Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Ministerial Referrals
On 5/14/2020 7:39 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > If it's not too much trouble, could you link that judgement in another form > when you distribute this CFJ (at least if you give it to me) > Yes no worries I was thinking that while I had it on hand I'd add it to the database.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Ministerial Referrals
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:36 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 5/14/2020 12:44 PM, nch wrote: > > On Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:39:04 PM CDT Aris Merchant wrote: > >> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:18 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >>> Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to set its chamber > >>> switch to that chamber. > >> > >> I CFJ "In a generic Agoran context, to refer a proposal to a chamber > >> is to set its chamber switch to that chamber." > >> > >> Arguments: > >> > >> I've been putting "Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to > >> set its chamber switch to that chamber." at the top of my referral > >> messages since February. My hope is that people have seen it enough by > >> now that the average Agoran knows what it means without needing to see > >> the definition. > >> > >> -Aris > > > > I think this instance is probably fine but I have some concern about > building > > up jargon that isn't codified somehow. Could easily be a rule addition > to define > > it. > > > > I tried to lay out a 3-part test for accepting jargon in CFJ 3663 (one of > the ones missing from the database): > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039201.html > > A quick re-read of that judgement and I'd guess "refer" has as strong a > case as any for being acceptable (but I'll assign it to a different judge > than me, I'm curious how 3663 holds up to additional scrutiny...) > > -G. > > I'm not able to log into that list (I don't remember my password and every time I try to reset my password, it simply doesn't work). If it's not too much trouble, could you link that judgement in another form when you distribute this CFJ (at least if you give it to me) -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Ministerial Referrals
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:21 AM Aris Merchant via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:18 PM Aris Merchant via agora-official > wrote: > > > > Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to set its chamber > > switch to that chamber. > > > > [Where a proposal affects multiple ministries, I'm referring it so as > > to even out the number of proposals each ministry receives.] > > > > The Promotor hereby refers each proposal below as follows: > > > > The proposal "Burden + Accurate Naming" is referred to the Ministry of > Justice. > > > > The proposal "Bug Fixing IAR Writ" is referred to the Ministry of > Efficiency. > > > > The proposal "Expand wins by paradox" is referred to the Ministry of > > Participation. > > > > The proposal "You Tried" is referred to the Ministry of Participation. > > > > The proposal "The Webmastor" is referred to the Ministry of Efficiency. > > > > The proposal "Agora plays table tennis" is referred to the Ministry of > > Participation. > > > > The proposal "Bones of Criminals" is referred to the Ministry of Justice. > > > > The proposal "Slaying the dragon" is referred to the Ministry of Economy. > > > > The proposal "Defense Against the Dark Arts" is referred to the > > Ministry of Legislation. > > [Whoops, missed one.] > > The proposal "Justice for R. Lee" is referred to the Ministry of > Participation. > Oh hey, I get 2 extra voting strength on economic proposals, neat! -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: MUD Post Mortem
On 5/14/20 12:48 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: So, the MUD appears to have flopped. The primary reason is that I didn't do anything past setting it up, which is totally on me. Anything one else have thoughts or analyses? -Aris MUDs in general were before my time and I was not around for this MUD's existence. I have a good amount of free time on my hands, though, so I suppose that, if we set up times to meet, I could figure it out. -- Trigon
DIS: Re: BUS: [Dragon Corporation] The Dragon's Lair
On 5/14/20 9:24 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote: > How did you purchase 3 shares of DRGN? You weren't a party to the > contract until this message, and Rule 1742/22 ΒΆ5 states that "A party to > a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as... permitted by > the contract's body." I took this to mean that players who are not > parties to a contract CANNOT perform the actions defined by the contract. I didn't do anything guarded by that clause of the rule. I used the method specified in this clause of the contract: > ## Bylaw 7: IPO > > Within 90 days after this contract is created, any entity CAN pay a > fee of 10 coins or 10 banknotes to the Dragon Corporation to buy a > share. When e does this, e is awarded 1 share. This does not involve acting on behalf of a party or revoking or transferring assets from the contract, so R1742 para 5 doesn't apply. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Dragon Corporation] The Dragon's Lair
