154),
* Voting to enter a CFJ into moot if there’s a serious doubt about the 
judgement (r. 911, rare),
* Voting to win the game (r. 2482, rare),
* Voting for a proposal author to win the Silver Quill for the year (r. 2444, 
rare).

> I've had a few people suggest running for an office as something I could do 
> as a new player. How would I go about doing that, and what office(s?) should 
> I run for?

The ADoP’s metareport (just published) contains a list of all offices, and when 
each last published a report. It’s a good place to start shopping; 

Re: DIS: [Proto] Aggregates (Contracts, by another means)

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 2017-09-23 at 00:54 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> The idea is that someone seeking to create a contract can instead
>> create a pledge, and then (in the same message, probably) create an
>> aggregate containing the pledge and the other affected assets. This
>> is limited - you can’t contract duties this way, only assets - but
>> incredibly flexible as to what kinds of obligation may be
>> transferred. Even if you receive an unwelcome pledge this way, you
>> have ownership of it, and may retract it.
> 
> You can mousetrap someone by giving them a pledge that they're already
> platonically breaking, and then calling em on it immediately. That
> doesn't seem right to me.

If the pledges-as-assets proposal passes, then someone trying this would need 
some co-conspirators. Calling in a pledge, under that proposal, requires Agoran 
Consent and therefore requires at least one supporting player. I have enough 
faith in Agorans as a whole to believe that at least someone would object to 
calling in such a pledge.

Once you own the pledge you can also defuse it by withdrawing the pledge. If 
the giver really, _really_ doesn’t want you to do that, they can object more or 
less indefinitely, but it would be incredibly poor sportspersonship to do so.

You’re not wrong, but I don’t think it’s as dangerous as that.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Gaelan Steele]

I registered with a subject line, but that’s registration.
> On Sep 23, 2017, at 12:50 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an
> email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't
> see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I
> do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so
> you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for
> that to work in this particular case.
> 
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>> To be honest - I only did it cuz I'm unsure if subject line only actions,
>> even if noted by the rules, even work.
>> 
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 00:40 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> 
>>> "MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE"
>>> 
>>> Honestly, you are the funniest Agoran player by far, just in pure
>>> gameplay terms. I object to the motion of no confidence.
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Quazie  wrote:
 As the speaker I object to all intents to win by apathy introduced in
 the
 quoted message.  I'll write a python script to object to each
 individually
 later.
 
 
 On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 00:26 VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> o win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathy Without objection, I intend to
> win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
> 

DIS: Proto: Mother, May I? fix

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Title: You SHALL, unless it is ILLEGAL.
Power: 2
Author: PSS
Text: {
Append to the end of Item 7 in "Mother, May I?", by removing the period and 
inserting the following string in its place, the following text:
", unless performing the described action is ILLEGAL."
}

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





signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Proto: Banking and Bonds (v2)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Given my removal of the First Bank of Agora rule, I am adding the following 
text to the Central Bank rule. However, I think it will be controversial, so I 
am posting it here for specific comment before my next draft:
  The Banker of the Central Bank CAN transfer shinies from the Central
  Bank to Agora, if the balance of the Central Bank after the transaction would 
not
  be less than 50 shinies. The Banker of the Central Bank CAN transfer shinies
  from Agora to the Central Bank, if the balance of Agora after the transaction
  would not be less than 50 shinies. It is ILLEGAL for the Banker of the Central
  Bank of Agora to transfer shinies between Agora and the Central Bank of Agora,
  if the balances of Agora or the Central Bank after the transaction would be
  less than 50 shinies. The Banker SHALL transfer shinies from the Central Bank
  to Agora, if Agora has less than 25 shinies, unless doing so would be ILLEGAL.
  The Banker SHALL transfer shinies from the Agora to the Central Bank, if Agora
  has more than 150 shinies and e has not done so in the past week, unless doing
  so would be ILLEGAL.

