DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Why Not All Of Them?
A few comments inline.
Gaelan
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 6:35 PM, Nch wrote:
>
> Since we're spitballing ideas anyway right now...
>
> I intend to, after some time for review, submit the following proposal,
> "Roulette Gaming", with AI=1:
>
> Enact a power-0.6 rule titled "Roulette Gaming" with the following text {
>
> If a rule with power less than the power of this rule declares itself a
> "Roulette Game Rule" in its text, all other parts of its text are null and
> void unless this rule states otherwise.
>
> Roulette Arrow is a singleton switch, tracked by the Registrar, with possible
> values of all Roulette Game Rules and null.
>
> When a player wins due to the text of a Roulette Game Rule, the Roulette
> Arrow is flipped to null.
What if a Roulette Game Rule defines an office, and a player deputizes for that
office, earning them a Cyan ribbon, which is the last ribbon they need to Raise
a Banner? I think we need to clarify what “wins due to” means.
>
> The Registrar CAN flip the Roulette Arrow to null without objection.
>
> If the Roulette Arrow is flipped to null the Registrar CAN, by announcement,
> flip it to any Roulette Game Rule. E SHOULD flip it to one by randomly
> selecting one from all possible options.
I think we can use R2505 to just say “flip it to a random Roulette Game Rule."
>
> The text of a Roulette Game Rule is valid and in effect as long as the
> Roulette Arrow switch is flipped to it.
>
> }
>
> ---
> Nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [Herald] Subgame-in-a-Rule contest vote open!
Ooh, how do we define local time? Some possibilities I see: 1) A time zone switch, with some reasonable timeout for switching it. Could be a little annoying if someone’s going to a substantially different time zone for a few days. 2) The time zone where the player currently physically is—I think Agorans are generally trustworthy enough to pull this off? Could have some weird stuff with people hopping back and forth over time zone borders, which could be seen as aa good or bad thing. 3) Something based on message statistics. For example, we could take the (UTC) hour when someone has posted most of their public messages in the past year, and say their hot potato deadline is at the end of that hour. This has the advantage of matching someone’s individual schedule, not just their time zone, but has the same problem as #1 and also has the risk of scams involving spamming public fora. Gaelan > On Oct 20, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 10/20/2019 3:20 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: >> Hot Potato has huge timezone issues. I can't see any reason not to pass >> the potato at just before UTC midnight every day, holding onto it until >> then, which gives the advantage to players with fast email connections >> to the Agoran mailservers and who can consistently be awake at UTC >> midnight. My experience with mechanics like this is that they can ruin >> the life of anyone who's really trying hard to win. > > You know, I think this is my last place one for that reason too, I > considered it a bit when I wrote it but didn't have a great solution. > HOWEVER, it occurs to me now that it could be really interesting to have > (for once) a game that depended on each local timezone (you have to get rid > of it at 5pm your local time). This could mean that a well-coordinated > effort could push it through timezones so it never triggered. > > -G. >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 6:45 PM Nch wrote: > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Sunday, October 20, 2019 8:43 PM, Nch wrote: > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Sunday, October 20, 2019 5:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote: > > > > > Herald's Weekly report > > > Date of Last Report: 06 Oct 2019 > > > Date of This Report: 20 Oct 2019 > > > Karma Entity > > > +6 Aris <= SHOGUN > > > +5 G. > > > - ABOVE +4 STAND THE SAMURAI > > > +3 Trigon > > > +3 twg > > > +1 Falsifian > > > +1 Jason Cobb > > > 00 Agora > > > -1 omd > > > -1 nch > > > > Oh, honour is a person switch. > > > > +1 nch because new starts should be fresh starts, right? > > -1 Aris because no one Agoran should have all that power. > > TTttPF, and the above is a notice of honour if that was not clear. > I’m afraid you can’t give honor to yourself. Now, if you wanted to reverse the direction of the transaction, that would be another story... (The last bit is a joke, for the record.) -Aris
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, October 20, 2019 5:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Herald's Weekly report > > Date of Last Report: 06 Oct 2019 > Date of This Report: 20 Oct 2019 > > Karma Entity > > +6 Aris <= SHOGUN > +5 G. > > - ABOVE +4 STAND THE SAMURAI > > +3 Trigon > +3 twg > +1 Falsifian > +1 Jason Cobb > 00 Agora > -1 omd > -1 nch Oh, honour is a person switch. +1 nch because new starts should be fresh starts, right? -1 Aris because no one Agoran should have all that power.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] and if you go for that one...
On 10/20/19 9:18 PM, Nch wrote:
On its face I don't think this or the other two work. However I think it might
be possible to do this...
I submit the following proposal, "Persistent", AI=3 {
When this rule is amended, also amend it by appending this sentence to the end
of the rule.
}
NttPF.
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] and if you go for that one...
On 10/20/19 8:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: One week after this sentence is modified in any way, this rule is amended by inserting this sentence as the first paragraph of this rule. Is this clear enough on the Instrument performing the amending? -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] and if you go for that one...
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I submit the following proposal, "trick candles", AI=1:
>
> --
>
> Create a Rule entitled "Blink" with the following text:
> One week after this sentence is modified in any way, this rule
> is amended by inserting this sentence as the first paragraph of
> this rule.
>
On its face I don't think this or the other two work. However I think it might
be possible to do this...
I submit the following proposal, "Persistent", AI=3 {
When this rule is amended, also amend it by appending this sentence to the end
of the rule.
}
DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [Herald] Subgame-in-a-Rule contest vote open!