On 5/14/20 8:31 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > Thoughts on amending the contract to make the President separately > elected, rather than the one with the greatest number of shares? I'd > like to buy more shares, but I don't really have the time for > recordkeeping the contract (or at least I wouldn't if it becomes more > active). Fine by me, and it would have the side effect of having Warrigal cease being party, which might be convenient (unless e rises from eir grave to vote for the amendment). -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: Treason (Was: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8377-8387)
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:16 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/14/20 8:11 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business > wrote: > > I think that this sounds like a fun idea, but to distinguish it from other, > > lesser crimes, it should have a different process: what would people think > > about requiring that the referee submit a proposal as the result of eir > > investigation of a finger-pointing on treason. > > > I'd support the Referee having to seek Agoran Consent (at some N), but I > don't think proposals should (in general) be used to carry out the > responsibilities of an office. Let's call the process attainder! -Aris
DIS: Re: Treason (Was: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8377-8387)
On 5/14/20 8:11 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > I think that this sounds like a fun idea, but to distinguish it from other, > lesser crimes, it should have a different process: what would people think > about requiring that the referee submit a proposal as the result of eir > investigation of a finger-pointing on treason. I'd support the Referee having to seek Agoran Consent (at some N), but I don't think proposals should (in general) be used to carry out the responsibilities of an office. And, if you can get a proposal passed, you could already just create a bunch of blots in the perp's possession (or revoke all of eir coins, or anything else), so it would be pointless to have the referee submit a proposal. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8377-8387
On Thu, May 14, 2020, 2:40 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 14, 2020, 2:24 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 5/14/20 4:13 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: >> > 8387l Aris, P.S.S. 1.0 Defense Against the Dark Arts >> >> >> Was this proposal ever actually submitted to the public forum? >> >> -- >> Jason Cobb >> > > Whoops. I thought I did, but nope. I'll submit it for the next > distribution. > > -Aris > Sorry all. So what happened here is that normally when I add a proposal, I copy it from the public forum. When I submitted the proposal though, I copy it directly from my private records. That means that if I think I've submitted it, there's no step where that gets double checked. I'm kinda sad that it didn't make this distribution. All entirely my fault though, and I'm sorry for the trouble. -Aris >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8377-8387
On Thu, May 14, 2020, 2:24 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/14/20 4:13 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > > 8387l Aris, P.S.S. 1.0 Defense Against the Dark Arts > > > Was this proposal ever actually submitted to the public forum? > > -- > Jason Cobb > Whoops. I thought I did, but nope. I'll submit it for the next distribution. -Aris >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8377-8387
On 5/14/20 4:13 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > 8387l Aris, P.S.S. 1.0 Defense Against the Dark Arts Was this proposal ever actually submitted to the public forum? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: MUD Post Mortem
On 5/14/20 4:57 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On the other hand if there were a few coordinated times when people > were expected to show up, I'd probably try that out. Interacting with > Agorans in a more real-time setting would be interesting, and I could > block off a couple of hours of my time for that. Maybe we should try > it? I'm not too familiar with how the Mud works; are there any obvious > activities to try for a bunch of people all logged in for an hour? > Maybe someone could give a quick tutorial on building things? The MUD is still up (and I can continue hosting it), and I also would be more willing to spend time on it if I knew there was a chance of other people being on it at the same time. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Webmastor
On 5/14/20 1:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: On Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:42:18 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: FYI, there's a sort of Registrar home page at https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/ but I never looked into adding it to the homepage. (Also, it would be nice it actually had a list of players or something.) I see now Gaelan set up a repo called "Header" that I should be playing with if I want it linked. If our new Webmastor doesn't do that I might do it time permitting. - Falsifian Happy to look into adding the header this weekend. Adding it should be easy but getting it to look nice might need some experimenting since everyone's repos seem to be set up a little differently. Looks like the Registrar page has no styling whatsoever. You should just be able to create a _layouts/default.html file including a basic bootstrap template and it should work fine. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Protos: Two Small Offices
> I'm hoping to start gathering notes this week in order to start > publishing weekly Reports. I've started a report for this week in the git repo. If anyone else is doing Reportor work please let me know so we can coordinate. I also renamed the repo from Reporter to Reportor (Github will redirect old links). WIP at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reportor/blob/master/weekly_summaries/2020-05-11..17 - Falsifian
