DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Second Revised S:R

[Owen Jacobson]

On Oct 23, 2017, at 6:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
 wrote:

> --
> 
> Rule 2497/3 (Power=1)
> Floating Value
> 
>   Floating Value is a natural singleton switch, tracked by the
> Treasuror.
> 
> 
>   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.
> 
> --
> 
> Rule 2456/5 (Power=1)
> The Treasuror
> 
>   The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.
> 
>   The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:
> 
>   1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
>  defined by the Rules.
>   2. the list of all public classes of assets.
> 
> --

Oh, hell, did I seriously make it impossible to change the FV?

I’ll draft a proposal shortly. This is an oversight, but a fairly significant 
one.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 9:16 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> 
> CoE: I'm pretty sure I paid Alexis 2 shinies.

So you did, in two separate transactions. I’ll publish a revision shortly.

> Also, another question: I tried to buy a stamp previously, however this did 
> not show up here. I won't CoE it, however, because I don't know the action 
> actually succeeded, because I specified the wrong value the first time (but I 
> still should have gotten it, I think, because I then bought one a second time 
> with the right value)

The stamp value was 4 (1/5th of 20 sh.) at the time, and your second attempt 
tried to pay 2 shinies. This is why I started listing off the derived values 
when I set the FV, even before I was required to - it’s easy to get the wrong 
value.

> Final question: When did Agora pay me 2 shinies?


Oct 15th:

> PF
> 

>> Well, either way, I guess I also claim a reward of two shinies for authoring 
>> and pending a passed proposal.

I have this listed in my records as

> 2017-10-15 * ATMunn claimed a reward for proposal 7913
> Player:ATMunn   2 Shinies
> Agora

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> The other thing to note is that he was previously a player and continued
> to take player-like actions. Additionally, he stated that he had
> observed his inclusion in the Registrar's report and had knowingly not
> CoEed.

E.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

[Owen Jacobson]

On Oct 25, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> 3) It's ethically squicky to some people (myself included).
> 
> 3a) It's tempting to think players in a game will be more 'unethical'
> because it's, well, a game. But players seem to act fairly high-minded
> in routine play, probably because of the implicit social contract of
> 'play'. The only time people tend to do ethically grey things is when it
> is a clear route to a win.
> 

This was, in fact, the specific intent when I ran the Agoran Voting Market 
organization: is it still graft if the graft happens fully in the open, where 
everyone can see it?

The answer is “Agorans as a whole rejected it.” I consider this a success.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 10:41 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> On Oct 25, 2017, at 12:30 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> 
>>> I cause Agora to make the following payments, which I believe can be 
>>> uniquely decomposed into the individual payments required by “Passive 
>>> Income”:
>>> 
>>> * 8 sh. to ProofTechnique
>>> * 8 sh. to ais523
>>> * 4 sh. to G.
> 
> Um  ---
> 
> There's nothing to suggest ais523's join-by-ratification worked,
> given past CFJ 3456 found quite clearly that it doesn't without eir
> explicit at-the-time consent?  Or did I misunderstand the
> sequence of events.

I based the attempt to distribute basic income on the contents of the Oct 22 
Registrar’s report, which listed ais523. If ais523 is, in fact, not a player, 
then neither the original distribution nor the “fixed” distribution succeeded - 
but they failed for different reasons, and the latter may have _partially_ 
succeeded. Joy!

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer loves halloween

[Aris Merchant]

You are warned that this contains links, which will appear in the distribution.

-Aris

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I create the following Proposal and pend it with 1 AP:
>
> Title: Spoopy Agorans
> Content:
>
> * Amend "Emotion is a player switch, tracked by the registrar, with possible
> values Joyous, Melancholy, and Indifferent, that defaults to Indifferent."
>
> to
>
> "Emotion is a player switch, tracked by the registrar, with possible values
> Joyous, Melancholy, Spooked, Sneaking, and Indifferent, that defaults to
> Indifferent."
>
> * Amend "It is IMPOSSIBLE to change another player's Emotion"
>
> to
>
> "It is IMPOSSIBLE to change another player's Emotion, if their Emotion isn't
> "Indifferent""
>
> * Add to the list of emotions (to the bottom of it) the following emotions
> in the stated order:
>
> Spooked: A player cannot set their own emotion to be this emotion.
>
> Sneaking: A Sneaking player can, by announcement along a flavorful
> description of how they scare them, Scare another player. That player
> becomes Spooked.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Cuddle Beam]

sneak in the word "subtle", they'll never see it coming

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Josh T  wrote:

> To put it in other words, "If you were assigning words/phrases that other
> people have to sneak into proposals without arousing other people's
> suspicion, what do you think are reasonable choices?"
>
> The idea is that *I* have an idea of what I intend to assign as
> words/phrases, but this might not be what people expect, and I'm doing a
> reality check. (Hint: There is a reason why the contract is called what it
> is)
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 26 October 2017 at 21:46, ATMunn  wrote:
>
>> I'm not really sure what is meant by the first question.
>>
>> On 10/26/2017 9:34 PM, Josh T wrote:
>>
>>> For the purposes to provide everyone involved with a fun game, I would
>>> like to ask those interested to partake in a voluntary anonymous survey so
>>> I have an idea of what people are expecting. I will probably be making
>>> word/phrase lists on Saturday after I resolve my intent to amend the
>>> contract so that it is usable and pull / update that list as people make or
>>> concede the wager. The survey can be found here:
>>> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1aKvKLkD-kzBPrgBJ
>>> aRyl32nA028tjNlZXNCKvu35Vw5E8Q/viewform
>>>
>>> 天火狐
>>>
>>> On 26 October 2017 at 00:25, VJ Rada > vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I become a party to the Order
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh T >> > wrote:
>>>  > NttPF.
>>>  >
>>>  > I posted the intent to amend. I'm heading to bed though, so if I
>>> missed
>>>  > things let me know and I'll amend to fix it ASAP.
>>>  >
>>>  > 天火狐
>>>  >
>>>  > On 26 October 2017 at 00:19, VJ Rada > vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>  >>
>>>  >> I become a party to the Order.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> I will wager if you change the party/participant thing.
>>>  >>
>>>  >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Nic Evans >> > wrote:
>>>  >> > I become a party of Order of the Occult Hand. I like the idea
>>>  >> > tremendously but there's two qualms:
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> > * Party and participant are used interchangeably when they are
>>> in fact
>>>  >> > not. Party includes the proprietor, participant does not. This
>>> leads,
>>>  >> > either intentionally or accidentally, to the bigger issue:
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> > * The proprietor appears to be able to look for the occult
>>> hand,
>>>  >> > potentially making this a giant scam.
>>>  >> >
>>>  >> >
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >> --
>>>  >> From V.J. Rada
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>  From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Josh T]

To put it in other words, "If you were assigning words/phrases that other
people have to sneak into proposals without arousing other people's
suspicion, what do you think are reasonable choices?"