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



> On Sep 23, 2017, at 6:19 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the feedback. I am going to respond line by line below.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 11:33 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> 
>> I normally try to avoid this, because it’s an invitation to line-by-line 
>> wrangling, but I have some fairly specific feedback on wording. Before I get 
>> into it, some comments on the overall structure:
>> 
>> It’s good. In particular, I appreciate the possibility of multiple banks, 
>> though I suspect we’ll average 1.8 banks at most: any transient banks, or if 
>> we’re particularly lucky, any long-term banks other than the CBA, will 
>> likely act as proving grounds for bank policy more than anything else.
>> 
>>> On Sep 21, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> In response to feedback, here is the new banking proposal, if I don't get 
>>> negative feedback, I plan to pend it this week:
>>> {
>>> All "+" and "-" symbols in the body of this proposal should be ignored and 
>>> shall have no effect on the ruleset or game state.
>>> 
>>> Replace the following line in "Assets":
>>> -  restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations.
>>> with:
>>> +  restricted to Agora, persons, organizations, and Agoran Institutions.
>> 
>> The rule defining Agoran Institutions seems to have gotten lost in the 
>> refactoring.
> 
> I will than specify banks specifically to resolve this problem.
> 
>> 
>>> Create a power-2 rule titled "Banking" with the following text:
>>> +  A Bank is an Agoran Institution. A Bank shall have a charter, a length, 
>>> and a
>>> +  banker.
>> 
>> “It is ILLEGAL for a bank not to have a charter, or not to have a length, or 
>> not to have a banker”? Who receives the card?
> 
> I was trying to figure this out. What about "Any action causing a bank to not 
> have a charter, a length, and a banker is INEFFECTIVE."?
> 
>> 
>>> The Central Bank of Agora is the bank who is responsible for the
>>> +  conduct of business and issuance of bonds on behalf of Agora. The length 
>>> of a
>>> +  bank is the period during which the bank will operate. If at any time,
>>> +  a Central Bank of Agora is not declared, then the Secretary CAN and SHALL
>>> +  declare a bank to be the Central Bank of Agora.
>> 
>> This rule appears to define the existence of the CBA, before contemplating 
>> what should happen if the CBA does not exist. I suspect you meant to define 
>> this in terms of a regulation-like construct governed by the Secretary, 
>> though frankly I have no idea how to write such a beast either.
> 
> The main reason I added this clause is to allow the prime minister's 
> associated executive action to work. Also, given ais523's suggestion to form 
> the FBA by proposal, I will have to add some clauses to make things work.
> 
>> 
>>> +  A Bank is able to issue a currency and issue bonds. The charter of a
>>> +  bank shall establish the method by which a bond or currency can be 
>>> issued.
>> 
>> Given that “a currency” is already defined, this bolts onto the assets 
>> framework quite well.
>> 
>> To make sure I follow: each bank has the option of issuing its own currency, 
>> in arbitrary amounts as defined by the charter of that bank? This is 
>> consistent with historical banking practice, but I worry that N currencies 
>> might be a bit much. I’d like to find out, so if that was your intent, 
>> please continue, but I wanted to make sure I understood.
> 
> That is my intent.
> 
>> 
>>> +  Any person CAN create a Bank without objection by specifying its 
>>> charter, its
>>> +  length and 

Re: DIS: Various questions

[Nic Evans]

On 09/23/17 09:21, ATMunn . wrote:
> I've put together a list of various different questions I have. I
> don't expect all of them to get answered, but feel free to answer any
> that you can.
>
> 
>
> What is the whole "floating value" thing? What determines it, and what
> does it do? It's not really clear in the rules.

The cost and reward of things varies based on how many shinies Agora
itself owns (basically how much is in the central reserve). But we
didn't want it to fluctuate wildly throughout the week because that's
hard to track. So instead we check how much the bank has once a week and
set the Floating Value to that. So named because it 'floats' at a
certain point instead of changing with the actual reserve amount.

>
> In regards to
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
>
> * Write a proposal that is impossible to vote against.
>
> How would you actually do that? I'm just curious, I don't intend on
> doing it.
>

I think e meant a simple good proposal, but e may have also been
refering to a scam I don't remember.

> What exactly is an Agoran Decision? Is it just a thing that people
> vote on?

It's a generic term for something that requires player input. So yes,
generally a type of vote.

>
> I've had a few people suggest running for an office as something I
> could do as a new player. How would I go about doing that, and what
> office(s?) should I run for?

You can gain an office in a few ways. One is by an election, which is
generally initiated by the ADoP. Simply vote for yourself in the
election and indicate why you want the office, and others may vote for
you (probably will, unless someone else really wants the office).
Another way is to deputize. If a responsibility of an office isn't being
fulfilled, you can deputize to do it yourself. Once you successfully do
that, you take that office.

