DIS: Forgotten proto collection

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I just went through my email archives looking for old protos that, AFIAK, never 
got passed, but look interesting. That list is here: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fwkCVGpETexQtCkD3fxiP0jk5gtSQj0pDwxUXBmxhTA/edit#
 


Feel free to propose any of these, or add to the list. At some point, I might 
set up a proposal competition and/or contract to incentivize revising some of 
these.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Proto: Fool Season

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

The simplest option would be to just cut AiaN from the clone.

-Aris

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 9:50 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> I proto'd a similar rule using the “parallel nomic” implementation a while 
> back, and someone (G?) worried that the parallel nomic’s Agora Is A Nomic 
> would make it hard to kill. Maybe you could say something like “The rules of 
> the subnomic notwithstanding, rules of Agora Nomic that explicitly take 
> precedence over the rules of the subnomic always do.”
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Jan 7, 2020, at 9:37 PM, AIS523--- via agora-discussion 
> >  wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2020-01-07 at 21:31 -0800, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> >> Title: Fool Season
> > [snip]
> >> If so, which of the implementations would work best?
> >
> > I'm worried about the reset button not working correctly due to damage
> > caused while people are having fun. (It probably doesn't even work as
> > written at the moment if the rule is simply repealed.)
> >
> > This might be most interesting as an experiment run using a parallel
> > nomic that starts from a copy of Agora's gamestate. Incidentally, 14
> > days is probably not enough (that isn't even enough time to pass a
> > proposal if the Promotor and Assessor are intentionally stalling).
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
>

Re: DIS: Proto: Fool Season

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

Sorry, forgot to address this in my other email. I *think* "If, during Fool 
Season, this rule would be amended, repealed, or otherwise made ineffective, 
Fool Season ends” at power 4 would succeed in preventing repeal, but I’m not 
sure.

Gaelan

> On Jan 7, 2020, at 9:37 PM, AIS523--- via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> (It probably doesn't even work as
> written at the moment if the rule is simply repealed.)

Re: DIS: Proto: Fool Season

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I proto'd a similar rule using the “parallel nomic” implementation a while 
back, and someone (G?) worried that the parallel nomic’s Agora Is A Nomic would 
make it hard to kill. Maybe you could say something like “The rules of the 
subnomic notwithstanding, rules of Agora Nomic that explicitly take precedence 
over the rules of the subnomic always do.”

Gaelan

> On Jan 7, 2020, at 9:37 PM, AIS523--- via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2020-01-07 at 21:31 -0800, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> Title: Fool Season
> [snip]
>> If so, which of the implementations would work best?
> 
> I'm worried about the reset button not working correctly due to damage
> caused while people are having fun. (It probably doesn't even work as
> written at the moment if the rule is simply repealed.)
> 
> This might be most interesting as an experiment run using a parallel
> nomic that starts from a copy of Agora's gamestate. Incidentally, 14
> days is probably not enough (that isn't even enough time to pass a
> proposal if the Promotor and Assessor are intentionally stalling).
> 
> -- 
> ais523
> 

Re: DIS: Proto: Fool Season

[AIS523--- via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 2020-01-07 at 21:31 -0800, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Title: Fool Season
[snip]
> If so, which of the implementations would work best?

I'm worried about the reset button not working correctly due to damage
caused while people are having fun. (It probably doesn't even work as
written at the moment if the rule is simply repealed.)

This might be most interesting as an experiment run using a parallel
nomic that starts from a copy of Agora's gamestate. Incidentally, 14
days is probably not enough (that isn't even enough time to pass a
proposal if the Promotor and Assessor are intentionally stalling).

-- 
ais523

DIS: Proto: Fool Season

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

{
Title: Fool Season
AI: 4
Author: Gaelan

Create a power-4 rule titled “Fool Season”: {
Fool Season is a period of time beginning on April 1, and ending on April 14, 
or when an instrument with power 2 or greater states that it ends. [Do I need 
to clarify when on those days it begins/ends?]