The idea is that *I* have an idea of what I intend to assign as
words/phrases, but this might not be what people expect, and I'm doing a
reality check. (Hint: There is a reason why the contract is called what it
is)

天火狐

On 26 October 2017 at 21:46, ATMunn  wrote:

> I'm not really sure what is meant by the first question.
>
> On 10/26/2017 9:34 PM, Josh T wrote:
>
>> For the purposes to provide everyone involved with a fun game, I would
>> like to ask those interested to partake in a voluntary anonymous survey so
>> I have an idea of what people are expecting. I will probably be making
>> word/phrase lists on Saturday after I resolve my intent to amend the
>> contract so that it is usable and pull / update that list as people make or
>> concede the wager. The survey can be found here:
>> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1aKvKLkD-kzBPrgBJ
>> aRyl32nA028tjNlZXNCKvu35Vw5E8Q/viewform
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>> On 26 October 2017 at 00:25, VJ Rada  vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I become a party to the Order
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh T > > wrote:
>>  > NttPF.
>>  >
>>  > I posted the intent to amend. I'm heading to bed though, so if I
>> missed
>>  > things let me know and I'll amend to fix it ASAP.
>>  >
>>  > 天火狐
>>  >
>>  > On 26 October 2017 at 00:19, VJ Rada  vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >> I become a party to the Order.
>>  >>
>>  >> I will wager if you change the party/participant thing.
>>  >>
>>  >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Nic Evans > > wrote:
>>  >> > I become a party of Order of the Occult Hand. I like the idea
>>  >> > tremendously but there's two qualms:
>>  >> >
>>  >> > * Party and participant are used interchangeably when they are
>> in fact
>>  >> > not. Party includes the proprietor, participant does not. This
>> leads,
>>  >> > either intentionally or accidentally, to the bigger issue:
>>  >> >
>>  >> > * The proprietor appears to be able to look for the occult hand,
>>  >> > potentially making this a giant scam.
>>  >> >
>>  >> >
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> --
>>  >> From V.J. Rada
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[ATMunn]

I'm not really sure what is meant by the first question.

On 10/26/2017 9:34 PM, Josh T wrote:

For the purposes to provide everyone involved with a fun game, I would like to 
ask those interested to partake in a voluntary anonymous survey so I have an 
idea of what people are expecting. I will probably be making word/phrase lists 
on Saturday after I resolve my intent to amend the contract so that it is 
usable and pull / update that list as people make or concede the wager. The 
survey can be found here: 
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1aKvKLkD-kzBPrgBJaRyl32nA028tjNlZXNCKvu35Vw5E8Q/viewform

天火狐

On 26 October 2017 at 00:25, VJ Rada > wrote:

I become a party to the Order

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh T > wrote:
 > NttPF.
 >
 > I posted the intent to amend. I'm heading to bed though, so if I missed
 > things let me know and I'll amend to fix it ASAP.
 >
 > 天火狐
 >
 > On 26 October 2017 at 00:19, VJ Rada > wrote:
 >>
 >> I become a party to the Order.
 >>
 >> I will wager if you change the party/participant thing.
 >>
 >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Nic Evans > wrote:
 >> > I become a party of Order of the Occult Hand. I like the idea
 >> > tremendously but there's two qualms:
 >> >
 >> > * Party and participant are used interchangeably when they are in fact
 >> > not. Party includes the proprietor, participant does not. This leads,
 >> > either intentionally or accidentally, to the bigger issue:
 >> >
 >> > * The proprietor appears to be able to look for the occult hand,
 >> > potentially making this a giant scam.
 >> >
 >> >
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> --
 >> From V.J. Rada
 >
 >



--
 From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: New Contract

[Josh T]

For the purposes to provide everyone involved with a fun game, I would like
to ask those interested to partake in a voluntary anonymous survey so I
have an idea of what people are expecting. I will probably be making
word/phrase lists on Saturday after I resolve my intent to amend the
contract so that it is usable and pull / update that list as people make or
concede the wager. The survey can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1aKvKLkD-kzBPrgBJaRyl32nA028tjNlZXNCKvu35Vw5E8Q/viewform

天火狐

On 26 October 2017 at 00:25, VJ Rada  wrote:

> I become a party to the Order
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Josh T 
> wrote:
> > NttPF.
> >
> > I posted the intent to amend. I'm heading to bed though, so if I missed
> > things let me know and I'll amend to fix it ASAP.
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 26 October 2017 at 00:19, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>
> >> I become a party to the Order.
> >>
> >> I will wager if you change the party/participant thing.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >> > I become a party of Order of the Occult Hand. I like the idea
> >> > tremendously but there's two qualms:
> >> >
> >> > * Party and participant are used interchangeably when they are in fact
> >> > not. Party includes the proprietor, participant does not. This leads,
> >> > either intentionally or accidentally, to the bigger issue:
> >> >
> >> > * The proprietor appears to be able to look for the occult hand,
> >> > potentially making this a giant scam.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Asset Auctions

[ATMunn]

I've been working on it some today, and I've made a lot more progress.
I think it's probably somewhere from 50% to 75% done. It should be done in
the next day or two.

On 10/25/2017 9:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:

I hadn't previously thought of including that in my proposal. It's a good
idea, however, so I'll probably add it. You can still post your draft,
though.


I'm planning for it to go out in the next distribution so I will submit the
proposal that assumes it exists, and submit an auction proposal on the
weekend if yours isn't ready.  You can always amend it if you're moving
at a slower pace.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

[ATMunn]

I retract the proposal "Way More Controversial Version of the Above" for real 
this time.

On 10/26/2017 8:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

NttPF.

-Aris


On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn  wrote:

Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously
nobody will vote for it.


On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:




Needs to be AI-3 to work.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:


For fun, I create the below proposal:

Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above
Author: ATMunn
Co-Author(s): Telnaior, V.J. Rada

Deregister all currently registered players.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

[Aris Merchant]

It is certainly a restricted action. It modifies information I'm
required to recordkeep, and it is enabled by the rules.

-Aris

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:06 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Retraction of Proposals is not informal!
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> But retraction is itself informal.
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/2017 08:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> NttPF.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
 Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously
 nobody will vote for it.


 On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Needs to be AI-3 to work.
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
>> For fun, I create the below proposal:
>>
>> Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above
>> Author: ATMunn
>> Co-Author(s): Telnaior, V.J. Rada
>>
>> Deregister all currently registered players.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Thank you, I have checked the ruleset and you are correct. I thought
that it was not required to be by announcement, but I was incorrect.


On 10/26/2017 09:06 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
> Retraction of Proposals is not informal!
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> But retraction is itself informal.
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/2017 08:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> NttPF.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
 Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously
 nobody will vote for it.


 On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Needs to be AI-3 to work.
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
>> For fun, I create the below proposal:
>>
>> Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above
>> Author: ATMunn
>> Co-Author(s): Telnaior, V.J. Rada
>>
>> Deregister all currently registered players.
>>
>>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

[VJ Rada]

Retraction of Proposals is not informal!