On 10/20/2019 3:20 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: Hot Potato has huge timezone issues. I can't see any reason not to pass the potato at just before UTC midnight every day, holding onto it until then, which gives the advantage to players with fast email connections to the Agoran mailservers and who can consistently be awake at UTC midnight. My experience with mechanics like this is that they can ruin the life of anyone who's really trying hard to win. You know, I think this is my last place one for that reason too, I considered it a bit when I wrote it but didn't have a great solution. HOWEVER, it occurs to me now that it could be really interesting to have (for once) a game that depended on each local timezone (you have to get rid of it at 5pm your local time). This could mean that a well-coordinated effort could push it through timezones so it never triggered. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] two true zombies
On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 17:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I submit the following proposal, The Low Zombie, AI-1: > --- > > Create a Rule titled "Boo!" with the following text: >One week after this rule is repealed, it is reenacted. > > --- Oddly enough (given our prior conversation), I don't think this (nor the power-3 version) works, because it attempts to do something at a future time rather than the time at which it's repealed. (There's no harm in trying, though; it should be easy enough to definitively get rid of them via a higher-power rule that prevents the rules in question being re-enacted.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [Herald] Subgame-in-a-Rule contest vote open!
On 10/20/19 6:20 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: (is there anything preventing you immediately rejoining? did you mean to exile player who try and fail?), but that's fixable. Yep, that's what it was. I'll fix that if it ever gets proposed. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [Herald] Subgame-in-a-Rule contest vote open!
On 10/20/2019 3:12 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Votes so far from: Falsifian, Jason Cobb. > > I voted [Fruits of Persistence and Patience, Hot Potato, Clairvoyant > Roshambo, The > Watch]. You even replied to it. :P You know, I *thought* you'd voted. I wonder why my search terms didn't find it today. thx for voting!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clean up your own mess
FWIW, the intention of my proposal was to handle broken rules better, not to
make this a legitimate method of tracking switches. Apologies if you already
understood that.
Gaelan
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> A more general comment on both this and Murphy's proposal - maybe, if we're
> in the mood to embark on a handful of minigames, we should create a new
> office with the up-front understanding that the particular office should be
> assigned tracking of the various minigames, so anyone holding the office
> would be effectively consenting to deal with minigame switches.
>
> Basically The Fat Director, but with a proactive scope of "game-tracking".
>
> (If we introduce a bunch at once, maybe we should actually score them so you
> need to win 3 minigames to win the game or something, so we don't have to
> worry about whether each one causes too many wins).
>
> -G.
>
> On 10/20/2019 2:40 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Bleh.
>> I note that holding a potentially-infinite number of offices would be an
>> amusing punishment for lazy rule-writing, but conclude that it’s a little
>> harsh. I retract my proposal and submit the following one:
>> {
>> Title: Clean up your own mess, without making a bigger one
>> AI: 1
>> Co-authors: Jason Cobb
>> Remove the following paragraph from Rule 2139 “The Registrar”: {
>> The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches,
>> defined in a rule, that would otherwise lack an officer to track
>> them, unless the switch is defined as untracked.
>> }
>> Create a power-1 rule titled “Switch Responsibility” with the following
>> text: {
>> For each switch which would otherwise lack an officer to track it, and is
>> not defined as untracked, there exists an imposed office named “Tracker of
>> [switch name]” that is responsible for tracking that switch.
>> }
>> [1006/44 states:
>> When a proposal takes effect and creates a new office, if the
>> proposal does not specify otherwise, the author of that proposal
>> becomes the holder of the office.
>> I think this works, but we might need to clarify the meaning of “creates a
>> new office” to be sure.]
>> }
>>> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:30 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/20/19 5:21 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Create a power-1 rule titled “Switch Responsibility” with the following
text: {
For each switch which would otherwise lack an officer to track it, and is
not defined as untracked, there exists an imposed office named “Tracker of
[switch name]” that is responsible for tracking that switch.
}
>>>
>>>
>>> I get the intent, but would this create an office per type of switch or per
>>> instance of a switch?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jason Cobb
>>>
DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [Herald] Subgame-in-a-Rule contest vote open!
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Votes so far from: Falsifian, Jason Cobb. I voted [Fruits of Persistence and Patience, Hot Potato, Clairvoyant Roshambo, The Watch]. You even replied to it. :P -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different sort of subgame-in-a-single-rule
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 9:15 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > I object. Can't you CFJ this, like people normally do with ambiguous > registrations, rather than simply trying to disregard the issue > entirely? Oh, I wasn't even thinking of your "proposal" as a potentially ambiguous registration, I was thinking along the lines of "what if e has a document saying e's a player set to ratify in the near future as correct within the last week or so". Not that that would have been particularly damaging anyway. (Actually, I was mostly thinking "e's probably just playing mind games, but what the hell, I'll play along".) -twg
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Sun., Oct. 20, 2019, 05:08 Timon Walshe-Grey, wrote: > On Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:39 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey > wrote: > > On Sunday, October 20, 2019 6:09 AM, Aris Merchant > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: > > > A draft follows. I'm aware my ordering is... unconventional. It's for > > > the befuddlement of future generations, and is all part of the fun. > > > > > > -Aris > > > > Jason Cobb is a co-author to 8256 as well. I don't see any other errors. > > > > -twg > > Oh, but actually, I feel a bit uneasy about distributing it at all while > CFJ 3775 is still unjudged, for the reasons Falsifian outlined earlier. Not > sure what the most convenient way of arranging that is though - would you > like me to retract it temporarily until Monday morning? (Of course this may > be rendered moot if 3775 is judged soon.) > > -twg > It's possible, but pretty unlikely, that I'll judge it in the next two hours. - Falsifian >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clean up your own mess
A more general comment on both this and Murphy's proposal - maybe, if we're
in the mood to embark on a handful of minigames, we should create a new
office with the up-front understanding that the particular office should be
assigned tracking of the various minigames, so anyone holding the office
would be effectively consenting to deal with minigame switches.