When Fool Season ends, the state of the game is set to what it was at the 
beginning of Fool Season.

If, during Fool Season, this rule would be amended, repealed, or otherwise made 
ineffective, Fool Season ends.

Any player may cause Fool Season to end with consent.

[OPTIONAL] During fool season, punishment for rule violations is generally not 
appropriate, unless the violation creates an undue burden on another person or 
causes permanent damage to the game.
}
}

Notes:
- This is intended as a time to execute destructive scams, pass unusual rules, 
and generally trash the gamestate without permanent repercussions.
- Some alternate implementations of the “reset” mechanic, which may be more 
consistent with precedent on gamestate and ratification:

When Fool Season ends, the following document is ratified: {No changes to the 
game state occurred during Fool Season.}

The effect of any public messages sent during Fool Season is limited to during 
Fool Season.

Something about actually maintaining two parallel gamestates. [I proposed 
something in this vein a while back, and I believe it devolved into  issues 

At the beginning of Fool Season, make BUS and OFF discussion fora (or a new 
type), then switch them back afterward. Informally continue play as if they 
were real fora, and somehow suspend “real” Agoran deadlines during Fool Season. 
This is probably the safest way to implement this, but I prefer implementing 
things platonically whenever possible.

Questions:

Is this a mechanic people would enjoy?

If so, which of the implementations would work best?

Gaelan

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

A draft report follows.

-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 4, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).

ID Author(s)AITitle
---
8280   Murphy, Jason Cobb   3.0   Resolve the troubles v1.1
8281   Gaelan   1.0   Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2
8282   Falsifian1.0   Let's do this the hard way v1.1
8283   Alexis   3.0   Ex Post Ribbon
8284   Alexis   3.0   Line-Item Power
8285   Alexis   3.0   Line-Item Roulette
8286   Aris 1.0   I Forbid Vetos!

The proposal pool is currently empty.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.

//
ID: 8280
Title: Resolve the troubles v1.1
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Murphy
Co-authors: Jason Cobb


If Proposal 8279 (Equitable Detroubling) has been adopted, then do
nothing. Otherwise, ratify the following ~~~-delimited document:

~~~
Each of the following messages was effectively sent via the Public Forum
on or about the Date: stamp shown in the archives. Claims within these
messages (in particular, claims to perform actions) may still be
ineffective for other reasons.

Relevant messages from
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-December/date.html

BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500   James Cook
OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset   Jason Cobb
BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500   James Cook
OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8277   Aris Merchant
OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory   James Cook
OFF: [Registrar] Forbes 500   James Cook
OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: October 2019   James Cook
OFF: Round 2, fight!   Edward Murphy
OFF: Fwd: [dicelog] Selection of Comptrollor   Edward Murphy
OFF: [ADoP] Metareport   Edward Murphy
OFF: [Distributor] list status   omd
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to omd   Kerim Aydin
OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory   James Cook
OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500   James Cook
OFF: [Distributor] list status   omd
Fwd: OFF: [Distributor] list status   omd
OFF: [ADoP] Metareport   Edward Murphy

Relevant messages from
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-December/date.html

BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500   James Cook
BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500   James Cook
BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset   Jason Cobb
BUS: Judgement of CFJs 3780 and 3782   James Cook
BUS: Judgement of CFJs 3780 and 3782   James Cook
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3779 Assigned to Jason Cobb   James Cook
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3779 Assigned to Jason Cobb   James
Cook
BUS: End of Zombie lease   James Cook
BUS: Re: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8277   Aris Merchant
BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Forbes 500   James Cook
BUS: Income   James Cook
BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset   James Cook
BUS: Notice of Honour   James Cook
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8277   Edward Murphy
BUS: Resolution of Prime Minister election   Edward Murphy
BUS: Vote on Proposal 8277   James Cook
BUS: PM Candidacy   James Cook
BUS: Might as well try   James Cook
BUS: Might as well try   Jason Cobb
BUS: Might as well try   omd
BUS: CoE on ADoP report   James Cook
BUS: Notice of Honour   James Cook
BUS: Re: OFF: [Distributor] list status   Aris Merchant
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8277   Jason Cobb
BUS: Favoring   Aris Merchant
BUS: CoE on ADoP report   Edward Murphy
BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport   Edward Murphy
BUS: Income   James Cook
BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: October 2019   James Cook
BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset   James Cook
BUS: PM Candidacy   James Cook
BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory   James Cook
BUS: End of Zombie lease   James Cook
BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory   James Cook
BUS: Re: DIS: [MUD] New Agoran MUD   Aris Merchant
BUS: Income   James Cook
BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500   James Cook
BUS: I like money too   Edward Murphy
BUS: PM Candidacy   Edward Murphy
BUS: PM Candidacy   Edward Murphy
BUS: PM Candidacy   Edward Murphy
BUS: I still like money   Edward Murphy
BUS: PM Candidacy   Jason Cobb
~~~