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> But retraction is itself informal.
>
>
> On 10/26/2017 08:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> NttPF.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
>>> Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously
>>> nobody will vote for it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


 Needs to be AI-3 to work.

 On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> For fun, I create the below proposal:
>
> Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s): Telnaior, V.J. Rada
>
> Deregister all currently registered players.
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

But retraction is itself informal.


On 10/26/2017 08:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> NttPF.
>
> -Aris
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
>> Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously
>> nobody will vote for it.
>>
>>
>> On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Needs to be AI-3 to work.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
 For fun, I create the below proposal:

 Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above
 Author: ATMunn
 Co-Author(s): Telnaior, V.J. Rada

 Deregister all currently registered players.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

[Cuddle Beam]

Just going to mention for no reason at all that I'm a pretty friendly person

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:37 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> The find 9 friends step might be the main obstacle.
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:36 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > Gotta admit I've considered finding 9 friends and making them register
> > and buy stamps. It's not prohibited (only flooding "to increase voting
> > strength" is), if I did it fast enough I wouldn't be stopped, and it
> > would be the stupidest win ever.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >>> I mean, if you have the power to pass any power 4 rule and wanted to
> >>> troll, I doubt that this strangeness would be the first objective.
> >>> Repealing all rules would be pretty easy. We just rely on
> >>> people...not? Nomic-obsessed, extremely clever internet trolls whose
> >>> sole objective is to ruin peoples' day are a rarity.
> >>
> >> Also, it would have to be resident trolls who have been around a while.
> >> It's non-obvious, but the purpose of Festivals is to stop invasions
> >> by assuming Ribbons correlate with dedication to Agora (invasion
> attempts
> >> have happened, but those have been battles coordinated by other nomics,
> >> not random passing trolls, and their goals haven't been destructive
> >> so much as counting coup).  We've tried our hand at invasions too - they
> >> mostly fail.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

[Aris Merchant]

NttPF.

-Aris


On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
> Ah. I retract the below proposal. I didn't pend it anyway, and obviously
> nobody will vote for it.
>
>
> On 10/25/2017 9:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Needs to be AI-3 to work.
>>
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
>>>
>>> For fun, I create the below proposal:
>>>
>>> Title: Way More Controversial Version of the Above
>>> Author: ATMunn
>>> Co-Author(s): Telnaior, V.J. Rada
>>>
>>> Deregister all currently registered players.
>>>
>>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

[VJ Rada]

Gotta admit I've considered finding 9 friends and making them register
and buy stamps. It's not prohibited (only flooding "to increase voting
strength" is), if I did it fast enough I wouldn't be stopped, and it
would be the stupidest win ever.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> I mean, if you have the power to pass any power 4 rule and wanted to
>> troll, I doubt that this strangeness would be the first objective.
>> Repealing all rules would be pretty easy. We just rely on
>> people...not? Nomic-obsessed, extremely clever internet trolls whose
>> sole objective is to ruin peoples' day are a rarity.
>
> Also, it would have to be resident trolls who have been around a while.
> It's non-obvious, but the purpose of Festivals is to stop invasions
> by assuming Ribbons correlate with dedication to Agora (invasion attempts
> have happened, but those have been battles coordinated by other nomics,
> not random passing trolls, and their goals haven't been destructive
> so much as counting coup).  We've tried our hand at invasions too - they
> mostly fail.
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

[Madeline]

So that's why they're a protected action in contracts!


On 2017-10-27 11:29, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

I mean, if you have the power to pass any power 4 rule and wanted to
troll, I doubt that this strangeness would be the first objective.
Repealing all rules would be pretty easy. We just rely on
people...not? Nomic-obsessed, extremely clever internet trolls whose
sole objective is to ruin peoples' day are a rarity.

Also, it would have to be resident trolls who have been around a while.
It's non-obvious, but the purpose of Festivals is to stop invasions
by assuming Ribbons correlate with dedication to Agora (invasion attempts
have happened, but those have been battles coordinated by other nomics,
not random passing trolls, and their goals haven't been destructive
so much as counting coup).  We've tried our hand at invasions too - they
mostly fail.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

[VJ Rada]

The find 9 friends step might be the main obstacle.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:36 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Gotta admit I've considered finding 9 friends and making them register
> and buy stamps. It's not prohibited (only flooding "to increase voting
> strength" is), if I did it fast enough I wouldn't be stopped, and it
> would be the stupidest win ever.
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> I mean, if you have the power to pass any power 4 rule and wanted to
>>> troll, I doubt that this strangeness would be the first objective.
>>> Repealing all rules would be pretty easy. We just rely on
>>> people...not? Nomic-obsessed, extremely clever internet trolls whose
>>> sole objective is to ruin peoples' day are a rarity.
>>
>> Also, it would have to be resident trolls who have been around a while.
>> It's non-obvious, but the purpose of Festivals is to stop invasions
>> by assuming Ribbons correlate with dedication to Agora (invasion attempts
>> have happened, but those have been battles coordinated by other nomics,
>> not random passing trolls, and their goals haven't been destructive
>> so much as counting coup).  We've tried our hand at invasions too - they
>> mostly fail.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I mean, if you have the power to pass any power 4 rule and wanted to
> troll, I doubt that this strangeness would be the first objective.
> Repealing all rules would be pretty easy. We just rely on
> people...not? Nomic-obsessed, extremely clever internet trolls whose
> sole objective is to ruin peoples' day are a rarity.

Also, it would have to be resident trolls who have been around a while. 
It's non-obvious, but the purpose of Festivals is to stop invasions
by assuming Ribbons correlate with dedication to Agora (invasion attempts
have happened, but those have been battles coordinated by other nomics, 
not random passing trolls, and their goals haven't been destructive
so much as counting coup).  We've tried our hand at invasions too - they 
mostly fail.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> This was a really awesome read, and also we need to bury it as soon as
> possible before any lurking trolls make it their new scam objective.

It's not any more dangerous than many things, really.

R2140 means that Power-3 Instruments can amend Power-4 rules, so there's
plenty of ways a Power-3 Proposal can destroy the game (just repeal Rule 
1698 and amend R101 to read "the game is over").

And because fora and players are Secured at power-3 (R1688), lower-
powered proposals can't destroy these things.

Really, R1698 and R101 are the equivalent of "all your data will be lost,
are you sure you want to proceed?" buttons.  They make it hard to hide
or accidentally make a game-ending proposal - but if an AI-3 majority
really wants to, they can click through those warnings.

-G.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

[ATMunn]

Well, if this is not the most existential-crisis-inducing CFJ judgement ever...

On 10/26/2017 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



CFJ 3580 statement:

"If there were
currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy the universe
by announcement, without defining the effect of this action, and I announced 
that
I destroyed the universe in that way (all other aspects of the gamestate being
as they are now), my announcement would, as far as the game is concerned, have
the effect it purported to have."