Basically The Fat Director, but with a proactive scope of "game-tracking".
(If we introduce a bunch at once, maybe we should actually score them so you
need to win 3 minigames to win the game or something, so we don't have to
worry about whether each one causes too many wins).
-G.
On 10/20/2019 2:40 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Bleh.
I note that holding a potentially-infinite number of offices would be an
amusing punishment for lazy rule-writing, but conclude that it’s a little
harsh. I retract my proposal and submit the following one:
{
Title: Clean up your own mess, without making a bigger one
AI: 1
Co-authors: Jason Cobb
Remove the following paragraph from Rule 2139 “The Registrar”: {
The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches,
defined in a rule, that would otherwise lack an officer to track
them, unless the switch is defined as untracked.
}
Create a power-1 rule titled “Switch Responsibility” with the following text: {
For each switch which would otherwise lack an officer to track it, and is not
defined as untracked, there exists an imposed office named “Tracker of [switch
name]” that is responsible for tracking that switch.
}
[1006/44 states:
When a proposal takes effect and creates a new office, if the
proposal does not specify otherwise, the author of that proposal
becomes the holder of the office.
I think this works, but we might need to clarify the meaning of “creates a new
office” to be sure.]
}
On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:30 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 10/20/19 5:21 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Create a power-1 rule titled “Switch Responsibility” with the following text: {
For each switch which would otherwise lack an officer to track it, and is not
defined as untracked, there exists an imposed office named “Tracker of [switch
name]” that is responsible for tracking that switch.
}
I get the intent, but would this create an office per type of switch or per
instance of a switch?
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different sort of subgame-in-a-single-rule
On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 14:43 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > But if the rule is repealed, it's not part of the power structure anymore, > either. R2449 states "When the Rules state that a person or persons win the > game, those persons win the game". If the rule has been repealed, the rules > just plain old don't state that anymore. > > To sharpen it, this is basically the same as "when this sentence no longer > has any effect on the game, then the person wins". If the person wins due > to this clause, then the sentence is having an effect on the game, so the > condition hasn't been satisfied, so the person doesn't win. No, it's basically the same as "when a process causes this sentence to no longer have an effect on the game, then the person wins". It's not talking about the state that exists immediately after repealing, but the act of the repeal itself. It's obvious that a rule has no effect on the game after it's been repealed, but it isn't obvious that a rule has no effect on the game as it's being repealed. (In fact, I'd argue for the opposite, otherwise an attempt to simultaneously repeal rule 105 and another rule would succeed becaus rule 105 wouldn't be able to have any effect on its own repeal.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different sort of subgame-in-a-single-rule
On 10/20/2019 2:36 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 14:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Does this actually work? When the rule is repealed, it's gone, and >> therefore can't cause a win. You could say it's a fencepost issue (e.g. >> the >> repeal and the win happen simultaneously) but that doesn't really work, >> because it's a logical contradiction: "only an existing rule can cause a >> win, so if it causes a win, it hasn't been repealed". > > I don't think it's impossible for a rule to specify consequences for > repealing it. I agree that the interaction with rule 2449 is unclear, > though. > > Power could be involved here: a natural reading of the new rule is that > it's implying an additional consequence into the mechanism that repeals > it, but I'm not sure it's possible to do that without outpowering the > mechanism in question. But if the rule is repealed, it's not part of the power structure anymore, either. R2449 states "When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game, those persons win the game". If the rule has been repealed, the rules just plain old don't state that anymore. To sharpen it, this is basically the same as "when this sentence no longer has any effect on the game, then the person wins". If the person wins due to this clause, then the sentence is having an effect on the game, so the condition hasn't been satisfied, so the person doesn't win. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration.
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 10/20/2019 2:15 PM, Ada Worcester wrote: > > I register. > > > > -- > > Ada "pikhq" Worcester, Agoran Spy > > Oh hey, welcome back! Unless you're spying again -quick check all the other > Nomics! :) Do you want to be known as pikhq or Ada (or something else?) > > -G. > > > > I would prefer "pikhq", thanks for asking! (this is probably the easiest for record keeping consistency, regardless :) ) -- Ada "pikhq" Worcester, Agoran Spy
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different sort of subgame-in-a-single-rule
On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 14:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Does this actually work? When the rule is repealed, it's gone, and > therefore can't cause a win. You could say it's a fencepost issue (e.g. the > repeal and the win happen simultaneously) but that doesn't really work, > because it's a logical contradiction: "only an existing rule can cause a > win, so if it causes a win, it hasn't been repealed". I don't think it's impossible for a rule to specify consequences for repealing it. I agree that the interaction with rule 2449 is unclear, though. Power could be involved here: a natural reading of the new rule is that it's implying an additional consequence into the mechanism that repeals it, but I'm not sure it's possible to do that without outpowering the mechanism in question. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration.
On 10/20/2019 2:15 PM, Ada Worcester wrote: I register. -- Ada "pikhq" Worcester, Agoran Spy Oh hey, welcome back! Unless you're spying again -quick check all the other Nomics! :) Do you want to be known as pikhq or Ada (or something else?) -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: A different sort of subgame-in-a-single-rule
On 10/20/2019 12:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> Right now, I submit the following proposal, "Undo This Proposal", AI 1:
>
> Create a new Power-0.5 rule, "Repeal This Rule":
> {{{
> When this rule is repealed by a proposal, the author of that proposal
> wins the game.
>
> When this rule is repealed by means other than a proposal, the author
> of the most recent message that was a causal factor of the repeal of
> the rule wins the game. (A message is a "causal factor" of an event if
> the event occurred, but would not have occurred if the message had not
> been sent.)