//
ID: 8281
Title: Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Gaelan
Co-authors:


Create a power-0.1 rule titled "Nothing to see here, Rule 1030,” with the
following text: {
  This rule takes precedence over That One Rule, provisions of That One Rule
  notwithstanding. That One Rule is defined as the r

Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:12 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> > This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not
> > big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively had the
> > ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner than
> > our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a pragmatic
> > philosophy as well.
>
> We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year
> or two and people were generally positive.  Specifically two ideas
> came up:  (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes
> about their reports, with some language that judges can only overrule
> the officers if their decisions are "arbitrary and capricious" (or
> some other legal standard of choice that we can set precedents about -
> "arbitrary and capricious" is one used in U.S. government
> regulations).  (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories
> are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power"
> (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over
> "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy
> category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities
> within their defining category).
>
> I think the only barrier is no one sat down and did the deep work of
> implementation...

A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a
complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more
fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out
the details.

-Aris
--
Title: Administrative Adjudication
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors:

Enact a new rule, with power power 3.0, entitled "Administrative Adjudication",
with the following text:

  Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum,
  which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued,
  have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official area of
  concern, insofar as that memorandum is neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 1/7/20 4:13 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> H. Assessor, I'm sorry for leaving you with a mess; if there's
> anything the Promotor's office can do to help, let me know.
>
> -Aris


I don't think there are any problems left right now. The resolutions
should self-ratify in a few days and get everything sorted out.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 1/7/20 6:10 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories
> are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power"
> (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over
> "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy
> category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities
> within their defining category).


I started drafting something for this a while back, but the wording is
shoddy, incomplete, and too long. Here's the basic idea though:

1. Create a new type of Instrument called a "Module" (bikeshedding
welcome). Each Module has a list of dependencies (with underpowered
dependencies prohibited), and some other housekeeping stuff (like a title).

2. Give each Rule a switch, called Parent. The power of a rule's parent
must be _less_ than the rule's power. This means that a Rule can have
its effective power decreased to the power of a module, but never increased.

3. Create a special module called the Default Module with the lowest
possible power and which depends on all modules. This is the default
Parent for all Rules. The purpose of this is to allow migrating rules
incrementally without breaking anything (at first).

4. (Wording very incomplete) Change R1030 and R217 to know about modules.


Do you all like this concept, and is this something worth pursuing? If
so, I'll make a revised draft public somewhere (probably on GitHub) and
continue developing it.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 18:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> > This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not
> > big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively had
> the
> > ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner than
> > our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a
> pragmatic
> > philosophy as well.
>
> We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year
> or two and people were generally positive.  Specifically two ideas
> came up:  (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes
> about their reports, with some language that judges can only overrule
> the officers if their decisions are "arbitrary and capricious" (or
> some other legal standard of choice that we can set precedents about -
> "arbitrary and capricious" is one used in U.S. government
> regulations).  (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories
> are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power"
> (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over
> "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy
> category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities
> within their defining category).
>
> I think the only barrier is no one sat down and did the deep work of
> implementation...
>
> -G.
>

It's really tempting to try to implement Canada's Doré framework, since the
only people who seemed to understand it were the judges on the Supreme
Court who wrote it. :P

Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not
> big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively had the
> ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner than
> our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a pragmatic
> philosophy as well.