DIS: Re: Possible Tardiness
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 3:19 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > I'll be extremely busy, on and off, for the next two weeks. Promotor reports > may be delayed somewhat (definitely not for the entire period, but for a few > days to a week). I apologize in advance the delay. Time to get back to IRL work. *sigh* -Aris
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 1:57 PM nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thursday, May 14, 2020 3:17:11 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Is there any reason for a player to transmute victory points at any > > time other than when they want to declare victory? > > > > Not necessarily a problem, but want to make sure I understand. I guess > > the other Card types are less likely to be hoarded because players > > might want to actually use the corresponding assets. > > As written, not really. I briefly flirted with the idea of having another > asset > that let you steal cards, but I decided to focus on core mechanics for now and > maybe introduce that later. Another option is to make the wincon something > like "Have 20 *more* Victory Points than any other player" which might lead to > people cashing in their cards to prevent someone else from winning. That sounds both incredibly simple and likely to result in strategic play (e.g. conspiring with people to make it not appear as if you're approaching winning when you really are). I'm all for it! -Aris
Re: DIS: MUD Post Mortem
On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 20:16, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/14/2020 11:48 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > So, the MUD appears to have flopped. The primary reason is that I > > didn't do anything past setting it up, which is totally on me. > > Anything one else have thoughts or analyses? > > > > -Aris > > > > Visited twice I think? Didn't see anything happening, and also thought > "don't have the brainspace to learn this flavor of MUD coding right now, > I'll see if anyone else does" (the first time) and "I guess nobody is" > (the second time). > > I think the coding is secondary, at least to start, but if I'd seen anyone > to chat with I would have hung around? But then the IRC channel was very > active years ago and died off due to similar lack of a critical mass there > (I think? Haven't visited in a couple years and it was pretty dead last > time I did). > > -G. Having a Mud seems interesting to me, but in practice I'm not likely to find much time for it, even if somewhat interesting stuff gets built. Unfortunately idly hanging out in chat rooms doesn't work well for me, otherwise I might just leave a window open to see who shows up. I prefer to block my time into relatively uninterrupted tasks. (I don't use IRC for a similar reason.) On the other hand if there were a few coordinated times when people were expected to show up, I'd probably try that out. Interacting with Agorans in a more real-time setting would be interesting, and I could block off a couple of hours of my time for that. Maybe we should try it? I'm not too familiar with how the Mud works; are there any obvious activities to try for a bunch of people all logged in for an hour? Maybe someone could give a quick tutorial on building things? - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 3:17:11 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Is there any reason for a player to transmute victory points at any > time other than when they want to declare victory? > > Not necessarily a problem, but want to make sure I understand. I guess > the other Card types are less likely to be hoarded because players > might want to actually use the corresponding assets. As written, not really. I briefly flirted with the idea of having another asset that let you steal cards, but I decided to focus on core mechanics for now and maybe introduce that later. Another option is to make the wincon something like "Have 20 *more* Victory Points than any other player" which might lead to people cashing in their cards to prevent someone else from winning. -- nch
Re: DIS: [Proto] Defense Against the Dark Arts
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 1:44 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 07:10, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Here's a different version of P.S.S.'s proposal. Eirs didn't work > > because you can't take an action that would cause the game to become > > ossified, only attempt one. Also, it didn't cover the game ceasing to > > exist or proposals. Plus I added some other stuff. LMK what y'all > > think and if people like it I'll submit with whatever changes are > > necessary before distribution. > > > > I've split the penalty for being a proposal author into two parts > > because it seemed to me that there should be a lesser penalty if it > > gets caught before almost messing things up, but the total penalty if > > it isn't should be the same. I'm too tired to explain this properly, > > but I welcome comments. > > > > -Aris > > I think it's well-written. > > I don't know if I would vote for it, as I'm not sure it's really > needed. I would like the ruleset to be shorter (with a possible > exception if one of the ideas to make a hierarchy of rules finally > gets adopted). Is there any motivation for it, beyond the obvious idea > of encouraging people to be careful? Some combination of being a fixed version of P.S.S's proposal, encouraging people to be careful, and "more fun crimes". Ruleset length isn't something I'm particularly worried about personally, though I understand where you're coming from. -Aris