> }}}
>
>
Does this actually work? When the rule is repealed, it's gone, and
therefore can't cause a win. You could say it's a fencepost issue (e.g. the
repeal and the win happen simultaneously) but that doesn't really work,
because it's a logical contradiction: "only an existing rule can cause a
win, so if it causes a win, it hasn't been repealed".
-G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clean up your own mess
On 10/20/19 5:21 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Create a power-1 rule titled “Switch Responsibility” with the following text: {
For each switch which would otherwise lack an officer to track it, and is not
defined as untracked, there exists an imposed office named “Tracker of [switch
name]” that is responsible for tracking that switch.
}
I get the intent, but would this create an office per type of switch or
per instance of a switch?
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: A different sort of subgame-in-a-single-rule
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> Right now, I submit the following proposal, "Undo This Proposal", AI 1:
>
> Create a new Power-0.5 rule, "Repeal This Rule":
> {{{
> When this rule is repealed by a proposal, the author of that proposal
> wins the game.
>
> When this rule is repealed by means other than a proposal, the author
> of the most recent message that was a causal factor of the repeal of
> the rule wins the game. (A message is a "causal factor" of an event if
> the event occurred, but would not have occurred if the message had not
> been sent.)
> }}}
>
I intend without objection to ratify the following document: {ais523 is not a
player. This document was true at 7pm UTC on 20 Oct 2019.}
-twg
DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
Unofficial correction to the below report: CuddleBeam and Walker were zombies at the time it was published, so should have been listed in the Zombie section. On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 03:36, James Cook wrote: > > > Forbes 500 > > > Date of this report: 2019-10-15 > Date of last report: 2019-10-08 > > Archive of reports on the web: > https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/reports/weekly/ > > > ASSET INDEX > > This section does not self-ratify. > >Asset classRecordkeeporOwnership >---- >Coins Treasuror Agora, players, contracts >Blots Referee Persons > > > COIN BALANCES > > This section self-ratifies. > Entities not listed have a Coin balance of 0. > >CoinsActive player >-- > 249Aris > 50Baron von Vaderham > 114CuddleBeam > 1099D. Margaux > 749Falsifian > 1305G. > 20Gaelan > 599Jason Cobb > 365Murphy > 181omd > 570Trigon > 942twg > 54Walker > >CoinsZombie >--- >0ATMunn > 10Bernie >0Jacob Arduino > 10o > 10Rance > >CoinsNon-player entity >-- > 1484Agora > 87Lost and Found Department > > > RECENT HISTORY > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify. > > Entity Change Date (UTC)Reason > > G. + 30c. 2019-10-14 04:40 Reward (Proposal 8251) > Jason Cobb + 6c. 2019-10-14 03:20 Reward (Proposal 8252) > Jason Cobb + 5c. 2019-10-14 03:20 Reward (assessing a proposal) > Gaelan + 10c. 2019-10-08 15:16 Welcome Package > twg + 10c. 2019-10-08 12:08 Transfer from Jacob Arduino > Jacob Arduino- 10c. 2019-10-08 12:08 Transfer to twg > Falsifian+ 10c. 2019-10-08 00:27 Transfer from ATMunn > ATMunn - 10c. 2019-10-08 00:27 Transfer to Falsifian > Falsifian+ 5c. 2019-10-08 00:27 Reward (Treasuror weekly) > Falsifian+ 5c. 2019-10-08 00:27 Reward (Registrar weekly) > -- last weekly report -- 2019-10-08 00:25 -- last weekly report -- > Falsifian+ 5c. 2019-10-07 12:08 Reward (Treasuror weekly) > Falsifian+ 5c. 2019-10-07 12:08 Reward (Registrar weekly) > G. + 5c. 2019-10-06 20:40 Reward (Arbitor weekly) > G. + 5c. 2019-10-06 20:40 Reward (Herald weekly) > Jason Cobb + 5c. 2019-10-05 02:10 Reward (assessing a proposal) > Jason Cobb + 7c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer from Ref. Church [1] > Ref. Church [1] - 7c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer to Jason Cobb > Ref. Church [1] + 3c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer from Jason Cobb > Jason Cobb - 3c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer to Ref. Church [1] > Jason Cobb + 7c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer from Ref. Church [1] > Ref. Church [1] - 7c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer to Jason Cobb > Ref. Church [1] + 3c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer from Jason Cobb > Jason Cobb - 3c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer to Ref. Church [1] > Jason Cobb + 7c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer from Ref. Church [1] > Ref. Church [1] - 7c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer to Jason Cobb > Ref. Church [1] + 3c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer from Jason Cobb > Jason Cobb - 3c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer to Ref. Church [1] > Jason Cobb + 7c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer from Ref. Church [1] > Ref. Church [1] - 7c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer to Jason Cobb > Ref. Church [1] + 3c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer from Jason Cobb > Jason Cobb - 3c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer to Ref. Church [1] > Jason Cobb + 7c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer from Ref. Church [1] > Ref. Church [1] - 7c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer to Jason Cobb > Ref. Church [1] + 3c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer from Jason Cobb > Jason Cobb - 3c. 2019-10-02 15:40 Transfer to Ref. Church [1] > Falsifian+ 5c. 2019-10-01 00:00 Payday (Treasuror) > G. + 5c. 2019-10-01 00:00 Payday (Tailor) > Jason Cobb + 5c. 2019-10-01 00:00 Payday (Speaker) > Trigon + 5c. 2019-10-01 00:00 Payday (Rulekeepor) > Falsifian+ 5c. 2019-10-01 00:00 Payday (Registrar) > twg + 5c. 2019-10-01 00:00 Payday (Referee) > Aris + 5c. 2019-10-01 00:00 Payday (Promotor) > G. + 5c. 2019
DIS: Re: BUS: Yes, Prime Minister
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 18:20, Edward Murphy wrote: > > Proposal: Yes, Prime Minister > (AI = 2, co-author = Gaelan) > > Amend Rule 2193 (The Registrar) by removing this text: Should be 2139. -- - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: The Fat Director