We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year
or two and people were generally positive.  Specifically two ideas
came up:  (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes
about their reports, with some language that judges can only overrule
the officers if their decisions are "arbitrary and capricious" (or
some other legal standard of choice that we can set precedents about -
"arbitrary and capricious" is one used in U.S. government
regulations).  (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories
are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power"
(e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over
"non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy
category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities
within their defining category).

I think the only barrier is no one sat down and did the deep work of
implementation...

-G.

Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.

[Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:13, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:56 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> > Would anyone complain/object if I ratified a "false" Herald's Report
> > that claims the Notices of Honor received during the Troubles were
> > successful?
> >
> > Looking at the message list that Murphy nicely assembled for Proposals
> > 8278-8279, I kinda feel like the easiest way is for officers to just
> > ratify individual reports in the "fairest" way - e.g. coins for work
> > done were actually earned, honor was actually changed, etc., but
> > elections that were perturbed didn't happen/can be restarted (as
> > that's more fair).   Generally leaving it up to each officer to figure
> > out what's the "most fair"? Saves all monkeying around with fora.
> >
> > -G.
>
> It sounds reasonable to me. Also, a reminder to everyone (well, mostly
> the H. Herald and H. Referee) that it's a new quarter.
>
> H. Assessor, I'm sorry for leaving you with a mess; if there's
> anything the Promotor's office can do to help, let me know.
>
> -Aris
>

This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not
big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively had the
ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner than
our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a pragmatic
philosophy as well.

Alexis

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] January Zombie Auction

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:50, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 02:04, James Cook via agora-official <
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a
> > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first):
> >
> > 1. o
> > 2. Bernie
> > 3. Rance
> >
> > Agora is the Auctioneer, and the Registrar is the Announcer. The
> > currency is Coins with a minimum bid of 1.
> >
> > --
> > - Falsifian
> >
>
> I bid one coin for Bernie.
>
> Alexis

You can't bid on individual zombies. I don't think your message had any effect.

Bid a number of coins. Highest bid gets o, second-highest Bernie,
third-highest Rance.

-- 
- Falsifian

Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:56 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> Would anyone complain/object if I ratified a "false" Herald's Report
> that claims the Notices of Honor received during the Troubles were
> successful?
>
> Looking at the message list that Murphy nicely assembled for Proposals
> 8278-8279, I kinda feel like the easiest way is for officers to just
> ratify individual reports in the "fairest" way - e.g. coins for work
> done were actually earned, honor was actually changed, etc., but
> elections that were perturbed didn't happen/can be restarted (as
> that's more fair).   Generally leaving it up to each officer to figure
> out what's the "most fair"? Saves all monkeying around with fora.
>
> -G.

It sounds reasonable to me. Also, a reminder to everyone (well, mostly
the H. Herald and H. Referee) that it's a new quarter.

H. Assessor, I'm sorry for leaving you with a mess; if there's
anything the Promotor's office can do to help, let me know.

-Aris

DIS: ratifying honour etc.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

Would anyone complain/object if I ratified a "false" Herald's Report
that claims the Notices of Honor received during the Troubles were
successful?

Looking at the message list that Murphy nicely assembled for Proposals
8278-8279, I kinda feel like the easiest way is for officers to just
ratify individual reports in the "fairest" way - e.g. coins for work
done were actually earned, honor was actually changed, etc., but
elections that were perturbed didn't happen/can be restarted (as
that's more fair).   Generally leaving it up to each officer to figure
out what's the "most fair"? Saves all monkeying around with fora.

-G.