Re: DIS: crimes and infractions
On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 16:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/14/2020 7:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Eh, not so much ripping off as a perennial discussion point - whether > > blots are seen as genuine cheating/taboos to be avoided, versus being > > acceptable penalties accumulated during game play, is a pendulum that's > > gone back and forth a few times I think. > > One way we supported both in the past is to name the concepts differently. > We had Crimes and Infractions: > > An entity may be convicted of a Crime only by a judicial finding > > that e has committed that Crime. An entity may be convicted of > > an Infraction only by announcement of a Player authorized by the > > Rules to report the commission of that Infraction. > > The currency of punishment was blots for both (so they were fungible in > that sense), but crimes were "people really shouldn't do this, it's > cheating" and infractions were "the cost of doing business". That's cool. I do try to follow the rules, as I do in most games I agree to play. The crimes/infractions distinction would suit me particularly well if infractions were not actually rule violations. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto] Defense Against the Dark Arts
On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 07:10, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > Here's a different version of P.S.S.'s proposal. Eirs didn't work > because you can't take an action that would cause the game to become > ossified, only attempt one. Also, it didn't cover the game ceasing to > exist or proposals. Plus I added some other stuff. LMK what y'all > think and if people like it I'll submit with whatever changes are > necessary before distribution. > > I've split the penalty for being a proposal author into two parts > because it seemed to me that there should be a lesser penalty if it > gets caught before almost messing things up, but the total penalty if > it isn't should be the same. I'm too tired to explain this properly, > but I welcome comments. > > -Aris I think it's well-written. I don't know if I would vote for it, as I'm not sure it's really needed. I would like the ruleset to be shorter (with a possible exception if one of the ideas to make a hierarchy of rules finally gets adopted). Is there any motivation for it, beyond the obvious idea of encouraging people to be careful? (Incidentally, having a shorter ruleset is also a reason I like the idea of "offices" like Reportor being handled by contracts rather than directly being written into the rules.) - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Ministerial Referrals
On 5/14/2020 12:44 PM, nch wrote: > On Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:39:04 PM CDT Aris Merchant wrote: >> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:18 PM Aris Merchant wrote: >>> Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to set its chamber >>> switch to that chamber. >> >> I CFJ "In a generic Agoran context, to refer a proposal to a chamber >> is to set its chamber switch to that chamber." >> >> Arguments: >> >> I've been putting "Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to >> set its chamber switch to that chamber." at the top of my referral >> messages since February. My hope is that people have seen it enough by >> now that the average Agoran knows what it means without needing to see >> the definition. >> >> -Aris > > I think this instance is probably fine but I have some concern about building > up jargon that isn't codified somehow. Could easily be a rule addition to > define > it. > I tried to lay out a 3-part test for accepting jargon in CFJ 3663 (one of the ones missing from the database): https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039201.html A quick re-read of that judgement and I'd guess "refer" has as strong a case as any for being acceptable (but I'll assign it to a different judge than me, I'm curious how 3663 holds up to additional scrutiny...) -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] May zombie auction status
On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 00:52, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 5/12/20 11:10 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > On 5/12/2020 7:54 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > >> On 5/12/20 10:42 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: > >>> This is an unofficial report on the ongoing zombie auction. All times UTC. > >>> > >>> The auction began 2020-05-07 at 00:52. It will end 2020-05017 at 00:52 > >>> unless > >>> something unusual happens. > >> > >> I bid 53 coins in this auction. > >> > > I bid 103 coins. -G. > > > > > > I bid 80 coins. Nice timing. This reached my inbox a few seconds too late if I compare it to when I clicked "send" on the auction initiation, but in fact I'm pretty sure it's on time. For the record, the following timeline compares the earliest time I could be considered to have initiated the auction to the a time we can safely say your bid left your domain of control. * I sent my auction initiation message, according to GMail: 2020-05-07 00:51:56 * The above bid reaches some part of the listserv, according to the following header: 2020-05-14 00:51:50 Received: (qmail 9757 invoked by uid 1014); 14 May 2020 00:51:50 - - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 