JUDGEMENT for CFJ 3580:

The Caller’s statement involves a bit of question-begging, but we’ll try
to get around that.  In order to know whether a Rules text does what it
“purports” to do, we have to first figure out what it is purporting to
do!  There are several possibilities, all of which require a pre-
supposition of the scope and domain of the Rules.  I will try to
explore the range of possibilities in this judgement, and offer
potential judgements for each before selecting my final option.  For the
purposes of this judgement, the “Protections” are defined as the power 4
rules 101 and 1698.

So, what is a Rule purporting to do if it “succeeds” at “destroying the
universe”?

The first possibility is that it purports to set the value of an
undefined and untracked variable, and nothing else.  Under this
supposition, if a “destroy the universe” clause is triggered, then we
would simply say “there is now an untracked gamestate variable called
‘the universe’ and its value is ‘destroyed’.  Any CFJ asking whether the
universe “has been destroyed” will now be true, and any future game
conditional that says “if the universe has been destroyed, then X” will
mean X is true.  Beyond that, nothing would happen.  Under this
interpretation, this CFJ would be TRUE - we can clearly set such a
variable without problem.  (Since this interpretation doesn’t damage
anything that the Protections protect against, they aren’t relevant in
this interpretation).

I reject this possibility because words have meaning.  Rule 217 asks us
to use common definitions for terms that are not rules-defined.  If the
clause featured nonsense words, e.g. “all Slurgs are hereby Poiled”,
then this would be the correct interpretation, because we would have no
common sense interpretation other than to say, for CFJ purposes, that
whenever we encounter Slurgs, they are Poiled Slurgs.  But since
“universe” and “destroyed” both have common definitions, I reject this
interpretation - setting a useless gamestate variable is not what a
‘destroy the universe’ clause is purporting to do (see CFJ 1500 for a
similar rejection of this interpretation).

The second possibility is that the clause purports that triggering it
would actually, really, physically destroy the real world universe.
There is no rules-internal logic that forbid the Rules from taking this
interpretation.  In particular, if the clause were re-written to say
“when this clause is activated, the actual, real universe is genuinely
physically destroyed” then this, indeed, would set the rules up for a
confrontation with reality that the Caller (in eir gratuitous arguments)
clearly dreads.  Again, words have meaning, and words like “actual
physical real” are hard to get around.

If this were being purported by the clause, the Protections would
protect us from facing this confrontation with reality.  If the universe
were physically and “really” destroyed, the game would end/cease to
exist, which would violate R101 and R1698.  So we could avoid the
confrontation with reality and simply say FALSE, this clause would be
blocked from taking effect by the Protections.

However, without the Protections, the confrontation with reality would
indeed be forced.  To find this CFJ FALSE on such grounds (due to the
vast range of physical evidence that the rules are incapable of doing
this) would greatly damage the scope of the rules and our perception of
the game, as discussed by the Caller.  There is a logical out, though:
if a clause were activated destroying “the actual physical universe” the
after-the-fact interpretation could be:  “hey, the Universe *was*
actually destroyed, but obviously a new universe was created with all
our memories intact.”  This would allow us to keep faith with both the
rules and reality, though at the price of accepting a scary degree of
solipsism (and accepting that Agora is, in fact, Galactus) .  Since we
couldn’t prove otherwise, we might accept some type of judgement like
IRRELEVANT, INSUFFICIENT, or DISMISS, as ideas like “maybe we were just
created 1 minute ago with our memories intact” are unprovable and/or
irrelevant to our ongoing conduct of the game.  If we judged the clause
before activation, I would pick IRRELEVANT, because if failed, we’d pick
that kind of interpretation, and if it succeed, we wouldn’t be around to
care.

However, I reject this interpretation of what is being purported, for
the less-specific “destroy the universe” phrase in question.  We 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

[VJ Rada]

I mean, if you have the power to pass any power 4 rule and wanted to
troll, I doubt that this strangeness would be the first objective.
Repealing all rules would be pretty easy. We just rely on
people...not? Nomic-obsessed, extremely clever internet trolls whose
sole objective is to ruin peoples' day are a rarity.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Madeline  wrote:
> This was a really awesome read, and also we need to bury it as soon as
> possible before any lurking trolls make it their new scam objective.
>
>
>
> On 2017-10-27 09:01, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>> CFJ 3580 statement:
>>
>> "If there were
>> currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy the
>> universe
>> by announcement, without defining the effect of this action, and I
>> announced that
>> I destroyed the universe in that way (all other aspects of the gamestate
>> being
>> as they are now), my announcement would, as far as the game is concerned,
>> have
>> the effect it purported to have."
>>
>>
>> JUDGEMENT for CFJ 3580:
>>
>> The Caller’s statement involves a bit of question-begging, but we’ll try
>> to get around that.  In order to know whether a Rules text does what it
>> “purports” to do, we have to first figure out what it is purporting to
>> do!  There are several possibilities, all of which require a pre-
>> supposition of the scope and domain of the Rules.  I will try to
>> explore the range of possibilities in this judgement, and offer
>> potential judgements for each before selecting my final option.  For the
>> purposes of this judgement, the “Protections” are defined as the power 4
>> rules 101 and 1698.
>>
>> So, what is a Rule purporting to do if it “succeeds” at “destroying the
>> universe”?
>>
>> The first possibility is that it purports to set the value of an
>> undefined and untracked variable, and nothing else.  Under this
>> supposition, if a “destroy the universe” clause is triggered, then we
>> would simply say “there is now an untracked gamestate variable called
>> ‘the universe’ and its value is ‘destroyed’.  Any CFJ asking whether the
>> universe “has been destroyed” will now be true, and any future game
>> conditional that says “if the universe has been destroyed, then X” will
>> mean X is true.  Beyond that, nothing would happen.  Under this
>> interpretation, this CFJ would be TRUE - we can clearly set such a
>> variable without problem.  (Since this interpretation doesn’t damage
>> anything that the Protections protect against, they aren’t relevant in
>> this interpretation).
>>
>> I reject this possibility because words have meaning.  Rule 217 asks us
>> to use common definitions for terms that are not rules-defined.  If the
>> clause featured nonsense words, e.g. “all Slurgs are hereby Poiled”,
>> then this would be the correct interpretation, because we would have no
>> common sense interpretation other than to say, for CFJ purposes, that
>> whenever we encounter Slurgs, they are Poiled Slurgs.  But since
>> “universe” and “destroyed” both have common definitions, I reject this
>> interpretation - setting a useless gamestate variable is not what a
>> ‘destroy the universe’ clause is purporting to do (see CFJ 1500 for a
>> similar rejection of this interpretation).
>>
>> The second possibility is that the clause purports that triggering it
>> would actually, really, physically destroy the real world universe.
>> There is no rules-internal logic that forbid the Rules from taking this
>> interpretation.  In particular, if the clause were re-written to say
>> “when this clause is activated, the actual, real universe is genuinely
>> physically destroyed” then this, indeed, would set the rules up for a
>> confrontation with reality that the Caller (in eir gratuitous arguments)
>> clearly dreads.  Again, words have meaning, and words like “actual
>> physical real” are hard to get around.
>>
>> If this were being purported by the clause, the Protections would
>> protect us from facing this confrontation with reality.  If the universe
>> were physically and “really” destroyed, the game would end/cease to
>> exist, which would violate R101 and R1698.  So we could avoid the
>> confrontation with reality and simply say FALSE, this clause would be
>> blocked from taking effect by the Protections.
>>
>> However, without the Protections, the confrontation with reality would
>> indeed be forced.  To find this CFJ FALSE on such grounds (due to the
>> vast range of physical evidence that the rules are incapable of doing
>> this) would greatly damage the scope of the rules and our perception of
>> the game, as discussed by the Caller.  There is a logical out, though:
>> if a clause were activated destroying “the actual physical universe” the
>> after-the-fact interpretation could be:  “hey, the Universe *was*
>> actually destroyed, but obviously a new universe was created with all
>> our memories intact.”  This would allow us to keep faith with both the
>> rules and reality, though at 