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 12:14 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > Proposal: The Fat Director > (AI = 2, co-authors = Gaelan, G.) > > Amend Rule 2193 (The Registrar) by removing this text: > >The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches, >defined in a rule, that would otherwise lack an officer to track >them, unless the switch is defined as untracked. > > Amend Rule 2423 (First Among Equals) by removing this text: > >The Prime Minister is responsible for tracking any switches >defined by the rules, not defined as untracked, and not defined >as tracked by another officer. > > Create a rule titled "The Fat Director" with Power 2 and this text: > >The Fat Director is an imposed office. > >A loose switch is a switch defined by the rules, not defined as >untracked, and not defined as tracked by an officer other than the >Fat Director. The Fat Director is responsible for tracking any >loose switches. > >When a proposal creates a loose switch or causes a switch to >become loose, the Fat Director is set to the author of that >proposal. If the Fat Director is vacant and any loose switches >exist, then the Registrar CAN set the Fat Director to any player >by announcement. Any player CAN become the Fat Director by >announcement. > > [Would have called it "Fat Controllor", but that would be too close > to "Comptrollor", and I didn't want to merge it with that either.] I like the concept, but I’m not sold on the name. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different sort of subgame-in-a-single-rule
On 10/20/19 3:15 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 15:12 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: On 10/20/19 3:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: Right now, I submit the following proposal, "Undo This Proposal", AI 1: R2350 says that only players can create proposals, so I think this fails. I was aware of this at the time I wrote the message. Sorry, then. I think it's a safe assumption that something weird is going on here, so I'll just sit back and watch. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different sort of subgame-in-a-single-rule
On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 15:12 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 10/20/19 3:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > > Right now, I submit the following proposal, "Undo This Proposal", > > AI 1: > > R2350 says that only players can create proposals, so I think this > fails. I was aware of this at the time I wrote the message. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Fwd: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis
On 10/20/19 2:46 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: R2152 actually covers both of those, using CANNOT (etc.) for platonic cases and MAY NOT (etc.) for pragmatic cases. So a rule taking the platonic approach to its subject may or may not make that approach explicit by depending on the relevant parts of R2152. Alright, that's fair. I'll drop those comments on R2152. I might try to work the Vanyel reference in somewhere else, but I can't guarantee anything. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: A different sort of subgame-in-a-single-rule
On 10/20/19 3:04 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: Right now, I submit the following proposal, "Undo This Proposal", AI 1: R2350 says that only players can create proposals, so I think this fails. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] on ruleset ratification
My 2 cents: I believe the answer to this is TRUE. I think game custom provides that the Ruleset is the set-of-all-rules. I am not sure what the alternative definition could be. There’s no reason for the Ruleset to be a subset-of-all-rules, and we wouldn’t have any principled way to discern which rules are included in that Ruleset and which aren’t. If the Ruleset is the set-of-all-rules, then ratifying the Ruleset would “modif[y]” the “gamestate” to what“what it would be if, at the time the [Short Logical Ruleset] was published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified [Short Logical Ruleset] as true and accurate as possible.” I think that would imply that the gamestate is modified such that the SLR would truly and accurately represent the set-of-all-rules, with the implication that any rule not in the ratified SLR would cease to exist. > On Sep 28, 2019, at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > CFJ: Ratifying the SLR also ratifies the fact that no other > Rules (other than those in the ratified SLR) exist. > > > Caller's Arguments: > > By R1681, the SLR is a format of the ruleset: > > The Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. > > By R1051, it is also part of the Rulekeepor's Weekly Report: > > The Rulekeepor's Weekly report includes the Short Logical Ruleset. > > In the rules, "the ruleset" is not explicitly defined, but a common > definition would be "the set of all rules". > > So does ratifying the SLR ratify the implication that there are > no other rules (i.e. that the ratified set is complete)? Note that in > some types of reports we explicitly handle/cover missing values, e.g. > in R2162 for switches: > > a public document > >purporting to be this portion of that officer's report is > >self-ratifying, and implies that other instances are at their > >default value. > > We don't have text like that for the SLR/the ruleset. > > If it's useful, here's how Proposal 8175 (adopted 08-May-2019) phrased the > last SLR ratification: > > ID: 8175 > > Title: SLR Ratification > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 24th of February, 2019, > > available here [1]. > > > > [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official > > /2019-February/012797.html >
DIS: Re: BUS: Popularity* Contest v2
On 10/20/19 11:23 AM, Nch wrote: I submit the following proposal: Proposal: Popularity* Contest Co-Author: Jason Cobb AI: 0.5 Oh, and I just realized that all of the switches defined in this rule are not specified as being tracked or untracked, and thus are tracked by the Registrar. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Fwd: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 10:53:36 -0700
From: Edward Murphy
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Jason Cobb wrote:
2.6.1 Rule 2152
Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") is the rule that defines that pertain to
entities attempting to do things, and (generally people) being punished
for or required to do something. Thus, rules that depend on R2152 could
be considered to be more "pragmatic", dealing with the knowledge that
sometimes people may attempt to do things that they cannot, or they
might do something illegal, while rules that don't depend on this rule
can be said to be more "platonic" (names shamelessly stolen from
[VANYEL] (RIP nomic.net)).
R2152 actually covers both of those, using CANNOT (etc.) for platonic
cases and MAY NOT (etc.) for pragmatic cases. So a rule taking the
platonic approach to its subject may or may not make that approach
explicit by depending on the relevant parts of R2152.