20:49, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > Extremely proto proposal based on the economic arguments I made elsewhere. > > Introduce 4 new assets and a corresponding Card for each asset: > * Pending Tickets > * Extra Votes > * Blot-B-Gone > * Victory Points > > Every player starts with 1 Card of each type, also include them in Welcome > Packages. > > Auction off 1 Card of each type at regular intervals. > > Any player may Transmute X Cards of the same type, where X is 1-5, into the > corresponding asset at a ratio of X Cards = X + (X-1) Assets. > > When a player has 20 Victory Points, e may declare Victory. When this happens, > destroy all cards and assets (besides coins), then give every player 1 of each > card. > > -- > nch Is there any reason for a player to transmute victory points at any time other than when they want to declare victory? Not necessarily a problem, but want to make sure I understand. I guess the other Card types are less likely to be hoarded because players might want to actually use the corresponding assets. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: MUD Post Mortem
On 5/14/2020 11:48 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > So, the MUD appears to have flopped. The primary reason is that I > didn't do anything past setting it up, which is totally on me. > Anything one else have thoughts or analyses? > > -Aris > Visited twice I think? Didn't see anything happening, and also thought "don't have the brainspace to learn this flavor of MUD coding right now, I'll see if anyone else does" (the first time) and "I guess nobody is" (the second time). I think the coding is secondary, at least to start, but if I'd seen anyone to chat with I would have hung around? But then the IRC channel was very active years ago and died off due to similar lack of a critical mass there (I think? Haven't visited in a couple years and it was pretty dead last time I did). -G.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Webmastor
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:42:18 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > FYI, there's a sort of Registrar home page at > https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/ but I never looked into adding it to > the homepage. (Also, it would be nice it actually had a list of > players or something.) > > I see now Gaelan set up a repo called "Header" that I should be > playing with if I want it linked. If our new Webmastor doesn't do that > I might do it time permitting. > > - Falsifian Happy to look into adding the header this weekend. Adding it should be easy but getting it to look nice might need some experimenting since everyone's repos seem to be set up a little differently. -- nch
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Ministerial Referrals
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:39:04 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:18 PM Aris Merchant via agora-official > > wrote: > > Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to set its chamber > > switch to that chamber. > > I CFJ "In a generic Agoran context, to refer a proposal to a chamber > is to set its chamber switch to that chamber." > > Arguments: > > I've been putting "Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to > set its chamber switch to that chamber." at the top of my referral > messages since February. My hope is that people have seen it enough by > now that the average Agoran knows what it means without needing to see > the definition. > > -Aris I think this instance is probably fine but I have some concern about building up jargon that isn't codified somehow. Could easily be a rule addition to define it. -- nch
Re: DIS: [Proto-proto] Webmastor
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 04:50, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > I think we should consider creating an office of the Webmastor, > responsible for maintenance of agoranomic.org. It's a > slightly-exciting hodgepodge of individual officers' sites, and > there's very poor navigation. I think that fixing the navigation is a > real task that should be undertaken, and having someone coordinate > with changing officers to update individual sites, ensure they're all > linked, make sure that the navigation template remains, etc. might be > good. > > (note that https://agoranomic.org/ and > https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/ have slightly different formatting > on the navbar, https://agoranomic.org/wiki/ has a completely different > one that links to out-of-date reports including one for an office that > no longer exists, and I could only find > https://agoranomic.org/assessor/ by searching the mailing list, which > is what prompted this whole mess. > > -Alexis FYI, there's a sort of Registrar home page at https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/ but I never looked into adding it to the homepage. (Also, it would be nice it actually had a list of players or something.) I see now Gaelan set up a repo called "Header" that I should be playing with if I want it linked. If our new Webmastor doesn't do that I might do it time permitting. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: coherent vision for Agora Nomic as an independent policing/judiciary force