Reportor has basically no requirements. Prime Minister has a few powers
but no responsibilities, so it's easy but also highly desirable.

Registrar and ADoP basically just require monitoring activity throughout
the week, so they're good introductory ones as well. Regkeepor and
Superintendent might also belong on that list, but since they're new
more experienced players won't be as helpful at catching mistakes.
Promotor is a step or two up from those.

Referee would be an interesting new player one if it wasn't currently
buggy.

Assessor, Arbitor, Rulekeepor, Tailor, and Secretary are generally held
by more experienced players because they're complex and important.

I don't know enough about Argonomist or Surveyor to have an opinion yet.

You can't be elected to Speaker, it's gotten by being awarded it after
winning.

>
> Do Trust Tokens do anything other than give you the slim potential of
> winning if everyone gives you one?

That's pretty much it.

>
> Could someone summarize PSS's banking proposal? It seems interesting,
> but also quite complex.
>
> 
>
> Those are all the questions I have at the moment. If I think of more,
> I may put them here.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Various questions

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

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



> On Sep 23, 2017, at 10:21 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> 
> I've put together a list of various different questions I have. I don't 
> expect all of them to get answered, but feel free to answer any that you can.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the whole "floating value" thing? What determines it, and what does 
> it do? It's not really clear in the rules.

The floating value is the balance of Agora at the time the Secretary declares 
the floating value.

> 
> In regards to
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> * Write a proposal that is impossible to vote against.
> How would you actually do that? I'm just curious, I don't intend on doing it.

E means it more figuratively, as in small bug fixes or such, which people won't 
have a problem with.

> 
> What exactly is an Agoran Decision? Is it just a thing that people vote on?

Yes.

> 
> I've had a few people suggest running for an office as something I could do 
> as a new player. How would I go about doing that, and what office(s?) should 
> I run for?

Registrar is one of the easiest offices, unless you are incompetent, as I have 
been at times. Another good one is Tailor because that one you only have to 
change if other people do stuff. Those are the easiest I can think of off the 
tom of my head, but I haven't held all the offices, so feel free to correct me, 
if you disagree.

> 
> Do Trust Tokens do anything other than give you the slim potential of winning 
> if everyone gives you one?

No.

> 
> Could someone summarize PSS's banking proposal? It seems interesting, but 
> also quite complex.

I am slightly biased, but in short it allows players to from banks, which can 
issue bonds and currency for the purposes of economic policy.

> 
> 
> 
> Those are all the questions I have at the moment. If I think of more, I may 
> put them here.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Various questions

[ATMunn .]

I've put together a list of various different questions I have. I don't
expect all of them to get answered, but feel free to answer any that you
can.



What is the whole "floating value" thing? What determines it, and what does
it do? It's not really clear in the rules.

In regards to
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> * Write a proposal that is impossible to vote against.

How would you actually do that? I'm just curious, I don't intend on doing
it.

What exactly is an Agoran Decision? Is it just a thing that people vote on?

I've had a few people suggest running for an office as something I could do
as a new player. How would I go about doing that, and what office(s?)
should I run for?

Do Trust Tokens do anything other than give you the slim potential of
winning if everyone gives you one?

Could someone summarize PSS's banking proposal? It seems interesting, but
also quite complex.



Those are all the questions I have at the moment. If I think of more, I may
put them here.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Nic Evans]

On 09/22/17 23:27, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 11:45 PM, Nic Evans > > wrote:
>>
>> As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently
>> gerontocratic system. It abstracts value from labor in a way that
>> allows arbitrary allocation.
>>
> I'm about 95% sure this is the gist of my partner’s argument when she
> said “inventing money is _rude_” about the original Shinies proposal.

My next big (read: enormous) project is as far away from inventing money
as possible. But it's under wraps at least until we get bored of shinies.

>
> I’m not sure I fully appreciated Spending Power while we had it. The
> debate and adoption predates me. I’ve long had a fascination with
> throughput-based monetary systems like Total Annihilation’s metal
> economy, where the driving numbers are the amount of money in per
> time, not the amount of money in the pile, and SP is as close as I’ve
> ever seen to that in a political system.
>

Arguably SP would be more gerontological if we tied assets into it. An
asset that cost 5 SP would only be available to those that can get that
much SP at once. At least under shinies players can save up and get any
asset, in theory.

