Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] regarding Alexis's CoE on the SLR/FLR
On 4/12/20 8:12 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > Arguments: After extremely careful and definitely not cursory thought, I > think that the first sentence of R2601 succeeds. We generally accept the > passive voice as being acceptable for rules to cause actions to occur, so I > see no reason this shouldn't function here. The cause of R2601's amendment > is, clearly, itself. > > -Alexis Counterargument: per R2141/12 (at the time): "A rule ... is always taking effect". Once the text has been amended out of the rule, that text is no longer there to be taking effect, so how can it possibly cause a rule-change? -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] regarding Alexis's CoE on the SLR/FLR
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 19:41, Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I CFJ: "The entity once known as Rule 2601 is a rule." > Arguments: After extremely careful and definitely not cursory thought, I think that the first sentence of R2601 succeeds. We generally accept the passive voice as being acceptable for rules to cause actions to occur, so I see no reason this shouldn't function here. The cause of R2601's amendment is, clearly, itself. -Alexis
Re: DIS: [Proto] Down with the Auction Rules
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 19:19, Alexis Hunt wrote: > If you got rid of the bit about inconsistency between the rules and > gamestate, then I don't think there's a lot of substantial difference > between the choices, on the axes you care about. The only thing I can think > of is that mine is unclear whether creating a legal fiction also triggers > state change effects (e.g. "when X happens") but that is easily fixed. The > other differences are the explicit vs implicit specification of what > exactly happens, but I still don't see that as a major difference, and the > retroactive vs non-retroactive approach. At this point, I'm actually > thinking that retroactivity might be better there; I think it may be easier > to address time paradoxes explicitly. The pseudo-retroactive approach > attempts to work around this by preventing interference with itself, but > when you have complex interfering ratifications, I'm not entirely sure that > works. > > I should probably attempt to put that into an actual paradox attempt to > see if it works. > > -Alexis > Thinking about the paradox point a bit more: the current rule has some paradox prevention that you draft didn't, IIRC, "If no such modification is possible, or multiple substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally appropriate, the ratification fails." But this requires deciding whether or not there is a paradox in the first place, which is problematic. -Alexis
Re: DIS: [Proto] Down with the Auction Rules
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 18:20, James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I'm more a fan of my own. I am not sure how others feel about it. I > think I needed to work out how it would interact with quorum or > something but don't remember anything else I wanted to iron out. > > It's been a while since I read your legal fictions proto, but I think > I had reservations in it based on what I wrote in the following Feb 18 > message: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-February/056898.html > > (I phrased that message mostly about explaining differences between > our approaches. To explain why those differences give me reservations, > I'll just add that I prefer the rules to try to spell out what happens > as clearly and unambigously as possible.) > > James > Ah, I think I forgot to reply to that! I stand by what I said: I think we're both trying to limit the effects of the change to the minimal thing implied by the ratified document, without doing complex examinations of the rest of the gamestate. The main difference is that you set out explicitly what is attempting to be ratified, while my approach doesn't do that. But I don't think that your approach helps resolve contradictions. For instance, what if a self-ratifying report lists an invalid value for a switch, such as a non-player officeholder? It seems to me that, at best, this would create an inconsistency between the gamestate and the rules and cause the ratification to fail. You could try to make each switch flip fail independently, but it would be easy to concoct a situation where the valid values for two switches depended on one another, so that either could be split out and ratified individually, but they cannot both be ratified simultaneously. On the other hand, overriding contradictory facts prevents the need for complex analysis of the contradiction: the officeholder is simply set to a nonplayer value, then immediately corrected automatically. Even for interdependent switches, it would work fine: both are set to the values which turn out to be contradictory, then both are invalid, and both reset to default. If you got rid of the bit about inconsistency between the rules and gamestate, then I don't think there's a lot of substantial difference between the choices, on the axes you care about. The only thing I can think of is that mine is unclear whether creating a legal fiction also triggers state change effects (e.g. "when X happens") but that is easily fixed. The other differences are the explicit vs implicit specification of what exactly happens, but I still don't see that as a major difference, and the retroactive vs non-retroactive approach. At this point, I'm actually thinking that retroactivity might be better there; I think it may be easier to address time paradoxes explicitly. The pseudo-retroactive approach attempts to work around this by preventing interference with itself, but when you have complex interfering ratifications, I'm not entirely sure that works. I should probably attempt to put that into an actual paradox attempt to see if it works. -Alexis
Re: DIS: [Proto] Down with the Auction Rules