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 20:07, David Nicol via agora-discussion wrote: > (1) judiciary thing: craft some immutables that allow contracts to specify > Agora Nomic Arbitration Services as their venue of dispute resolution, > possibly including stuff like all eligible contracts must be public and > parties must pay a registration point (however those are to be obtained) to > register such a thing with Agora. > > (2) police thing: legislate some crimes -- like "victim blaming in a tweet" > -- that can reasonably be prosecuted on the internet only, and provide a > framework for reporting, adjudicating, and shaming perpetrators (not a > whole lot else Agora can do to them) until they submit Indulgence points > (however those are to be obtained.) > > Thoughts? A year ago, o mentioned e is part of a club with a charter heavily based on Agora's ruleset. https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-May/053904.html (Or search your email for subject "Non-email public fora" posted May 23, 2019.) I think PSS and Cuddle Beam express good concerns about Agora itself more to outside events. Not to say that it wouldn't be interesting. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Wood Gavel award
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:54, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > On 4/29/2020 9:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award Falsifian the 2019 Wooden Gavel > > for eir judgements of CFJs 3726-3727. > > > > Falsafian has had a good year :). Having satisfied Agora, I hereby award > Falsifan the 2019 Wooden Gavel for eir judgements of CFJs 3726-3727. > > -G. Thanks. I certainly enjoyed the year! - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Cracking rocks
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 05:12, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > I wrote: > > > Good point. I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award Employee of the > > Year to Falsifian. > > With support from Jason and R. Lee and no objections, I do so. Thanks everyone! - Falsifian
DIS: MUD Post Mortem
So, the MUD appears to have flopped. The primary reason is that I didn't do anything past setting it up, which is totally on me. Anything one else have thoughts or analyses? -Aris
Re: DIS: Agora is currently ossified (but it's OK (kinda))
I'm dumb lmao, thanks On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 6:15 PM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thursday, May 14, 2020 11:06:49 AM CDT Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I was going to reply to Defense Against the Dark Arts about this but I > > figure that it merits its own thread. > > > > In R1698 we got: "Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any > reasonable > > combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be > > made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period." > > You're not reading this carefully. This doesn't say that any arbitrary > rule > change must be possible *right now*. It says that there must be a possible > path to make those rule changes. And there is. Repeal 1698 then make > proposals > that would ossify Agora. That could be done within the four-week period > required. > > -- > nch > > > >
Re: DIS: Agora is currently ossified (but it's OK (kinda))
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 11:06:49 AM CDT Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > I was going to reply to Defense Against the Dark Arts about this but I > figure that it merits its own thread. > > In R1698 we got: "Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable > combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be > made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period." You're not reading this carefully. This doesn't say that any arbitrary rule change must be possible *right now*. It says that there must be a possible path to make those rule changes. And there is. Repeal 1698 then make proposals that would ossify Agora. That could be done within the four-week period required. -- nch
DIS: Agora is currently ossified (but it's OK (kinda))
I was going to reply to Defense Against the Dark Arts about this but I figure that it merits its own thread. In R1698 we got: "Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period." The problem is, a proposal that ossifies Agora is within the set of "arbitrary proposals". If you can't arbitrarily make a proposal that ossifies Agora, you can't make arbitrary proposals. Something ARBITRARY is an immense space, and if you don't have the whole space, it's not technically arbitrary anymore. So, we're currently ossified as far as I understand, because we can't have proposals ossify Agora - and we have been ossified ever since R1698 has popped into existence as it is, we just started with it with our status as ossified from its start. However, once ossified, nothing really happens. The only problem is make Agora BECOME ossified, from a state of being not-ossified. We should probably amend "arbitrary proposals" to "arbitrary proposals excluding those that would ossify Agora" or something to fix this.
DIS: crimes and infractions
On 5/14/2020 7:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Eh, not so much ripping off as a perennial discussion point - whether > blots are seen as genuine cheating/taboos to be avoided, versus being > acceptable penalties accumulated during game play, is a pendulum that's > gone back and forth a few times I think. One way we supported both in the past is to name the concepts differently. We had Crimes and Infractions: > An entity may be convicted of a Crime only by a judicial finding > that e has committed that Crime. An entity may be convicted of > an Infraction only by announcement of a Player authorized by the > Rules to report the commission of that Infraction. The currency of punishment was blots for both (so they were fungible in that sense), but crimes were "people really shouldn't do this, it's cheating" and infractions were "the cost of doing business".