> -o
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: [Proto] Aggregates (Contracts, by another means)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I concur, I see nothing stopping you from bundling many pledges together as an 
aggregate and transferring them.

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



> On Sep 23, 2017, at 9:31 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> 
> Maybe the person you're giving the pledge to needs to agree to it for it to 
> be in effect? That might work, but it might not. That's my two (noob) cents.
> 
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-09-23 at 00:54 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > The idea is that someone seeking to create a contract can instead
> > create a pledge, and then (in the same message, probably) create an
> > aggregate containing the pledge and the other affected assets. This
> > is limited - you can’t contract duties this way, only assets - but
> > incredibly flexible as to what kinds of obligation may be
> > transferred. Even if you receive an unwelcome pledge this way, you
> > have ownership of it, and may retract it.
> 
> You can mousetrap someone by giving them a pledge that they're already
> platonically breaking, and then calling em on it immediately. That
> doesn't seem right to me.
> 
> --
> ais523
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: [Proto] Aggregates (Contracts, by another means)

[ATMunn .]

Maybe the person you're giving the pledge to needs to agree to it for it to
be in effect? That might work, but it might not. That's my two (noob) cents.

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Sat, 2017-09-23 at 00:54 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > The idea is that someone seeking to create a contract can instead
> > create a pledge, and then (in the same message, probably) create an
> > aggregate containing the pledge and the other affected assets. This
> > is limited - you can’t contract duties this way, only assets - but
> > incredibly flexible as to what kinds of obligation may be
> > transferred. Even if you receive an unwelcome pledge this way, you
> > have ownership of it, and may retract it.
>
> You can mousetrap someone by giving them a pledge that they're already
> platonically breaking, and then calling em on it immediately. That
> doesn't seem right to me.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Just wait and see...

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



> On Sep 23, 2017, at 9:26 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> 
> This got out of hand quickly
> 
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> Perfectly legitimate usage, just wondering.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On Sep 23, 2017, at 7:44 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >
> > forum shopping tbh.
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >  wrote:
> >> Why did you bar me and not o?
> >> 
> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:47 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I call a CFJ with the following statement: "The Green card o. issued
> >>> emself in the below message was illegally issued, as the green card e
> >>> issued nichdel was legally issued".
> >>>
> >>> I think the most natural reading of "that reason" is the act itself,
> >>> not the particular rule breached. That is, someone can be carded twice
> >>> for breaking the same pledge on two totally seperate occasions. There
> >>> is also a question as to the interpretation of the pledge rule itself.
> >>> It says "a pledge is considered broken if...", which may mean that the
> >>> pledge is permanently broken, and cannot be broken more than once.
> >>>
> >>> I bar Publius and use AP.
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>  On Sep 22, 2017, at 11:45 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently gerontocratic
> > system. It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
> > allocation.
> >
> > I'm about 95% sure this is the gist of my partner’s argument when she 
> > said
> > “inventing money is _rude_” about the original Shinies proposal.
> >
> > I’m not sure I fully appreciated Spending Power while we had it. The 
> > debate
> > and adoption predates me. I’ve long had a fascination with 
> > throughput-based
> > monetary systems like Total Annihilation’s metal economy, where the 
> > driving
> > numbers are the amount of money in per time, not the amount of money in 
> > the
> > pile, and SP is as close as I’ve ever seen to that in a political 
> > system.
> 
>  On Sep 23, 2017, at 12:30 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> > I point the finger at nichdel. He replied to CB in discussion again.
> 
>  As recently discussed, this is over a pledge under rule 2450, made by 
>  nichdel, which reads:
> 
> > I pledge to not acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or 
> > to respond in a-d to anything CB does.
> 
>  This pledge was previously broken, and punishment for that breach issued 
>  from this office on Sep 20, 2017, at 1:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time.
> 
>  The message quoted above is, indeed, in response to a message from 
>  Cuddlebeam, and violates the above-quoted pledge. Issuing a second card 
>  for the same pledge appears to violate rule 2426, which reads in part:
> 
> > A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless:
> >
> > …
> >
> > * there has not already been a Card issued for that reason; and
> 
>  Therefore, as issuing a card would be ILLEGAL, I find this 
>  finger-pointing to be Shenanigans.
> 
>  I issue nichdel a green card by summary judgement, as required by rule 
>  2478, for violating rule 2450.
> 
>  I issue myself a green card by summary judgement for violating rule 
>  2426, as cited above.
> 
>  I’ll note that I’ve now issued nichdel a card by summary judgement twice 
>  in a week, and myself a card twice in a week. It is no longer possible 
>  for me to card either of us for the remainder of the week, rules 
>  requiring me to do so notwithstanding.
> 
>  -o
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> From V.J. Rada
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[ATMunn .]