IIRC, common usage of Vanyel's terms drifted over time: "platonic" came
to refer to games interpreted as having some objective gamestate
independent of what anyone believed it was, "pragmatic" to the
interpretation that only player consensus matters, and "plato-pragmatic"
to rules that platonically implement pragmatic outcomes where desired,
e.g. stating that events only occur when announced (avoiding "occurs
automatically at time T" triggers), or mechanisms like ratification that
platonically adjust the objective gamestate to match some definition of
platonic consensus. The latter goes back to at least late 1994, e.g.
https://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/vanyel0_lr_19941122.mbox
includes a proto-ratification clause in the last paragraph of Rule 925.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yes, Prime Minister
G. wrote: On 10/20/2019 11:20 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: > Proposal: Yes, Prime Minister > (AI = 2, co-author = Gaelan) > > Amend Rule 2193 (The Registrar) by removing this text: > > The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches, > defined in a rule, that would otherwise lack an officer to track > them, unless the switch is defined as untracked. > > Amend Rule 2423 (First Among Equals) by appending this text: > > The Prime Minister is responsible for tracking any switches > defined by the rules, not defined as untracked, and not defined > as tracked by another officer. Ugh. I really dislike this one. Prime Minister should be a "perk" office and tying it to tracking a bunch of switches doesn't seem appropriate at all. In general, it's just plain Bad Form to propose a new subgame that the proposer dumps on another officer. Of course it is, but IMO it's Worse Form to dump them on the Registrar who actually has important work to do, whereas making Prime Minister a perk office with occasional annoying duties still fits the theme. Still, alternative fix coming up.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Popularity* Contest v2
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 9:11 AM, Nch wrote:
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:56 AM, Jason Cobb
>>> wrote:
>> Sorry, I know this isn't a proto anymore, but I think this may still be
>> broken.
>>> On 10/20/19 11:23 AM, Nch wrote:
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>> Proposal: Popularity* Contest
>>> Co-Author: Jason Cobb
>>> AI: 0.5
>>> Create a power=0.5 rule titled “Popularity* Contest” with the following
>>> text {
>>> When this rule is enacted, a Popularity* Contest begins.
>> Can a Rule apply an effect on the instant that it is enacted? I would
>> think that since it isn't a Rule until after the enactment is finished,
>> it doesn't take effect until then, but I haven't researched this at all.
>
> Good question actually. If this doesn't work I wonder if "when this rule
> begins to take effect" or something similar works. Surely we've done effects
> like this before, so there must be some sort of precedent I'm forgetting.
The usual way to do this is to do it in the proposal, not the rule.
Gaelan
>>> Once a day, each Contestant may, by announcement, flip eir Contestant
>>> switch to any valid value.
>> Two things: I think you meant "Target switch", and, if R2152's
>> definition of "may" is read as applying here, this doesn't actually
>> enable a person to a flip any switches, it only makes it LEGAL for em to
>> do so.
>
> Man, I'm terrible with 2152. I always forget to double check its definitions,
> and I personally find the way we read CAN and MAY confusing (if it's not
> illegal to do something it seems to me that that means the thing happens
> unless there's reason to doubt it). I'm rewriting these parts now and will
> resubmit later today after giving more time for people to notice any
> potential issues.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis
On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 11:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I think this thesis is at least Masters level. I think a really good > comparison would be to look at ais523's Master and PhD theses to see > where this falls in between those. If the provided links/search > don't have those, I'll dig for them and post links before asking for > consent. I submitted the D.N.Phil as judge's arguments for CFJ 3381, so interested people can find it in your CFJ archive here: < https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3381> -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Yes, Prime Minister
On 10/20/2019 11:20 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: > Proposal: Yes, Prime Minister > (AI = 2, co-author = Gaelan) > > Amend Rule 2193 (The Registrar) by removing this text: > >The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches, >defined in a rule, that would otherwise lack an officer to track >them, unless the switch is defined as untracked. > > Amend Rule 2423 (First Among Equals) by appending this text: > >The Prime Minister is responsible for tracking any switches >defined by the rules, not defined as untracked, and not defined >as tracked by another officer. Ugh. I really dislike this one. Prime Minister should be a "perk" office and tying it to tracking a bunch of switches doesn't seem appropriate at all. In general, it's just plain Bad Form to propose a new subgame that the proposer dumps on another officer. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis
On 10/20/2019 12:56 AM, James Cook wrote: > On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 22:16, Reuben Staley > wrote: >>> A1. Appendix 1: Graphs > A2. Appendix 2: Other attachments >>> A.3 Appendix 3: Code >> >> I really appreciate these appendices and submit that the Agoran public >> take them into account while considering which degree to give the H. >> Jason Cobb. >> >> -- >> Trigon > > To get a sense of what sort of thesis merits each kind of degree, is > there any practical way to put together an archive of past theses? The > "Blob's Thesis Archive" link on agoranomic.org has been a broken link > since the first time I tried it. I think this thesis is at least Masters level. I think a really good comparison would be to look at ais523's Master and PhD theses to see where this falls in between those. If the provided links/search don't have those, I'll dig for them and post links before asking for consent. Also, I'll use this as an excuse to grab as many theses as I can and put them in a github folder. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis
Jason Cobb wrote:
2.6.1 Rule 2152
Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") is the rule that defines that pertain to
entities attempting to do things, and (generally people) being punished
for or required to do something. Thus, rules that depend on R2152 could
be considered to be more "pragmatic", dealing with the knowledge that
sometimes people may attempt to do things that they cannot, or they
might do something illegal, while rules that don't depend on this rule
can be said to be more "platonic" (names shamelessly stolen from
[VANYEL] (RIP nomic.net)).