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

[Alexis Hunt]

Nothing prevents making multiple intents and only resolving one.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 at 17:56 Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> That's...
>
> A great a idea actually lol.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That should be a challenge.
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/2017 04:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> >>>Levels were:  AN 150, BN 250, Masters 750, Doctorate 1000
>> >> lol, our CFJs routinely go above those, we are smurt af.
>> > Actually, it would be a real challenge to write a thesis that has
>> > reasonable content and keep it at 150 or under.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

[Madeline]

This was a really awesome read, and also we need to bury it as soon as 
possible before any lurking trolls make it their new scam objective.



On 2017-10-27 09:01, Kerim Aydin wrote:


CFJ 3580 statement:

"If there were
currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy the universe
by announcement, without defining the effect of this action, and I announced 
that
I destroyed the universe in that way (all other aspects of the gamestate being
as they are now), my announcement would, as far as the game is concerned, have
the effect it purported to have."


JUDGEMENT for CFJ 3580:

The Caller’s statement involves a bit of question-begging, but we’ll try
to get around that.  In order to know whether a Rules text does what it
“purports” to do, we have to first figure out what it is purporting to
do!  There are several possibilities, all of which require a pre-
supposition of the scope and domain of the Rules.  I will try to
explore the range of possibilities in this judgement, and offer
potential judgements for each before selecting my final option.  For the
purposes of this judgement, the “Protections” are defined as the power 4
rules 101 and 1698.

So, what is a Rule purporting to do if it “succeeds” at “destroying the
universe”?

The first possibility is that it purports to set the value of an
undefined and untracked variable, and nothing else.  Under this
supposition, if a “destroy the universe” clause is triggered, then we
would simply say “there is now an untracked gamestate variable called
‘the universe’ and its value is ‘destroyed’.  Any CFJ asking whether the
universe “has been destroyed” will now be true, and any future game
conditional that says “if the universe has been destroyed, then X” will
mean X is true.  Beyond that, nothing would happen.  Under this
interpretation, this CFJ would be TRUE - we can clearly set such a
variable without problem.  (Since this interpretation doesn’t damage
anything that the Protections protect against, they aren’t relevant in
this interpretation).

I reject this possibility because words have meaning.  Rule 217 asks us
to use common definitions for terms that are not rules-defined.  If the
clause featured nonsense words, e.g. “all Slurgs are hereby Poiled”,
then this would be the correct interpretation, because we would have no
common sense interpretation other than to say, for CFJ purposes, that
whenever we encounter Slurgs, they are Poiled Slurgs.  But since
“universe” and “destroyed” both have common definitions, I reject this
interpretation - setting a useless gamestate variable is not what a
‘destroy the universe’ clause is purporting to do (see CFJ 1500 for a
similar rejection of this interpretation).

The second possibility is that the clause purports that triggering it
would actually, really, physically destroy the real world universe.
There is no rules-internal logic that forbid the Rules from taking this
interpretation.  In particular, if the clause were re-written to say
“when this clause is activated, the actual, real universe is genuinely
physically destroyed” then this, indeed, would set the rules up for a
confrontation with reality that the Caller (in eir gratuitous arguments)
clearly dreads.  Again, words have meaning, and words like “actual
physical real” are hard to get around.

If this were being purported by the clause, the Protections would
protect us from facing this confrontation with reality.  If the universe
were physically and “really” destroyed, the game would end/cease to
exist, which would violate R101 and R1698.  So we could avoid the
confrontation with reality and simply say FALSE, this clause would be
blocked from taking effect by the Protections.

However, without the Protections, the confrontation with reality would
indeed be forced.  To find this CFJ FALSE on such grounds (due to the
vast range of physical evidence that the rules are incapable of doing
this) would greatly damage the scope of the rules and our perception of
the game, as discussed by the Caller.  There is a logical out, though:
if a clause were activated destroying “the actual physical universe” the
after-the-fact interpretation could be:  “hey, the Universe *was*
actually destroyed, but obviously a new universe was created with all
our memories intact.”  This would allow us to keep faith with both the
rules and reality, though at the price of accepting a scary degree of
solipsism (and accepting that Agora is, in fact, Galactus) .  Since we
couldn’t prove otherwise, we might accept some type of judgement like
IRRELEVANT, INSUFFICIENT, or DISMISS, as ideas like “maybe we were just
created 1 minute ago with our memories intact” are unprovable and/or
irrelevant to our ongoing conduct of the game.  If we judged the clause
before activation, I would pick IRRELEVANT, because if failed, we’d pick
that kind of interpretation, and if it succeed, we wouldn’t be around to
care.

However, I reject this interpretation of what is being purported, for
the 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] More Actions Should Use Agoran Consent

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:13 +1100, VJ Rada wrote:
> > Actually, I wonder whether or not we should just repeal the Public Forum
> > rule? Because there are so many references to Public Fora in the rules, as
> > well as Agora is a Nomic being a rule, it feels like the existence of the
> > current Public Fora as Fora would still be implied. And having the whole
> > game seemingly destructable without objection or at power 3 seems bad (with
> > the "with objection" fiasco, for example, the registrar could have flipped
> > every forum switch to non-public)
> 
> I've screwed around with the forum list via a scam as the Registrar
> before. It was fun.
> 
> More generally, it's worth noting that we have a built in safety valve
> to a lack of fora (it's possible to send a public message via copying
> the entire playerlist in on the email individually and also stating
> that it's public). I assume that repealing the concept of a public
> forum would force us to use that. ("Public forum", as opposed to
> "public message", is hardly used; it only affects what messages are
> public by default and deregistration by inactivity. The latter should
> probably be based on public messages, rather than messages to a public
> forum.)