This got out of hand quickly

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Perfectly legitimate usage, just wondering.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 2017, at 7:44 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >
> > forum shopping tbh.
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >  wrote:
> >> Why did you bar me and not o?
> >> 
> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:47 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I call a CFJ with the following statement: "The Green card o. issued
> >>> emself in the below message was illegally issued, as the green card e
> >>> issued nichdel was legally issued".
> >>>
> >>> I think the most natural reading of "that reason" is the act itself,
> >>> not the particular rule breached. That is, someone can be carded twice
> >>> for breaking the same pledge on two totally seperate occasions. There
> >>> is also a question as to the interpretation of the pledge rule itself.
> >>> It says "a pledge is considered broken if...", which may mean that the
> >>> pledge is permanently broken, and cannot be broken more than once.
> >>>
> >>> I bar Publius and use AP.
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Owen Jacobson 
> wrote:
>  On Sep 22, 2017, at 11:45 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently
> gerontocratic
> > system. It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
> > allocation.
> >
> > I'm about 95% sure this is the gist of my partner’s argument when
> she said
> > “inventing money is _rude_” about the original Shinies proposal.
> >
> > I’m not sure I fully appreciated Spending Power while we had it. The
> debate
> > and adoption predates me. I’ve long had a fascination with
> throughput-based
> > monetary systems like Total Annihilation’s metal economy, where the
> driving
> > numbers are the amount of money in per time, not the amount of money
> in the
> > pile, and SP is as close as I’ve ever seen to that in a political
> system.
> 
>  On Sep 23, 2017, at 12:30 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> > I point the finger at nichdel. He replied to CB in discussion again.
> 
>  As recently discussed, this is over a pledge under rule 2450, made by
> nichdel, which reads:
> 
> > I pledge to not acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d,
> or to respond in a-d to anything CB does.
> 
>  This pledge was previously broken, and punishment for that breach
> issued from this office on Sep 20, 2017, at 1:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time.
> 
>  The message quoted above is, indeed, in response to a message from
> Cuddlebeam, and violates the above-quoted pledge. Issuing a second card for
> the same pledge appears to violate rule 2426, which reads in part:
> 
> > A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless:
> >
> > …
> >
> > * there has not already been a Card issued for that reason; and
> 
>  Therefore, as issuing a card would be ILLEGAL, I find this
> finger-pointing to be Shenanigans.
> 
>  I issue nichdel a green card by summary judgement, as required by
> rule 2478, for violating rule 2450.
> 
>  I issue myself a green card by summary judgement for violating rule
> 2426, as cited above.
> 
>  I’ll note that I’ve now issued nichdel a card by summary judgement
> twice in a week, and myself a card twice in a week. It is no longer
> possible for me to card either of us for the remainder of the week, rules
> requiring me to do so notwithstanding.
> 
>  -o
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> From V.J. Rada
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Resolving Election: o. is the agronomist!

[Cuddle Beam]

Im of the opinion that lowercase "may" is still alright because its not
modified like "MAY".

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 at 15:40, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 20, 2017, at 9:03 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >
> > I resolve the Agoran decision for the determination of the Agronomist.
> > Again, the quorum was 2.0 and the valid options were the players.
>
> I look forward to serving.
>
> A brief reminder: the Agronomy rules are nonfunctional right now, due to
> CAN/MAY confusion. There is a proposal in flight to address the problem.
> Please do not attempt any Agronomy actions, such as creating or selling
> Comestibles, until this is addressed: it won’t work.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Perfectly legitimate usage, just wondering.