R2152 actually covers both of those, using CANNOT (etc.) for platonic
cases and MAY NOT (etc.) for pragmatic cases. So a rule taking the
platonic approach to its subject may or may not make that approach
explicit by depending on the relevant parts of R2152.
IIRC, common usage of Vanyel's terms drifted over time: "platonic" came
to refer to games interpreted as having some objective gamestate
independent of what anyone believed it was, "pragmatic" to the
interpretation that only player consensus matters, and "plato-pragmatic"
to rules that platonically implement pragmatic outcomes where desired,
e.g. stating that events only occur when announced (avoiding "occurs
automatically at time T" triggers), or mechanisms like ratification that
platonically adjust the objective gamestate to match some definition of
platonic consensus. The latter goes back to at least late 1994, e.g.
https://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/vanyel0_lr_19941122.mbox
includes a proto-ratification clause in the last paragraph of Rule 925.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2
twg wrote: On Saturday, October 12, 2019 10:17 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Are there any objections (especially from the H. Referee) to making that rule a reality? I’m aware that it could create a minor mess, but would just be so much fun, and the penalty for violating it is quite minor. -Aris Not at all! It sounds hilarious. I submit a proposal whose title is the empty string with AI=1, Murphy and Aris as co-authors, and the following text: Enact a new Rule of Power 1.0 with the text: Might want to give the Rule a title ahead of time as well.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Popularity* Contest v2
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:56 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Sorry, I know this isn't a proto anymore, but I think this may still be
> broken.
>
> On 10/20/19 11:23 AM, Nch wrote:
>
> > I submit the following proposal:
> > Proposal: Popularity* Contest
> > Co-Author: Jason Cobb
> > AI: 0.5
> > Create a power=0.5 rule titled “Popularity* Contest” with the following
> > text {
> > When this rule is enacted, a Popularity* Contest begins.
>
> Can a Rule apply an effect on the instant that it is enacted? I would
> think that since it isn't a Rule until after the enactment is finished,
> it doesn't take effect until then, but I haven't researched this at all.
Good question actually. If this doesn't work I wonder if "when this rule begins
to take effect" or something similar works. Surely we've done effects like this
before, so there must be some sort of precedent I'm forgetting.
>
> > Once a day, each Contestant may, by announcement, flip eir Contestant
> > switch to any valid value.
>
> Two things: I think you meant "Target switch", and, if R2152's
> definition of "may" is read as applying here, this doesn't actually
> enable a person to a flip any switches, it only makes it LEGAL for em to
> do so.
Man, I'm terrible with 2152. I always forget to double check its definitions,
and I personally find the way we read CAN and MAY confusing (if it's not
illegal to do something it seems to me that that means the thing happens unless
there's reason to doubt it). I'm rewriting these parts now and will resubmit
later today after giving more time for people to notice any potential issues.
DIS: Re: BUS: Popularity* Contest v2
Sorry, I know this isn't a proto anymore, but I think this may still be
broken.
On 10/20/19 11:23 AM, Nch wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Proposal: Popularity* Contest
Co-Author: Jason Cobb
AI: 0.5
Create a power=0.5 rule titled “Popularity* Contest” with the following text {
When this rule is enacted, a Popularity* Contest begins.
Can a Rule apply an effect on the instant that it is enacted? I would
think that since it isn't a Rule until after the enactment is finished,
it doesn't take effect until then, but I haven't researched this at all.
Once a day, each Contestant may, by announcement, flip eir Contestant switch to
any valid value.
Two things: I think you meant "Target switch", and, if R2152's
definition of "may" is read as applying here, this doesn't actually
enable a person to a flip any switches, it only makes it LEGAL for em to
do so.
any player MAY, by announcement, attempt to flip the Designated Target switch.
Same issue as above, probably makes attempts LEGAL but not EFFECTIVE.
The Designated Target switch may only be flipped to the Contestant, if any,
that the most Target switches are set to.
If R2152 applies here, this may make it ILLEGAL to flip it to a
contestant that is not the most Popular*, rather than INEFFECTIVE. If
Contestants are actually enabled to flip the switch, then this provides
a way to remove anyone from the Popularity* Contest, just at the price
of committing a crime.
Any player not in the Popularity* Contest may join the Popularity* Contest by
paying at least the Exclusivity Fee. When a player pays more than the
Exclusivity Fee to join the Popularity* Contest, the Exclusivity Fee is set to
the amount e paid.
I believe the currency needs to be specified here.
Each player may flip eir Mx. Popular switch, by announcement, to any valid
value (except null) once a day.
[snip]
If a Contestant is uniquely the value of more Mx. Popular switches than any
other Contestant, and there are 3 or less Contestants, e may declare emself Mx.
Popular by announcement.
Same issue again, this probably makes the attempt LEGAL but not EFFECTIVE.
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Popularity* Contest
On Friday, October 18, 2019 4:24 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > I like the idea (seems to be almost the inverse of my submission to the > subgame constest :P). A few possible issues below. > > On 10/18/19 5:05 PM, Nch wrote: > > > When a player registers for the first time since this proposal was passed, > > they enter the Popularity* Contest automatically. > > Possible ambiguity: is this registration for the first time ever (that > happens to be after the proposal was passed), or is it the first > registration after the proposal passed (whether or not the person was > ever registered before the proposal passed). > > > At any time each Contestant may, by announcement, specify a Contestant as a > > Target. > > Is there a reason that Target can't be a person switch? Thanks for the detailed feedback, just resubmitted a much more Agoran version incorporating all of it. I submitted it this way (read: sloppily written) because I'm currently working on a thesis about best design practices for proposals and rules, so I sorta used you to field test some common feedback for poorly written proposals.