In thinking about this - a formal forum rule is what prevents us from
forking Agora.  If it was left to "common practice", a group of players
(let's say for the sake of argument half the players) could suddenly
decide "we're going to say that these are no longer our fora, and this 
new forum is" and there would be no logical/legal arguments to distinguish
the "real" Agora if the other half of players stayed in place (you could
quickly get parallel CFJs in each forum proclaiming itself the right one).

Now of course, anyone can take the ruleset and start their own game
anyway, but requiring a formal forum switch makes it clear what the
"original" game was, and importantly makes it clear which players have
agreed to participate in which Agora.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3580 assigned to G.

[VJ Rada]

I was with you all the way until the last paragraph. Rule 101 states
this "Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance
with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these
actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be won, but
the game never ends.". A game is a competitive activity, Competition
is a state in which a person tries to defeat others. It is the case
that a game with no players is no rule 101 game. It's also true that
rule 101 defines a game as an activity invlolving "persons, acting in
accordance with the rules". In this hypothetical, the rest of the
gamestate defines a game in which there are no players, at a lower
power than the rule which mandates players (or persons). Rule 101's
power-4 requirement of persons would override the hypothetical
power-3.9 action causing the rest of the game to recognize no persons,
at least to the extent that it, within the gamestate, destroys
humanity. (And the removal of Fora would also contradict rule 101).
It's the same with Rule 1698. You say that there is no time in this
hypothetical, so it has no effect. However, rule 1698 is power-4, it
overrides the rest of the ruleset, and its ordinary-language
definition of "weeks" can override the definition of time at 3.9 if it
must.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> CFJ 3580 statement:
>
> "If there were
> currently a power 3.9 rule purpoting to allow any person to destroy the 
> universe
> by announcement, without defining the effect of this action, and I announced 
> that
> I destroyed the universe in that way (all other aspects of the gamestate being
> as they are now), my announcement would, as far as the game is concerned, have
> the effect it purported to have."
>
>
> JUDGEMENT for CFJ 3580:
>
> The Caller’s statement involves a bit of question-begging, but we’ll try
> to get around that.  In order to know whether a Rules text does what it
> “purports” to do, we have to first figure out what it is purporting to
> do!  There are several possibilities, all of which require a pre-
> supposition of the scope and domain of the Rules.  I will try to
> explore the range of possibilities in this judgement, and offer
> potential judgements for each before selecting my final option.  For the
> purposes of this judgement, the “Protections” are defined as the power 4
> rules 101 and 1698.
>
> So, what is a Rule purporting to do if it “succeeds” at “destroying the
> universe”?
>
> The first possibility is that it purports to set the value of an
> undefined and untracked variable, and nothing else.  Under this
> supposition, if a “destroy the universe” clause is triggered, then we
> would simply say “there is now an untracked gamestate variable called
> ‘the universe’ and its value is ‘destroyed’.  Any CFJ asking whether the
> universe “has been destroyed” will now be true, and any future game
> conditional that says “if the universe has been destroyed, then X” will
> mean X is true.  Beyond that, nothing would happen.  Under this
> interpretation, this CFJ would be TRUE - we can clearly set such a
> variable without problem.  (Since this interpretation doesn’t damage
> anything that the Protections protect against, they aren’t relevant in
> this interpretation).
>
> I reject this possibility because words have meaning.  Rule 217 asks us
> to use common definitions for terms that are not rules-defined.  If the
> clause featured nonsense words, e.g. “all Slurgs are hereby Poiled”,
> then this would be the correct interpretation, because we would have no
> common sense interpretation other than to say, for CFJ purposes, that
> whenever we encounter Slurgs, they are Poiled Slurgs.  But since
> “universe” and “destroyed” both have common definitions, I reject this
> interpretation - setting a useless gamestate variable is not what a
> ‘destroy the universe’ clause is purporting to do (see CFJ 1500 for a
> similar rejection of this interpretation).
>
> The second possibility is that the clause purports that triggering it
> would actually, really, physically destroy the real world universe.
> There is no rules-internal logic that forbid the Rules from taking this
> interpretation.  In particular, if the clause were re-written to say
> “when this clause is activated, the actual, real universe is genuinely
> physically destroyed” then this, indeed, would set the rules up for a
> confrontation with reality that the Caller (in eir gratuitous arguments)
> clearly dreads.  Again, words have meaning, and words like “actual
> physical real” are hard to get around.
>
> If this were being purported by the clause, the Protections would
> protect us from facing this confrontation with reality.  If the universe
> were physically and “really” destroyed, the game would end/cease to
> exist, which would violate R101 and R1698.  So we could avoid the
> confrontation with reality and simply say FALSE, this clause would be
> blocked from taking 

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

That should be a challenge.


On 10/26/2017 04:43 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>>    Levels were:  AN 150, BN 250, Masters 750, Doctorate 1000
>> lol, our CFJs routinely go above those, we are smurt af.
> Actually, it would be a real challenge to write a thesis that has 
> reasonable content and keep it at 150 or under.
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >   Levels were:  AN 150, BN 250, Masters 750, Doctorate 1000
> 
> lol, our CFJs routinely go above those, we are smurt af.

Actually, it would be a real challenge to write a thesis that has 
reasonable content and keep it at 150 or under.

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I would rather err on the side of being overly wanting and give an A.N.,
rather than a M.N.


On 10/26/2017 12:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm still struggling a bit "leveling" Alexis's thesis.  By sheer length,
> it is clearly more than a B.N. and would fit for Masters.  However 
> (wearing my academic review hat, seriously I just got out of a review
> committee for a RL master's thesis), it's subject matter of the CFJ is
> limited in scope - while very-well analyzed, as written it has limited
> applicability or generalization outside of carefully analyzing a set of
> rules that have now been fixed.
>
> I'm going to give 24 more hours for discussion - there's currently no
> standards for theses in the rules.
>
> Just by word count, Masters.
> by content: B.N., but e has that already, so A.N.
> (ais523's suggestion of changing the rules to allow multiple degrees
> at each level is a good one, but I don't want to delay the award
> further).
>
> Also:  should we consider "academic progression" at all, e.g. "this
> would be a masters if you'd filled in the lower degrees first, but
> since you haven't, fill in the lower?"
>
> My apologies, Alexis, if I'm over-thinking this. I'm totally happy
> to error upwards in most things and give the higher award, but I'm having
> a hard time getting over the "jump" in RL between undergrad and graduate
> degree expectations in terms of the research topic being more general than
> a specific CFJ.   Since this is one of the rare Masters candidates, the 
> decision sets something of a precedent...
>
> -G.
>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

[Cuddle Beam]

I'm all up for amendments to the reward after handing in a provisional
ones, if needed. Like, it's not a win or a scam or anything, it's an honest
contribution without much of a reward except a superfluous title and good
vibes.