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



> On Sep 23, 2017, at 7:44 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> forum shopping tbh.
> 
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> Why did you bar me and not o?
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:47 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I call a CFJ with the following statement: "The Green card o. issued
>>> emself in the below message was illegally issued, as the green card e
>>> issued nichdel was legally issued".
>>> 
>>> I think the most natural reading of "that reason" is the act itself,
>>> not the particular rule breached. That is, someone can be carded twice
>>> for breaking the same pledge on two totally seperate occasions. There
>>> is also a question as to the interpretation of the pledge rule itself.
>>> It says "a pledge is considered broken if...", which may mean that the
>>> pledge is permanently broken, and cannot be broken more than once.
>>> 
>>> I bar Publius and use AP.
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
 On Sep 22, 2017, at 11:45 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
 
> As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently gerontocratic
> system. It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
> allocation.
> 
> I'm about 95% sure this is the gist of my partner’s argument when she said
> “inventing money is _rude_” about the original Shinies proposal.
> 
> I’m not sure I fully appreciated Spending Power while we had it. The 
> debate
> and adoption predates me. I’ve long had a fascination with 
> throughput-based
> monetary systems like Total Annihilation’s metal economy, where the 
> driving
> numbers are the amount of money in per time, not the amount of money in 
> the
> pile, and SP is as close as I’ve ever seen to that in a political system.
 
 On Sep 23, 2017, at 12:30 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
 
> I point the finger at nichdel. He replied to CB in discussion again.
 
 As recently discussed, this is over a pledge under rule 2450, made by 
 nichdel, which reads:
 
> I pledge to not acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or to 
> respond in a-d to anything CB does.
 
 This pledge was previously broken, and punishment for that breach issued 
 from this office on Sep 20, 2017, at 1:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time.
 
 The message quoted above is, indeed, in response to a message from 
 Cuddlebeam, and violates the above-quoted pledge. Issuing a second card 
 for the same pledge appears to violate rule 2426, which reads in part:
 
> A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless:
> 
> …
> 
> * there has not already been a Card issued for that reason; and
 
 Therefore, as issuing a card would be ILLEGAL, I find this finger-pointing 
 to be Shenanigans.
 
 I issue nichdel a green card by summary judgement, as required by rule 
 2478, for violating rule 2450.
 
 I issue myself a green card by summary judgement for violating rule 2426, 
 as cited above.
 
 I’ll note that I’ve now issued nichdel a card by summary judgement twice 
 in a week, and myself a card twice in a week. It is no longer possible for 
 me to card either of us for the remainder of the week, rules requiring me 
 to do so notwithstanding.
 
 -o
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J. Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[VJ Rada]

forum shopping tbh.

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> Why did you bar me and not o?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:47 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> I call a CFJ with the following statement: "The Green card o. issued
>> emself in the below message was illegally issued, as the green card e
>> issued nichdel was legally issued".
>>
>> I think the most natural reading of "that reason" is the act itself,
>> not the particular rule breached. That is, someone can be carded twice
>> for breaking the same pledge on two totally seperate occasions. There
>> is also a question as to the interpretation of the pledge rule itself.
>> It says "a pledge is considered broken if...", which may mean that the
>> pledge is permanently broken, and cannot be broken more than once.
>>
>> I bar Publius and use AP.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 11:45 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>>>
 As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently gerontocratic
 system. It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
 allocation.

 I'm about 95% sure this is the gist of my partner’s argument when she said
 “inventing money is _rude_” about the original Shinies proposal.

 I’m not sure I fully appreciated Spending Power while we had it. The debate
 and adoption predates me. I’ve long had a fascination with throughput-based
 monetary systems like Total Annihilation’s metal economy, where the driving
 numbers are the amount of money in per time, not the amount of money in the
 pile, and SP is as close as I’ve ever seen to that in a political system.
>>>
>>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 12:30 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
 I point the finger at nichdel. He replied to CB in discussion again.
>>>
>>> As recently discussed, this is over a pledge under rule 2450, made by 
>>> nichdel, which reads:
>>>
 I pledge to not acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to a-d, or to 
 respond in a-d to anything CB does.
>>>
>>> This pledge was previously broken, and punishment for that breach issued 
>>> from this office on Sep 20, 2017, at 1:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time.
>>>
>>> The message quoted above is, indeed, in response to a message from 
>>> Cuddlebeam, and violates the above-quoted pledge. Issuing a second card for 
>>> the same pledge appears to violate rule 2426, which reads in part:
>>>
 A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless:

 …

 * there has not already been a Card issued for that reason; and
>>>
>>> Therefore, as issuing a card would be ILLEGAL, I find this finger-pointing 
>>> to be Shenanigans.
>>>
>>> I issue nichdel a green card by summary judgement, as required by rule 
>>> 2478, for violating rule 2450.
>>>
>>> I issue myself a green card by summary judgement for violating rule 2426, 
>>> as cited above.
>>>
>>> I’ll note that I’ve now issued nichdel a card by summary judgement twice in 
>>> a week, and myself a card twice in a week. It is no longer possible for me 
>>> to card either of us for the remainder of the week, rules requiring me to 
>>> do so notwithstanding.
>>>
>>> -o
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I like this.