DIS: Person Switches and 'Contestant Switches'
"Person Switch" is used in multiple rules, but not explicitly defined. This should probably be fixed, but it also sets a precedent for a common definition where X Switch is a switch all Xes have if X isn't a pre-defined type of switch. Does that mean in my Popularity* Contest, I can define a "Contestant Switch" and have the mean "A switch each Contestant has one of" without explicitly saying so? --- Nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis
On 10/20/19 3:56 AM, James Cook wrote: To get a sense of what sort of thesis merits each kind of degree, is there any practical way to put together an archive of past theses? The "Blob's Thesis Archive" link on agoranomic.org has been a broken link since the first time I tried it. The Herald's monthly report lists degree-holders, so in theory that could be a starting point for searching the archives, but it would be a fair bit of work. -- - Falsifian There are several Theses available at [0], which is an archive of the now-dead nomic.net (RIP). Searching a-o archives for "thesis" also yields some results [1]. [0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20090914031018/http://www.nomic.net:80/~nomicwiki/index.php/AgoraTheses . [1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=agora-official%40agoranomic.org&q=thesis -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis
On 10/20/19 3:51 AM, James Cook wrote:
Thanks for putting this together! Minor comments below.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 20:19, Jason Cobb wrote:
There is a 3-way tie for having the most direct dependencies: Rule 2532
("Zombies"), Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") and Rule 2581 ("Official Patent
Titles"). R2483 is a great example of pulling together rules from many
I think you mean R2438.
Thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix it.
differnet areas of the game into something unified - it takes a bunch of
typo: "different"x.
Again, will fix.
A.3 Appendix 3: Code
All code used in this thesis is published at
https://github.com/agoraNomic/ruleset-thesis. Feel free to look at it
and play with it.
Would it be worth including the code in the attachment? Archives of
Agora's mailing list may last longer than that URL or even Github
itself.
Sure.
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] R2478 Fix
On 10/20/19 1:36 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: Currently, this sort of penalty is allowed for the Cold Hand of Justice, but not for Summary Judgement. That seems like an error to me. I'd be tempted to repeal the mandate entirely Yeah, that's my fault. I changed "person who plays the game" to "player" in P8189, and nobody said anything when that was up for vote, and it passed. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 7:39 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Sunday, October 20, 2019 6:09 AM, Aris Merchant > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: > > A draft follows. I'm aware my ordering is... unconventional. It's for > > the befuddlement of future generations, and is all part of the fun. > > > > -Aris > > Jason Cobb is a co-author to 8256 as well. I don't see any other errors. > > -twg Oh, but actually, I feel a bit uneasy about distributing it at all while CFJ 3775 is still unjudged, for the reasons Falsifian outlined earlier. Not sure what the most convenient way of arranging that is though - would you like me to retract it temporarily until Monday morning? (Of course this may be rendered moot if 3775 is judged soon.) -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 22:16, Reuben Staley wrote: > > A1. Appendix 1: Graphs > A2. Appendix 2: Other attachments > > A.3 Appendix 3: Code > > I really appreciate these appendices and submit that the Agoran public > take them into account while considering which degree to give the H. > Jason Cobb. > > -- > Trigon To get a sense of what sort of thesis merits each kind of degree, is there any practical way to put together an archive of past theses? The "Blob's Thesis Archive" link on agoranomic.org has been a broken link since the first time I tried it. The Herald's monthly report lists degree-holders, so in theory that could be a starting point for searching the archives, but it would be a fair bit of work. -- - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis
Thanks for putting this together! Minor comments below.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 20:19, Jason Cobb wrote:
> There is a 3-way tie for having the most direct dependencies: Rule 2532
> ("Zombies"), Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") and Rule 2581 ("Official Patent
> Titles"). R2483 is a great example of pulling together rules from many
I think you mean R2438.
> differnet areas of the game into something unified - it takes a bunch of
typo: "different"
> A.3 Appendix 3: Code
>
> All code used in this thesis is published at
> https://github.com/agoraNomic/ruleset-thesis. Feel free to look at it
> and play with it.
Would it be worth including the code in the attachment? Archives of
Agora's mailing list may last longer than that URL or even Github
itself.
--
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Sunday, October 20, 2019 6:09 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > A draft follows. I'm aware my ordering is... unconventional. It's for > the befuddlement of future generations, and is all part of the fun. > > -Aris Jason Cobb is a co-author to 8256 as well. I don't see any other errors. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] R2478 Fix
On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 05:37, Aris Merchant wrote: > Currently, this sort of penalty is allowed for the Cold Hand of > Justice, but not for Summary Judgement. That seems like an error to > me. I'd be tempted to repeal the mandate entirely, but a) allowing > non-players to join contracts is potentially fun; and, more > importantly, b) the rules are still vulnerable to abuse by > non-players in the same way they were back then. I also think the > phrase "person who plays the game" seems messy and unnecessarily > confusing (pretty characteristic of my writing in general, especially > back then). > > I'd unify the Cold Hand of Justice and Summary Judgement > on allowing the punishment of persons, on the grounds that a person > who isn't involved with the game is unlikely to commit a rules > violation. Alternatively, we could go the other direction, banning > non-players from joining contracts but making them immune to > prosecutions. The current state of affairs is definitely not great, > and I'd like to thank Jason Cobb for bringing up the issue. > > [1] > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2017-September/044934.html > > > -Aris With the adoption of Proposal 8250 (Finger Bending), I think the Referee is no longer banned from pointing eir finger. Do we still need summary judgement? -- - Falsifian
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 03:30, James Cook wrote: > 08-Oct-19 14:59 Gaelan flips Gaelan's master switch to Gaelan. Correction: the time on this event should be 15:02, when Gaelan sent "TTttPF". Keeping this on the discussion list to make sure it doesn't count as a CoE since it doesn't seem worth publishing a revision. -- - Falsifian