>   Levels were:  AN 150, BN 250, Masters 750, Doctorate 1000

lol, our CFJs routinely go above those, we are smurt af.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Thanks!  I'm thinking of formalizing the results of this discussion into
> a rule to provide better guidance - so your general thoughts very welcome.
>
> Here's a brief history of our standards from 2002 when I joined:
>
> - When I joined, there was a word count standard that included a
>progression in the form of credit for higher degrees:  e.g.
>The Degree of Associate of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least
>150 words.  A Candidate who already holds an AN Degree receives
>a credit of 100 words towards the Thesis requirement for any
>higher Degree, unless the Candidate also holds a BN Degree.
>Levels were:  AN 150, BN 250, Masters 750, Doctorate 1000
>These are *really low* limits, and most theses blew these limits out
>of the water regardless of level.
>
> - Then, we went to a system where we appointed an official Thesis
>Advisor who would recommend a level and review very critically,
>the reviews were based on content (e.g. a 1000 word limited-scope
>CFJ would be "lower" than a 1000 word deep philosophical essay).
>
> - Then a vote where the voters had the Option of choosing any degree.
>
> - Now the Herald has to pick which level to award before asking for
>2 Agoran Consent - that makes it harder for voters to pick between
>levels.
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > No issues. It would be remiss of me to participate overly much in the
> discussions
> > of the academy in regards to my own thesis.
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 at 12:56 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >   Hi folks,
> >
> >   I'm still struggling a bit "leveling" Alexis's thesis.  By sheer
> length,
> >   it is clearly more than a B.N. and would fit for Masters.  However
> >   (wearing my academic review hat, seriously I just got out of a
> review
> >   committee for a RL master's thesis), it's subject matter of the
> CFJ is
> >   limited in scope - while very-well analyzed, as written it has
> limited
> >   applicability or generalization outside of carefully analyzing a
> set of
> >   rules that have now been fixed.
> >
> >   I'm going to give 24 more hours for discussion - there's currently
> no
> >   standards for theses in the rules.
> >
> >   Just by word count, Masters.
> >   by content: B.N., but e has that already, so A.N.
> >   (ais523's suggestion of changing the rules to allow multiple
> degrees
> >   at each level is a good one, but I don't want to delay the award
> >   further).
> >
> >   Also:  should we consider "academic progression" at all, e.g. "this
> >   would be a masters if you'd filled in the lower degrees first, but
> >   since you haven't, fill in the lower?"
> >
> >   My apologies, Alexis, if I'm over-thinking this. I'm totally happy
> >   to error upwards in most things and give the higher award, but I'm
> having
> >   a hard time getting over the "jump" in RL between undergrad and
> graduate
> >   degree expectations in terms of the research topic being more
> general than
> >   a specific CFJ.   Since this is one of the rare Masters
> candidates, the
> >   decision sets something of a precedent...
> >
> >   -G.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

[Kerim Aydin]

Thanks!  I'm thinking of formalizing the results of this discussion into
a rule to provide better guidance - so your general thoughts very welcome.

Here's a brief history of our standards from 2002 when I joined:

- When I joined, there was a word count standard that included a
   progression in the form of credit for higher degrees:  e.g.
   The Degree of Associate of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least
   150 words.  A Candidate who already holds an AN Degree receives
   a credit of 100 words towards the Thesis requirement for any
   higher Degree, unless the Candidate also holds a BN Degree.
   Levels were:  AN 150, BN 250, Masters 750, Doctorate 1000
   These are *really low* limits, and most theses blew these limits out
   of the water regardless of level.

- Then, we went to a system where we appointed an official Thesis
   Advisor who would recommend a level and review very critically,
   the reviews were based on content (e.g. a 1000 word limited-scope
   CFJ would be "lower" than a 1000 word deep philosophical essay).

- Then a vote where the voters had the Option of choosing any degree.

- Now the Herald has to pick which level to award before asking for
   2 Agoran Consent - that makes it harder for voters to pick between
   levels.


On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> No issues. It would be remiss of me to participate overly much in the 
> discussions 
> of the academy in regards to my own thesis.
> 
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 at 12:56 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   Hi folks,
> 
>   I'm still struggling a bit "leveling" Alexis's thesis.  By sheer length,
>   it is clearly more than a B.N. and would fit for Masters.  However
>   (wearing my academic review hat, seriously I just got out of a review
>   committee for a RL master's thesis), it's subject matter of the CFJ is
>   limited in scope - while very-well analyzed, as written it has limited
>   applicability or generalization outside of carefully analyzing a set of
>   rules that have now been fixed.
> 
>   I'm going to give 24 more hours for discussion - there's currently no
>   standards for theses in the rules.
> 
>   Just by word count, Masters.
>   by content: B.N., but e has that already, so A.N.
>   (ais523's suggestion of changing the rules to allow multiple degrees
>   at each level is a good one, but I don't want to delay the award
>   further).
> 
>   Also:  should we consider "academic progression" at all, e.g. "this
>   would be a masters if you'd filled in the lower degrees first, but
>   since you haven't, fill in the lower?"
> 
>   My apologies, Alexis, if I'm over-thinking this. I'm totally happy
>   to error upwards in most things and give the higher award, but I'm 
> having
>   a hard time getting over the "jump" in RL between undergrad and graduate
>   degree expectations in terms of the research topic being more general 
> than
>   a specific CFJ.   Since this is one of the rare Masters candidates, the
>   decision sets something of a precedent...
> 
>   -G.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: thesis thoughts

[Alexis Hunt]

No issues. It would be remiss of me to participate overly much in the
discussions of the academy in regards to my own thesis.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 at 12:56 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm still struggling a bit "leveling" Alexis's thesis.  By sheer length,
> it is clearly more than a B.N. and would fit for Masters.  However
> (wearing my academic review hat, seriously I just got out of a review
> committee for a RL master's thesis), it's subject matter of the CFJ is
> limited in scope - while very-well analyzed, as written it has limited
> applicability or generalization outside of carefully analyzing a set of
> rules that have now been fixed.
>
> I'm going to give 24 more hours for discussion - there's currently no
> standards for theses in the rules.
>
> Just by word count, Masters.
> by content: B.N., but e has that already, so A.N.
> (ais523's suggestion of changing the rules to allow multiple degrees
> at each level is a good one, but I don't want to delay the award
> further).
>
> Also:  should we consider "academic progression" at all, e.g. "this
> would be a masters if you'd filled in the lower degrees first, but
> since you haven't, fill in the lower?"
>
> My apologies, Alexis, if I'm over-thinking this. I'm totally happy
> to error upwards in most things and give the higher award, but I'm having
> a hard time getting over the "jump" in RL between undergrad and graduate
> degree expectations in terms of the research topic being more general than
> a specific CFJ.   Since this is one of the rare Masters candidates, the
> decision sets something of a precedent...
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>

DIS: thesis thoughts

[Kerim Aydin]

Hi folks,

I'm still struggling a bit "leveling" Alexis's thesis.  By sheer length,
it is clearly more than a B.N. and would fit for Masters.  However 
(wearing my academic review hat, seriously I just got out of a review
committee for a RL master's thesis), it's subject matter of the CFJ is
limited in scope - while very-well analyzed, as written it has limited
applicability or generalization outside of carefully analyzing a set of
rules that have now been fixed.