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/14/2020 12:14 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/14/20 1:06 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> >> On 5/14/2020 12:00 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: >>> On 5/13/20 5:54 PM, nch wrote: Well that's an easy fix. We just need to commit/make-up more Agoran crimes. >>> >>> This was something I was going to point out when I got to my computer, >>> but someone beat me to it, it looks like. I, for one, would be perfectly >>> fine with being a lot harsher on crimes. >> >> When we had that old system, blots were a bit more transactional and part >> of gameplay. Every missed report was blotted, but some officers just >> shrugged and had a few blots all the time. At least one subgame used >> blots as gameplay penalties that were socially acceptable to accumulate. >> Though some crimes were clearly more "unacceptable" so it was mixed (not >> sure if that made it "harsher" just a different mindset). > > Wow, we are really ripping past-Agora off here. > Eh, not so much ripping off as a perennial discussion point - whether blots are seen as genuine cheating/taboos to be avoided, versus being acceptable penalties accumulated during game play, is a pendulum that's gone back and forth a few times I think. -G.
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 12:47:14 AM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > 8380# Muprhy 1.0 Justice for R. Lee Author appears to be typo'd here. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:08:23 AM CDT Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/13/20 2:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > Extremely proto proposal based on the economic arguments I made elsewhere. > > > > Introduce 4 new assets and a corresponding Card for each asset: > > * Pending Tickets > > * Extra Votes > > * Blot-B-Gone > > * Victory Points > > > > Every player starts with 1 Card of each type, also include them in Welcome > > Packages. > > > > Auction off 1 Card of each type at regular intervals. > > > > Any player may Transmute X Cards of the same type, where X is 1-5, into > > the > > corresponding asset at a ratio of X Cards = X + (X-1) Assets. > > > > When a player has 20 Victory Points, e may declare Victory. When this > > happens, destroy all cards and assets (besides coins), then give every > > player 1 of each card. > > One more comment (sorry for the email spam). > > Could we possibly tie this economy into the current system of > ministries? There are already a few similarities. Pending Tickets seem > to represent the goals of the Ministry of Legislation, Extra Votes > possibly with Participation, Blot-B-Gone with Justice, and Victory > Points with... Economy, I guess? My point is that we could feasibly tie > these two systems together, making Agora even more connected. > > -- > Trigon Oooh, I totally forgot about interests. Instead of those office-specific clauses, what about "Each office may, once a week, give out one card corresponding to one of its interests to any non-zombie player that doesn't hold an office with that interest." I would exempt Victory Point Cards from this tho. I think having them be either bought via auction or earned via honour with little other interactivity prevents too much scheming and makes those events more exciting. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 1:54:23 AM CDT Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/13/20 3:36 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > A couple amendments to this proto idea: > > > > Where X = 5 Cards, the player gets 2X. This makes that 5th one especially > > valuable to the set seeker. > > I think the scale needs to be even more different. For 1 card redeemed, > you get 1 asset per card. For 2 cards redeemed, you get 1.5. This is a > noticeable difference of 0.5 more assets per card. From here, we see > diminishing returns. 3 cards yield ~0.167 more assets per card, and 4 > cards yields ~0.083 more. Finally, 5 cards gives 0.15 extra assets per > card. It's absolutely the right call to make 5 cards worth 10 assets, > but I think we need to modify this scale such that the difference in > asset per card is constantly increasing. > > -- > Trigon I agree in spirit but I also think the difference can't be too extreme. If it's too extreme people are too incentivized to hoard cards, and we may end up with a few people with way too many of an asset and most people having none of it. Then again, this is a pretty easy thing to tweak as we go. -- nch
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On 5/14/20 3:15 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote: > This is a Notice of Honour: > +1 Aris (continuous dedication to an office held for a long time as well > as true intent to make the best reports possible) > -1 Alexis (can't really think of anyone to punish, and e is not active > at the moment) Alexis is not a player, and Rule 2510 item 3 requires the person losing Karma to be a player. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/14/20 1:06 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 5/14/2020 12:00 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: On 5/13/20 5:54 PM, nch wrote: Well that's an easy fix. We just need to commit/make-up more Agoran crimes. This was something I was going to point out when I got to my computer, but someone beat me to it, it looks like. I, for one, would be perfectly fine with being a lot harsher on crimes. When we had that old system, blots were a bit more transactional and part of gameplay. Every missed report was blotted, but some officers just shrugged and had a few blots all the time. At least one subgame used blots as gameplay penalties that were socially acceptable to accumulate. Though some crimes were clearly more "unacceptable" so it was mixed (not sure if that made it "harsher" just a different mindset). Wow, we are really ripping past-Agora off here. -- Trigon
DIS: [Proto] Defense Against the Dark Arts
Here's a different version of P.S.S.'s proposal. Eirs didn't work because you can't take an action that would cause the game to become ossified, only attempt one. Also, it didn't cover the game ceasing to exist or proposals. Plus I added some other stuff. LMK what y'all think and if people like it I'll submit with whatever changes are necessary before distribution. I've split the penalty for being a proposal author into two parts because it seemed to me that there should be a lesser penalty if it gets caught before almost messing things up, but the total penalty if it isn't should be the same. I'm too tired to explain this properly, but I welcome comments. -Aris --- Title: Defense Against the Dark Arts Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: P.S.S. If a rule entitled "Criminal Ossification" exists, repeal it. Enact a new power 1.0 rule entitled "Defense Against the Dark Arts" with the following text: A proposal is forbidden if it would, upon successfully taking effect, cause Agora to be ossified or to cease to exist. An action is forbidden if it would, upon its successful occurrence, cause Agora to be ossified or to cease to exist. Attempting a forbidden action is PROHIBITED, and is the Class-8 Crime of Engaging in Forbidden Arts. Submitting a forbidden proposal is PROHIBITED, and is the Class-4 Crime of Contemplating Forbidden Arts. Being the author of an adopted forbidden proposal is PROHIBITED, and is the Class-4 Crime of Suborning Forbidden Arts. Having a final ballot that evaluates to FOR in the Agoran decision on whether to adopt a forbidden proposal is PROHIBITED, and is the Class-2 Crime of Abetting Forbidden Arts.
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/14/2020 12:00 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > On 5/13/20 5:54 PM, nch wrote: >> On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 6:42:08 PM CDT you wrote: >>> For blog-b-gones, I'd think we'd want 1, maybe 2 a week? I mean, we only >>> blot people like once a month anyway...? >>> >>> -Aris >> >> Well that's an easy fix. We just need to commit/make-up more Agoran crimes. > > This was something I was going to point out when I got to my computer, > but someone beat me to it, it looks like. I, for one, would be perfectly > fine with being a lot harsher on crimes. > When we had that old system, blots were a bit more transactional and part of gameplay. Every missed report was blotted, but some officers just shrugged and had a few blots all the time. At least one subgame used blots as gameplay penalties that were socially acceptable to accumulate. Though some crimes were clearly more "unacceptable" so it was mixed (not sure if that made it "harsher" just a different mindset). -G.
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/13/20 2:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: Extremely proto proposal based on the economic arguments I made elsewhere. Introduce 4 new assets and a corresponding Card for each asset: * Pending Tickets * Extra Votes * Blot-B-Gone * Victory Points Every player starts with 1 Card of each type, also include them in Welcome Packages. Auction off 1 Card of each type at regular intervals. Any player may Transmute X Cards of the same type, where X is 1-5, into the corresponding asset at a ratio of X Cards = X + (X-1) Assets. When a player has 20 Victory Points, e may declare Victory. When this happens, destroy all cards and assets (besides coins), then give every player 1 of each card. One more comment (sorry for the email spam). Could we possibly tie this economy into the current system of ministries? There are already a few similarities. Pending Tickets seem to represent the goals of the Ministry of Legislation, Extra Votes possibly with Participation, Blot-B-Gone with Justice, and Victory Points with... Economy, I guess? My point is that we could feasibly tie these two systems together, making Agora even more connected. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On 5/13/2020 10:47 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > Okay, I've been working at this in whatever time I could steal for the > last few days, and it's finally here! Behold my draft report! Thanks! Missing "Restraining Motions": https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-May/042686.html