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



> On Sep 22, 2017, at 11:51 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 09/22/17 21:40, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:35 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>> 
 but would you consider supporting one that shrinks welcome packages?
>>> 
>>> http://www.hearthcards.net/cards/9b7efdf4.png
>> Alt text: a Hearthstone card with the legend “Gerontocracy Warning”, 
>> containing an image of a “Caution: Elderly People” sign. Under the legend, 
>> the card text explains: “Counter target Protosal (sic) that buffs the 
>> Geronotocracy (sic) or debuffs the non-Gerontocracy.”
>> 
>> I think that's a fair caution. I strongly suspect any form of money that can 
>> be accumulated has this problem, and pissing about over the exact numbers 
>> doesn’t make a meaningful difference to anything other than the degree of 
>> gerontocratic wealth. Since Agora is far, far too short-lived to exhibit 
>> meaningful estate law or any investments more reliable than straight-up 
>> gambling, we’re reduced to either having _some_ gerontocracy, with 
>> pressure-relief mechanisms like the Nuclear Lottery proposal presently under 
>> contemplation, or giving up on Shinies as unworkably gerontocratic.
> 
> This is why I'm still leaning towards giving new players a Stamp (either
> of their own making or from the Agora Stamps proposal I posted a bit
> ago). My current thought is 1 Stamp + enough currency for 2 pends/CFJs.
> The stamps give them scaling value without immediately changing FV,
> while the money discourages them from spending the stamp immediately.
> 
>> 
>> -o
>> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Proto: Banking and Bonds (v2)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Thanks for the feedback. I am going to respond line by line below.

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



> On Sep 22, 2017, at 11:33 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> I normally try to avoid this, because it’s an invitation to line-by-line 
> wrangling, but I have some fairly specific feedback on wording. Before I get 
> into it, some comments on the overall structure:
> 
> It’s good. In particular, I appreciate the possibility of multiple banks, 
> though I suspect we’ll average 1.8 banks at most: any transient banks, or if 
> we’re particularly lucky, any long-term banks other than the CBA, will likely 
> act as proving grounds for bank policy more than anything else.
> 
>> On Sep 21, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> In response to feedback, here is the new banking proposal, if I don't get 
>> negative feedback, I plan to pend it this week:
>> {
>> All "+" and "-" symbols in the body of this proposal should be ignored and 
>> shall have no effect on the ruleset or game state.
>> 
>> Replace the following line in "Assets":
>> -  restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations.
>> with:
>> +  restricted to Agora, persons, organizations, and Agoran Institutions.
> 
> The rule defining Agoran Institutions seems to have gotten lost in the 
> refactoring.

I will than specify banks specifically to resolve this problem.

> 
>> Create a power-2 rule titled "Banking" with the following text:
>> +  A Bank is an Agoran Institution. A Bank shall have a charter, a length, 
>> and a
>> +  banker.
> 
> “It is ILLEGAL for a bank not to have a charter, or not to have a length, or 
> not to have a banker”? Who receives the card?

I was trying to figure this out. What about "Any action causing a bank to not 
have a charter, a length, and a banker is INEFFECTIVE."?

> 
>> The Central Bank of Agora is the bank who is responsible for the
>> +  conduct of business and issuance of bonds on behalf of Agora. The length 
>> of a
>> +  bank is the period during which the bank will operate. If at any time,
>> +  a Central Bank of Agora is not declared, then the Secretary CAN and SHALL
>> +  declare a bank to be the Central Bank of Agora.
> 
> This rule appears to define the existence of the CBA, before contemplating 
> what should happen if the CBA does not exist. I suspect you meant to define 
> this in terms of a regulation-like construct governed by the Secretary, 
> though frankly I have no idea how to write such a beast either.

The main reason I added this clause is to allow the prime minister's associated 
executive action to work. Also, given ais523's suggestion to form the FBA by 
proposal, I will have to add some clauses to make things work.

> 
>> +  A Bank is able to issue a currency and issue bonds. The charter of a
>> +  bank shall establish the method by which a bond or currency can be issued.
> 
> Given that “a currency” is already defined, this bolts onto the assets 
> framework quite well.
> 
> To make sure I follow: each bank has the option of issuing its own currency, 
> in arbitrary amounts as defined by the charter of that bank? This is 
> consistent with historical banking practice, but I worry that N currencies 
> might be a bit much. I’d like to find out, so if that was your intent, please 
> continue, but I wanted to make sure I understood.

That is my intent.

> 
>> +  Any person CAN create a Bank without objection by specifying its charter, 
>> its
>> +  length and recommending a banker. The Secretary CAN create a bank with 
>> Agoran
>> +  Consent by specifying its charter, its length and appointing a banker.
> 
> What is the difference between “recommending” and “appointing?”
> 
> What is the difference between the First Bank of PSS and a bank created by 
> the Secretary, generally, that justifies the difference in consent 
> requirements?

The main thing was that I wanted any player to be able to create a Bank, if 
they wanted one and then have the Secretary as a fallback for if their are two 
many objections. As to the recommending vs appointing, I already authorize the 
Secretary to appoint bankers, elsewhere so the idea was that the person 
starting the bank would recommend someone who the Secretary would customarily 
appoint.

> 
>> The
>> +  charter of a bank SHALL state its purpose, and its governance structure. 
>> If at
>> +  any time, a Bank lacks a Banker, the Secretary CAN and SHALL appoint a 
>> Banker
>> +  in accordanence with the charter of the Bank or SHALL destroy the bank.
> 
> "Or CAN and SHALL…", I think. I appreciate the escape hatch, as - I’m sure - 
> do future Secretaries.
> 
> Does destroying a Bank destroy instances of its currency? Or do they float as 
> loose assets indefinitely?
> 
> Come to think of it, who recordkeeps a bank-created currency? There’s no 
> fallback recordkeepor, and so, nobody who can ratify or who is obliged to 
> report on 

Re: DIS: [Proto] Aggregates (Contracts, by another means)

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2017-09-23 at 00:54 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> The idea is that someone seeking to create a contract can instead
> create a pledge, and then (in the same message, probably) create an
> aggregate containing the pledge and the other affected assets. This
> is limited - you can’t contract duties this way, only assets - but
> incredibly flexible as to what kinds of obligation may be
> transferred. Even if you receive an unwelcome pledge this way, you
> have ownership of it, and may retract it.

You can mousetrap someone by giving them a pledge that they're already
platonically breaking, and then calling em on it immediately. That
doesn't seem right to me.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[VJ Rada]

I don't think the rules apply only to content within the body of an
email: we already know the subject line counts in some cases. I don't
see which rule contradicts the rules applying to the subject line. I
do note that the rule does ask for Agoran Consent (2 of it, even), so
you might need to note clearly your intent within the text itself for
that to work in this particular case.

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> To be honest - I only did it cuz I'm unsure if subject line only actions,
> even if noted by the rules, even work.
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 00:40 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> "MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE"
>>
>> Honestly, you are the funniest Agoran player by far, just in pure
>> gameplay terms. I object to the motion of no confidence.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>> > As the speaker I object to all intents to win by apathy introduced in
>> > the
>> > quoted message.  I'll write a python script to object to each
>> > individually
>> > later.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 00:26 VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> o win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathy Without objection, I intend to
>> >> win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win
>> >> by apathyWithout objection, I intend to win by apathyWithout
>> >> objection, I intend 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[VJ Rada]

Oh yeah, I'm late on my ADoP report. By notifying you here it makes it
probably illegal to list that you believe no un-remedied rules
violations have occurred the preceding week. So you might have to use
your fifth summary judgement.

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:47 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> I call a CFJ with the following statement: "The Green card o. issued
>> emself in the below message was illegally issued, as the green card e
>> issued nichdel was legally issued".
>>
>> I think the most natural reading of "that reason" is the act itself,
>> not the particular rule breached. That is, someone can be carded twice
>> for breaking the same pledge on two totally seperate occasions. There
>> is also a question as to the interpretation of the pledge rule itself.
>> It says "a pledge is considered broken if...", which may mean that the
>> pledge is permanently broken, and cannot be broken more than once.
>>
>> I bar Publius and use AP.
>
> For reasons I sincerely hope are obvious, I dis-favour this CFJ.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada