DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Elections Aren't Over Till They End
i do not think that it is punishment to remove karma. it is just a silly mechanic. On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 4:40 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 7:30 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > This is a notice of honour > > +1 karma to aris for making a bug fix type of proposal that made the rule > > SHORTER rather than LONGER > > -1 karma to Trigon for stealing my win, im still salty > > > This is ridiculous. You can't punish a judge for giving a perfectly decent > opinion just because you disagreed with it. That's why we have moots. > > -1 karma Aris (being the beneficiary of an unjust karma transfer) > +1 karma Trigon (delivering a perfectly good judgement) > > -Aris > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: a side-game for sets
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 02:28, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Proto: Sets side-game Looks fun. I like that it gives an incentive to transmute cards for players who might otherwise hoard. > If a player, over the course of a single message, transmutes cards > that together match the value of one of the Jack's, Queen's, or > King's Hands, e CAN claim the corresponding purse by announcement > in the same message. Doing so grants em a number of chits equal to > the value of the corresponding purse switch. Can the cards be a superset of the hand? Does transmuting 10 VP cards count as transmuting 4 VP cards (plus 6 more)? I guess not, due to "over the course of a single message" and "together", but maybe could be more clear. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Renaming Sillyness (At AI 3, of course)
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 03:56, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > I create the following two proposals (I would like to say, as I now will > for all proposals in the future, that the optionally specified properties > of the following proposals are non-atomic and the rest of the proposal > should stand if one optionally attribute falls) > > Title: Registror > AI: 3 > Text: Retitle the rule 2139 "The Registrar" to "The Registror" > Amend each rule that contains the text "Registrar" by replacing that text > with "Registror" > (This informational segment in brackets has no legal effects. A list of > those rules as this proposal is written for your information is rules 869, > 478, 2139, 1789, 2532, 2574, 1885, 2581) > > Title: Notory (Vote Labour) > AI:3 > Text: Retitle rule 2608 "The Notary" to "The Notory" > Amend rules 2608 and 2450, and also any other rule that contains the text > "Notary", by replacing the word "Notary" with "Notory" I don't really like "Registror". Notory somehow looks nicer to me. Also, according to Wiktionary, it's an old word meaning "Pertaining to magical signs or symbols", which seems appropriate since the texts of Agoran contracts can have tangible (as tangible as anything else is in Agora) effects. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Pledge Bug
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 17:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/16/2020 8:59 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > Breaking a pledge is a crime. A pledge has a time window when after that > > the pledge stops existing. > > > > But a pledge exists that says "I will cause cuddlebeam to win agora within > > 90 days." That pledge is unenforceable because it ceases to exist when its > > time window expires, but before then it's not possible to say that the > > pledge has been broken! Any suggestions for fixing this rules loophole? > > > > Not sure if we have a firm precedent on the fencepost issue (anybody know > of one)? If a pledge is simultaneously broken and ceases to exist at the > end of the time window, it's not clear to me which happens "first", or if > it's simultaneous, whether the breakage may still "happen"? > > -G. Proto, to make it clear: Amend Rule 2450 by replacing the last sentence of the first paragraph with "A pledge ceases to exist immediately after it is possible to determine whether it has been violated." With that phrasing we could also adapt the rule to allow pledges without explicit time windows, e.g. replace the first paragraph with: If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge is the Class N crime of Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states otherwise. If a pledge does not explicitly state otherwise, then it is implicitly restricted to a time window extending 60 days from when it is made. A pledge ceases to exist immediately after it is possible to determine whether it has been violated. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly Nonsense (Report)
> Warrigal Wants to Play Blackjack (didn't happen) This did happen, but the games have ended. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Moot Attempt
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 04:49, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > I intend with 4 support to enter CFJ 3831 into moot > Link: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3831 > > -- > From R. Lee I think we need 5 support now. The last judgement on CFJ 3831 was assigned just over 3 weeks ago on April 26. I intend with 5 support to enter that judgement of CFJ 3831 into moot. I intend with 6 support to enter that judgement of CFJ 3831 into moot. In case my math is off, I support R. Lee's intent quoted above. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto] Promises
I wonder if this rule text could be a contract. Anyone can join, and anyone who's not the creator of a promise can leave. > Promises are a class of assets, tracked by the Notary. Their essential > attributes are their title, text, and creator. A person CAN, by > announcement, > create a promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator. A promise's > owner is referred to as its bearer. Promises with the same title, text, > creator, and bearer are fungible. I think you need to say who owns a promise when it's first created. > By creating a promise, a person consents to it being carried out. Might be better to make that consent conditional on the promise being cashed? I can't think of a plausible situation in which it could matter, but here's a contrived situation. Suppose I create a promise saying I become a candidate for the election for some office. That might count as consent to be made the holder of the office under R1006, but probably shouldn't unless the promise actually gets cashed. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Moot Attempt
Alright, this sure isn't happening then. Well, thanks all for the cautionary tale on why the moot process doesn't work! On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:19 AM James Cook wrote: > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 04:49, Rebecca via agora-business > wrote: > > I intend with 4 support to enter CFJ 3831 into moot > > Link: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3831 > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > > I think we need 5 support now. The last judgement on CFJ 3831 was > assigned just over 3 weeks ago on April 26. > > I intend with 5 support to enter that judgement of CFJ 3831 into moot. > I intend with 6 support to enter that judgement of CFJ 3831 into moot. > > In case my math is off, I support R. Lee's intent quoted above. > > - Falsifian > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Moot Attempt
On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 00:32, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > Alright, this sure isn't happening then. Well, thanks all for the > cautionary tale on why the moot process doesn't work! I think it's quite do-able. We've got almost a week this time, and I think your proposal got 3 support within a day (Aris, Jason, G.). If those three and you support, we just need one more, and there are at least three somewhat active players remaining. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto] Budgets
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 05:40, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > Here's a proto I tossed together in an evening for a budget system. > This could, in theory, be adopted now and wouldn't particularly do > very much apart from allowing for funding of special projects (though > it would allow for a somewhat absurd amount of funding; I imagine most > of it would go to rebates). This makes more sense if we're going to > require all officers to make the payments for the things they need > (e.g. rewards, paydays) out of incoming funds, creating a potential > need for taxes. This goes well with economically focused gameplay. > It's perfectly compatible with sets stuff since coins are still going > to be somewhat important as the precursor for specialized currencies. > Presumably, we'd want to allow for some coins to enter the market > *somewhere*, to allow for healthy inflation. > > I won't be too offended if this isn't well-received. I think it's > interesting to consider though, at least as an option. > > -Aris I had been thinking it would be fun to restrict the creation of Coins and see what kind of dynamics develop. I like your proposal. One nitpick: I found your Budget Regulations rule a bit confusing, since it refers to budgets as absolute amounts of money without specifying a frequency. Is the attention that the numbers get fixed each time a Tabulation of the Budget is reported, and limit the amount that can be appropriated until the next Tabulation of the Budget? - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto] Promises
Thank you for your comments! > I wonder if this rule text could be a contract. Anyone can join, and > anyone who's not the creator of a promise can leave. I thought about that. It would definitely need a helper amendment (for the acting on behalf thing, which I'm going to need to add anyway), but it *could* be. The biggest reason I'm not going that route is that I want the Notary to have responsibility for tracking (even if the current Notary agreed to track the contract state, what about future Notaries?). Anyway, this fits well in the ruleset even if it doesn't strictly speaking need to be there. > > Promises are a class of assets, tracked by the Notary. Their essential > > attributes are their title, text, and creator. A person CAN, by > > announcement, > > create a promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator. A > > promise's > > owner is referred to as its bearer. Promises with the same title, text, > > creator, and bearer are fungible. > > I think you need to say who owns a promise when it's first created. Yep. > > By creating a promise, a person consents to it being carried out. > > Might be better to make that consent conditional on the promise being > cashed? I can't think of a plausible situation in which it could > matter, but here's a contrived situation. Suppose I create a promise > saying I become a candidate for the election for some office. That > might count as consent to be made the holder of the office under > R1006, but probably shouldn't unless the promise actually gets cashed. Fair point. How about "By creating a promise, a person consents to it being carried out when it is cashed"? -Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto] Budgets
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 6:02 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 05:40, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Here's a proto I tossed together in an evening for a budget system. > > This could, in theory, be adopted now and wouldn't particularly do > > very much apart from allowing for funding of special projects (though > > it would allow for a somewhat absurd amount of funding; I imagine most > > of it would go to rebates). This makes more sense if we're going to > > require all officers to make the payments for the things they need > > (e.g. rewards, paydays) out of incoming funds, creating a potential > > need for taxes. This goes well with economically focused gameplay. > > It's perfectly compatible with sets stuff since coins are still going > > to be somewhat important as the precursor for specialized currencies. > > Presumably, we'd want to allow for some coins to enter the market > > *somewhere*, to allow for healthy inflation. > > > > I won't be too offended if this isn't well-received. I think it's > > interesting to consider though, at least as an option. > > > > -Aris > > I had been thinking it would be fun to restrict the creation of Coins > and see what kind of dynamics develop. I like your proposal. Thank you! The most important point is to make it so the system can realistically and consistently raise the funds it needs to operate. In the past, we've sometimes created such systems without doing that. In the past, we once tried to raise funds via proposal fees that decreased when Agora was running low on cash (the theory being that that increased volume would more than compensate for decreased prices). It was an absolute nightmare. I had to do 20 proposal distributions *two weeks in a row,* after the pending price dropped down to like 1. *shuts eyes* Anyhow, the taxing thing is an absolute necessity if we're going to try such a balanced budget system. Something else I just decided; to even out the funds from month to month, it probably makes sense to allow the Prime Minister (or maybe the Treasuror or another office?) to set a rollover of up to 50% of the remaining funds. I do like the "use it or lose it" element, but there should probably be some adjustment for the fact that months may have wildly different revenues. That'll also smooth things out for the first few months until we get everything set up since Agora is coming into this with a huge stockpile of cash. > One nitpick: I found your Budget Regulations rule a bit confusing, > since it refers to budgets as absolute amounts of money without > specifying a frequency. Is the attention that the numbers get fixed > each time a Tabulation of the Budget is reported, and limit the amount > that can be appropriated until the next Tabulation of the Budget? Uhhh... TBH I didn't think that through, but your model makes the most sense. To the extent I thought about it, I figured it was going to be per month. But making it per Tabulation makes more sense because that way everyone knows what each budget is at the beginning of each budget period. So I'll do that. Oh, one other random note I thought I should explain. The tax code deliberately treats zombies as people for some purposes and not for others. I let each zombie still have a personal withholding, both because I wanted to give zombie masters some advantages and because I think it creates intresting risk-reward dynamics around whether to leave zombies with funds (which they get to keep if they become active). However, I did not let zombies receive rebates. I do not think it is intresting to tie zombies to that sort of concrete payout. It would end up doubling an individual's rebate, which could add up to a lot of money, encouraging people to bid a ton for zombies just to sit on rebates. This proposal actually came out of me reading the latest Treasuror's report and noticing that Agora had an absurd amount of savings that were just sitting there. I wrote the rebate mechanic as a way to get those funds back into circulation, but then it occurred to me that it didn't make sense to have tax rebates without taxes. The entire budget system came out of that. -Aris