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 22:10, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 14:40, James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >> On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 21:12, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 17:09, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> > >> > > 3. Definitions of specific types of decisions are meted out to >> > > lower-level >> > > rules or even subsidiary bodies of law, e.g. election procedure no longer >> > > needs to be tied in to high-powered rules. >> > > >> > >> > Oh this made me think of self-ratification and how we should fix that. >> > Letting decisions always self-ratify that they had a specific outcome would >> > a power that's safe to pass onto subsidiary law, but only if it's a legal >> > fiction and doesn't alter any preconditions). >> > >> > Do we have a preferred fix? I recall that someone (Falsifian?) submitted a >> > proto that I think I liked more than mine but I 'd have to go back to see >> > if that's true. >> >> Maybe you mean my "Retroactive events" proto? >> >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-February/056594.html >> >> - Falsifian > > > I think so. On reread, I'm not as strongly a fan of it as I remember. Should > I go ahead with trying to fix my legal fiction-based one, or do you want to > try to push yours forward more? > > -Alexis I'm more a fan of my own. I am not sure how others feel about it. I think I needed to work out how it would interact with quorum or something but don't remember anything else I wanted to iron out. It's been a while since I read your legal fictions proto, but I think I had reservations in it based on what I wrote in the following Feb 18 message: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-February/056898.html (I phrased that message mostly about explaining differences between our approaches. To explain why those differences give me reservations, I'll just add that I prefer the rules to try to spell out what happens as clearly and unambigously as possible.) James
Re: DIS: [Proto] Down with the Auction Rules
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 14:40, James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 21:12, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 17:09, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > > > 3. Definitions of specific types of decisions are meted out to > lower-level > > > rules or even subsidiary bodies of law, e.g. election procedure no > longer > > > needs to be tied in to high-powered rules. > > > > > > > Oh this made me think of self-ratification and how we should fix that. > > Letting decisions always self-ratify that they had a specific outcome > would > > a power that's safe to pass onto subsidiary law, but only if it's a legal > > fiction and doesn't alter any preconditions). > > > > Do we have a preferred fix? I recall that someone (Falsifian?) submitted > a > > proto that I think I liked more than mine but I 'd have to go back to see > > if that's true. > > Maybe you mean my "Retroactive events" proto? > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-February/056594.html > > - Falsifian > I think so. On reread, I'm not as strongly a fan of it as I remember. Should I go ahead with trying to fix my legal fiction-based one, or do you want to try to push yours forward more? -Alexis
DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Here's a draft report. -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 7, 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 --- 8368# G. 1.7 Explicit Accusations 8369* Aris 3.0 Emergency Termination Notice 8370# Aris 2.0 Announced Petitions 8371# Aris 2.0 Petitio Exitus The proposal pool is currently empty. Legend: * : Democratic proposal. # : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber. e : Economy ministry proposal. f : Efficiency ministry proposal. j : Justice ministry proposal. l : Legislation ministry proposal. p : Participation ministry proposal. The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. // ID: 8368 Title: Explicit Accusations Adoption index: 1.7 Author: G. Co-authors: Rule 2478 (Vigilante Justice) by replacing: A player CAN by announcement, but subject to the provisions of this rule, Point eir Finger at a person (the perp) who plays the game, citing an alleged violation of the rules by that person. with: A player CAN by announcement, but subject to the provisions of this rule, Point eir Finger at a person (the perp) who plays the game; the announcement has to explicitly name the perp and cite a specific rule and an alleged violation of that rule by that person. and by replacing: - Imposing the Cold Hand of Justice on the perp, as described elsewhere; or with: - Imposing the Cold Hand of Justice on the perp for the cited rule violation, as described elsewhere; or // ID: 8369 Title: Emergency Termination Notice Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: [This gives everyone a bit of warning before someone goes and repeals the Emergency Regulations, and gives the PM time to potentially extend the emergency. Note that explicitly specifying the deadline in this rule means that it can't be extended further.] Amend the rule entitled "Eclipse Light" by changing the text "by announcement" to read "with 7 days notice". // ID: 8370 Title: Announced Petitions Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Amend Rule 2143, "Official Reports and Duties", by changing the final paragraph to read: A player CAN, by announcement, petition a specified officer to take a specified action; the officer SHALL publicly respond to the petition in a timely fashion. // ID: 8371 Title: Petitio Exitus Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Amend Rule 2143, "Official Reports and Duties", by deleting the final paragraph. //
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month
That makes sense. I'll be interested to see how a judge rules. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Awards Month
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 4:50 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 6:04 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > Arguments: > > A fine should be reduced to the degree the infraction was "minor, > > accidental, and/or inconsequential". This violations, while not minor > > or inconsequential, may well have been accidental given the newness of > > the petition mechanism and the relative inactivity of the perps. > > Furthermore, a fine should be increased to the degree the violation > > was "willful, profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official > > position". This was none of those. Given the totality of the > > circumstances, a fine of the maximum penalty is blatantly and > > obviously unsuitable for the violation, so the fine fails by R2531(3). > > Note that while the Sentencing Guidelines are not explicitly > > referenced by R2531(3), they do represent the ruleset's official > > guidance on what sort of sentences are correct. I'd contend that the > > appropriate fine is 2 blots, though one could argue for 1. > > > I wasn't sure about this and I agree that it was on the harsh end, but I > believe that the forgivability of the fines makes them balanced. R2531(3) only talks about the value of the fine, not whether or not it is forgivable. So as far as it's concerned, a forgivable 4 blot fine is the same as an unforgivable one. (At least, I contend that it is; the judge may read it differently.) > > Furthermore, the fine is outside the sentencing guidelines in Rule > > 2557, and the Referee CAN only exercise the Cold Hand of Justice to > > levy a fine within those guidelines (note that while the relevant > > guideline is a SHOULD, it's within the scope of the restrictions on > > the CAN; I request that the judge rule on whether that makes it a > > limitation on the CAN as I contend it does). > > > I don't believe that the fine is outside the sentencing guidelines because > my interpretation is that they allow for a fine between 1 and 4 (twice the > default base value of 2) blots for this crime. Could you explain why this > is outside the allowable range because I don't read the rule that way? You're only looking at the first two sentencing guidelines. My (admittedly dubious) reading is that the latter two guidelines also limit the CAN, even though they're phrased as SHOULDs. -Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto] Down with the Auction Rules
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 14:43, James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Great re-use of the Agoran decision rules! You should probably define > "excess lot" so resale value can decay appropriately for those. Two > more comments inline: > Ah, good point. > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 03:56, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > wrote: > > auction is currently in progress (initiated but not resolved), the > > Registrar CAN initiate a zombie auction. > > Needs a method. > R107 > > 4. For an auction, the outcome is an association of voters (winners) to > > valid options (prizes) determined as follows. For each voter in > descending > > order of bids, breaking ties in favour of the voter who first submitted a > > (possibly-withdrawn) vote with a given bid amount, of the remaining > prizes, > > I don't think withdrawn bids should be included when breaking ties. > That will incentivize me to bid all possible values right at the start > of the auction, so that I'll always have been the first to have > submitted a (possibly-withdrawn) bid for any given amount. > > - Falsifian > The idea here was that if someone changes the ordering of the zombies in eir bid, it doesn't cause em to lose priority. And you can't do what you suggest, because you can only increase your bid. You cannot decrease it, so your suggestion doesn't work. I'd prefer to avoid needing to resubmit a ballot to change zombie ordering; perhaps that wouldn't be as much additional burden on the complexity as I originally thought.
Re: DIS: [Proto] Down with the Auction Rules
Great re-use of the Agoran decision rules! You should probably define "excess lot" so resale value can decay appropriately for those. Two more comments inline: On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 03:56, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > auction is currently in progress (initiated but not resolved), the > Registrar CAN initiate a zombie auction. Needs a method. > 4. For an auction, the outcome is an association of voters (winners) to > valid options (prizes) determined as follows. For each voter in descending > order of bids, breaking ties in favour of the voter who first submitted a > (possibly-withdrawn) vote with a given bid amount, of the remaining prizes, I don't think withdrawn bids should be included when breaking ties. That will incentivize me to bid all possible values right at the start of the auction, so that I'll always have been the first to have submitted a (possibly-withdrawn) bid for any given amount. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto] Down with the Auction Rules
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 21:12, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 17:09, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > 3. Definitions of specific types of decisions are meted out to lower-level > > rules or even subsidiary bodies of law, e.g. election procedure no longer > > needs to be tied in to high-powered rules. > > > > Oh this made me think of self-ratification and how we should fix that. > Letting decisions always self-ratify that they had a specific outcome would > a power that's safe to pass onto subsidiary law, but only if it's a legal > fiction and doesn't alter any preconditions). > > Do we have a preferred fix? I recall that someone (Falsifian?) submitted a > proto that I think I liked more than mine but I 'd have to go back to see > if that's true. Maybe you mean my "Retroactive events" proto? https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-February/056594.html - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto] Down with the Auction Rules
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 02:08, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 16:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >>> the valid options are the zombies a) that were eligible for auction at > > >>> its initiation and b) whose master switch has not changed in the > > >> meanwhile. > > >> > > >> Right now the Registar has discretion and is not required to auction all > > >> eligible zombies - this removes that discretion. > > >> > > > > > > E does not; the parenthetical in the first paragraph of R1885 eliminates > > > discretion. > > > > As the author of that parenthetical in question, and a Registrar who used > > it to split up big auctions a few times, I disagree - I think it means > > that any subset of eligible zombies CAN be auctioned by the registrar. > > (I'd rather not quibble about the current wording - I see both readings > > and definitely acknowledge the ambiguity - but it would be great to > > empower the Registrar to meter the zombie economy if e can't already). > > > > I'd prefer not to make the proposal more complex by accommodating this, but > I will do so if the current Registrar wants. > > -Alexis I was never sure about the phrasing myself, and don't really mind losing that power if I had it. - Falsifian