I'm going to give 24 more hours for discussion - there's currently no
standards for theses in the rules.

Just by word count, Masters.
by content: B.N., but e has that already, so A.N.
(ais523's suggestion of changing the rules to allow multiple degrees
at each level is a good one, but I don't want to delay the award
further).

Also:  should we consider "academic progression" at all, e.g. "this
would be a masters if you'd filled in the lower degrees first, but
since you haven't, fill in the lower?"

My apologies, Alexis, if I'm over-thinking this. I'm totally happy
to error upwards in most things and give the higher award, but I'm having
a hard time getting over the "jump" in RL between undergrad and graduate
degree expectations in terms of the research topic being more general than
a specific CFJ.   Since this is one of the rare Masters candidates, the 
decision sets something of a precedent...

-G.

Re: DIS: A Fearmongor's Halloween - braaains

[ATMunn]

haha this is great, I like it.

On 10/25/2017 10:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



[OK, you folks with your forced deregistrations by proposal are rushing me].

PLEASE withdraw those deregistrations.  This is a much better idea - Trust me!


Draft Proposal, AI-2 (re-enactment for fearmongor):

Re-enact the following Rule (I need to look up the Rule number):

 Master is a player switch with possible values of any player,
 and Agora.  Every player's default Master is emself.  A player
 CAN always set eir own master to emself by announcement.

 A person whose Master is not emself is a Zombie.

 If a player has not made a public announcement in 60 days, then
 any player CAN flip that player's Master to Agora by announcement.

 A zombie's master CAN act on behalf of the zombie to perform
 any LEGAL action that the Zombie CAN perform via public
 announcement.

 Whenever a player has Agora for a master, the Registrar SHALL
 in a timely fashion initiate an auction for that zombie.
 (insert auction specifics here).


 

  

 

Re: DIS: Proto: Complete Economic Overhaul

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

While you're at it, could you rename Economics as Shinies?


On 10/25/2017 09:29 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
> In the interest of collaborating with everyone else that is working on
> econ-related proposals, I'm posting the drafts of my Econ Overhaul as
> they get written. Here's the first one. Would love any feedback.
>
> # Shinies
>
> Amend 2483 'Economics' to read, in full:
>
>    Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are a liquid currency
>    and the official currency of Agora.
>
>    If Agora would own shinies, they are instead destroyed.
>
>    The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.
>
> Repeal 2487 'Shiny Supply Level'
>
> Amend 2496 'Rewards' to read, in full:
>
>    A Reward is a specified amount of shinies associated with a Reward
>    Condition. For each time a player meets a Reward Condition, e CAN
>    and MAY claim the specified award, by announcement, exactly once
>    within 24 hours of meeting the Reward Condition.
>
>    When a player 'claims' a Reward, the specified number of shinies are
>    created in eir possession.
>
>    Below is an exhaustive list of Reward Conditions and eir rewards:
>
>    * Being the author of an adopted proposal: 5 sh.
>
>    * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to: 5 sh.
>
>    * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 sh. This reward
>  can only be claimed once per office per week for a weekly report
>  and once per office per month for a monthly report.
>
>    * Resolving an Agoran Decision for the first time this week: 5 sh.
>
>    * Having a Thesis pass peer-review and be granted a Degree based on
>  its merit: 20 sh.
>
> [NOTE: I removed the Pend Reward.]
>
> [TODO: Add definitions to better distinguish first drafts of reports and
> amended reports.]
>
> [TODO: Replace blue cards with fines. Players get fined for bad reports
> and mooted judgements. If they can't pay the fine, they can be carded.]
>
> Repeal 2497 'Floating Value'
>
> Repeal 2499 'Welcome Packages'
>
> Repeal 2508 'Community Chest'
>
> Amend 2516 to read, in full:
>
>    As part of eir monthly duties, the Secretary SHALL, for every player,
>    create in eir possession 50 shinies.
>
>    As part of eir weekly duties, the Secretary SHALL, for every player
>    that registered in the last week, create in eir possession 50
>    shinies.
>
> [NOTE: 50 is enough to perform 5 actions under the Triangular Costs
> paradigm, and still have a bit left over.]
>
> Repeal 2500 'Action Points'
>
> Enact a new Power 1 rule titled 'Triangular Costs' with the following
> text:
>
>    Action Cost is a player switch, with possible values of triangular
>    numbers, and default value of 1. At the beginning of every month,
>    every player's Action Cost is set to 1.
>
> [NOTE: I have no explanation for using triangular numbers except it
> feels good.]
>
> Amend 2445 'How to Pend a Proposal' by replacing the paragraphs
> starting with 'a)' and 'b)' with:
>
>    a) by spending 1 Pending Ticket, OR
>
>    b) by paying eir Action Cost in shinies. Eir Action Cost is then
>   flipped to the next highest triangular number.
>
> Amend 991 'Calls for Judgement' by replacing the paragraphs starting
> with 'a)' and 'b)' with:
>
>    a) by spending 1 CFJ Ticket, OR
>
>    b) by paying eir Action Cost in shinies. Eir Action Cost is then
>   flipped to the next highest triangular number.
>
> # Estates
>
> [TODO: All of this]
>
> # Stamps
>
> Amend 2498 'Economic Wins' by changing its title to "Stamps"
> and amending it to read in full:
>
>    Stamps are an asset. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor of Stamps.
>
>    Each stamp has an associated Series and Value. The Series of a Stamp
>    is assigned at its creation.
>
>    The Value of a given stamp is the current total number of stamps
>    divided by the current total number of stamps within the same Series.
>
> Create a new Power 1 rule titled "Stamp Collections" with the following
> text:
>
>    A Collection is any three stamps fitting some condition. A Collection
>    has a Value, and CAN be destroyed by announcement to create that
>    value in shinies.
>
>    A Set is a Collection where all stamps are of the same Series. A set
>    has a value equal to three time the sum of the values of the stamps
>    in it.
>
>    A Run is a Collection where all stamps are of different Series. A run
>    has a value equal to the sum of the values of the stamps in it.
>
>    A player MAY destroy any Collection e owns by announcement to create,
>    in eir possession, the Collection's Value in shinies.
>
>    When the Treasuror publishes eir weekly report, e SHALL destroy
>    any Collections any player owns to create, in that player's
>    possession, the Collection's Value in shinies.
>
> TODO: Weekly, Agora either auctions any stamps it has or creates three
> of the same Series, randomly chosen from the list of current players,
> and auctions them.
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature