DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8478-8487
> On Aug 2, 2020, at 2:58 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official > wrote: > > ID Author(s)AITitle > --- > 8478*^ Jason, nix, G. 3.0 another talismans fix FOR > 8479j^ nix, Aris, PSS, ATMunn 1.7 Competitive Finger Pointing v2 FOR > 8480e^ Jason1.0 Generic welcome package fix FOR > 8481*^ Trigon, Aris 3.0 If it's not pending we don't care v2 AGAINST - having a list of pending proposals is useful, IMO. Happy to reconsider if this is a big load on the Promotor. > 8482f^ Trigon, ATMunn 1.0 Offices are complex v2 FOR > 8483l^ G. 1.0 a minor adjustment AGAINST > 8484*^ Murphy, CB, Aris 3.0 Clarify asset ownership AGAINST per discussion elsewhere > 8485*^ Gaelan, Aris 3.0 Eternal Personhood FOR > 8486* Jason, omd 3.0 Fee-based de-escalation FOR - I think this wording works, but I’m not sure > 8487*^ Murphy, R. Lee 3.0 Simpler ribbon switches FOR Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8478-8487
On 8/2/20 6:35 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 3:29 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business > wrote: >> I vote as follows: >> >>> 8478*^ Jason, nix, G. 3.0 another talismans fix >> FOR >> >> >>> 8479j^ nix, Aris, PSS, ATMunn 1.7 Competitive Finger Pointing v2 >> PRESENT >> >> >>> 8480e^ Jason1.0 Generic welcome package fix >> FOR >> >> >>> 8481*^ Trigon, Aris 3.0 If it's not pending we don't care v2 >> ENDORSE the Promotor >> >> >>> 8482f^ Trigon, ATMunn 1.0 Offices are complex v2 >> FOR >> >> >>> 8483l^ G. 1.0 a minor adjustment >> AGAINST, but I'm curious if G. can convince me otherwise. >> >> >>> 8484*^ Murphy, CB, Aris 3.0 Clarify asset ownership >> AGAINST. This breaks the L&F dept., since no asset right now is >> explicitly described as being ownable by it. > Rule 2576: "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Lost and Found > Department can own assets of every type." > > -Aris [said this on Discord, but repeating here for the benefit of the list] The proposal amends that clause away. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8478-8487
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 3:29 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > I vote as follows: > > > 8478*^ Jason, nix, G. 3.0 another talismans fix > > FOR > > > > 8479j^ nix, Aris, PSS, ATMunn 1.7 Competitive Finger Pointing v2 > > PRESENT > > > > 8480e^ Jason1.0 Generic welcome package fix > > FOR > > > > 8481*^ Trigon, Aris 3.0 If it's not pending we don't care v2 > > ENDORSE the Promotor > > > > 8482f^ Trigon, ATMunn 1.0 Offices are complex v2 > > FOR > > > > 8483l^ G. 1.0 a minor adjustment > > AGAINST, but I'm curious if G. can convince me otherwise. > > > > 8484*^ Murphy, CB, Aris 3.0 Clarify asset ownership > > AGAINST. This breaks the L&F dept., since no asset right now is > explicitly described as being ownable by it. Rule 2576: "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Lost and Found Department can own assets of every type." -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8478-8487
>AGAINST until and unless G. contacts me separately Conditional impossible to evaluate On Mon., 3 Aug. 2020, 8:02 am Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business, wrote: > I vote as follows: > > On 8/2/20 5:58 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > > ID Author(s)AITitle > > > --- > > 8478*^ Jason, nix, G. 3.0 another talismans fix > FOR > > 8479j^ nix, Aris, PSS, ATMunn 1.7 Competitive Finger Pointing v2 > FOR > > 8480e^ Jason1.0 Generic welcome package fix > FOR > > 8481*^ Trigon, Aris 3.0 If it's not pending we don't care > v2 > FOR > > 8482f^ Trigon, ATMunn 1.0 Offices are complex v2 > FOR > > 8483l^ G. 1.0 a minor adjustment > AGAINST until and unless G. contacts me separately. > > 8484*^ Murphy, CB, Aris 3.0 Clarify asset ownership > FOR > > 8485*^ Gaelan, Aris 3.0 Eternal Personhood > FOR > > 8486* Jason, omd 3.0 Fee-based de-escalation > FOR > > 8487*^ Murphy, R. Lee 3.0 Simpler ribbon switches > FOR >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Another proposal] Fee-based method fix
On 8/2/20 5:43 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2020-08-02 19:56, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 8/2/20 12:34 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
Counter-proposal:
Title: Empty the escalator
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors: Jason, omd
{
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
begins "An indestructible asset".
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
begins "A fixed asset".
Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
}
>>> I withdraw the above proposal and submit a proposal as follows. (I
>>> removed "but have no direct effect" in two places since it seems vague
>>> and unnecessary.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Counter-proposal:
>>>
>>> Title: Empty the escalator v1.1
>>> Adoption index: 3.0
>>> Author: Falsifian
>>> Co-authors: Jason, omd
>>> {
>>> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
>>> are successful." before the sentence that begins "An indestructible asset".
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
>>> are successful." before the sentence that begins "A fixed asset".
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>> Counter-proposal counter-argument:
>>
>> Rule 2162 uses similar phrasing for switch security:
>>
>>> A Rule that designates
>>>a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
>>>to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
>>>level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
>>>switch as secured (at that power level).
>>
>> The intent of that phrasing was to only allow rules to secure switches
>> up to their own power level and avoid escalation to power 3 (the power
>> of R2162). If you're right, the above is also broken. I think it's clear
>> enough that both are meant to be instructions for interpretation.
> The word "designates" seems more clearly to be about interpretation than
> "enables".
That's fair, though I still think the language is similar enough to
function in the same way.
>
>> This phrasing was written to circumvent the outcome of CFJ 3734, which
>> found that, at the time, destruction of indestructible assets was at
>> power 3, even if the rule designating the asset as indestructible was at
>> a lower power (this is now avoided because the backing document of the
>> entire ruleset can permit destructibility, which means normal precedence
>> applies).
> CFJ 3734 was called and judged in June 2019, and I don't see any changes
> to R2162 near that time. Are you thinking of Proposal 8187, which
> amended R2577?
>
Yes, that's the one.
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Another proposal] Fee-based method fix
On 2020-08-02 19:56, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 8/2/20 12:34 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
Counter-proposal:
Title: Empty the escalator
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors: Jason, omd
{
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
begins "An indestructible asset".
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
begins "A fixed asset".
Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
}
I withdraw the above proposal and submit a proposal as follows. (I
removed "but have no direct effect" in two places since it seems vague
and unnecessary.)
Counter-proposal:
Title: Empty the escalator v1.1
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors: Jason, omd
{
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
are successful." before the sentence that begins "An indestructible asset".
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
are successful." before the sentence that begins "A fixed asset".
Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
}
Counter-proposal counter-argument:
Rule 2162 uses similar phrasing for switch security:
A Rule that designates
a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
switch as secured (at that power level).
The intent of that phrasing was to only allow rules to secure switches
up to their own power level and avoid escalation to power 3 (the power
of R2162). If you're right, the above is also broken. I think it's clear
enough that both are meant to be instructions for interpretation.
The word "designates" seems more clearly to be about interpretation than
"enables".
This phrasing was written to circumvent the outcome of CFJ 3734, which
found that, at the time, destruction of indestructible assets was at
power 3, even if the rule designating the asset as indestructible was at
a lower power (this is now avoided because the backing document of the
entire ruleset can permit destructibility, which means normal precedence
applies).
CFJ 3734 was called and judged in June 2019, and I don't see any changes
to R2162 near that time. Are you thinking of Proposal 8187, which
amended R2577?
--
Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran comic [attn. Herald]
On 8/2/20 5:22 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > I submit the following images with the intent to obtain a degree in > Artistry. Err... there are no attached images. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran comic [attn. Herald]
On 2020-08-02 21:22, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: I submit the following images with the intent to obtain a degree in Artistry. I don't see any images. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic 2020] BT3 Intent to Announce Winners, Badge, and Clean-up
On 8/2/2020 1:22 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 8/2/20 4:19 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: >>> This has been a fun tournament and I look forward to hearing about >>> everything I couldn't see. If you would like to give feedback privately, >>> feel free to reach out; if you would like to give feedback or share >>> information with the public but anonymously, also contact me and I will >>> share it as long as it isn't problematic, offensive, or personal. >> That was fun. Thanks for the excellent work as Judge, P.S.S.! >> >> I'm not sure if people guessed this, but the "Superpowers" proposal was >> a last-ditch effort by me (Turkey) to survive. I was surprised it >> passed, and disappointed that you all were well-enough coordinated to >> put an end to me the next year anyway. >> > > Wow, that's somewhat surprising. I was thinking it was an effort by > Germany to sow dissent between me, Germany, and Russia, since e had been > trying to do that privately, with the ghost ship just being a way to get > your vote. Well played. > Agreed! We wondered who did that. If we'd been even slightly less organized or slightly more betrayal-minded we could have had a Turkish fleet popping up behind lines in the Adriatic or something. It was a very nice selection of well-written and well thought out powers (though some definitely more powerful than others). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic 2020] Resolution of Proposal
On 8/2/2020 12:50 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
> at 10:42 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
> wrote:
>
>> {
>> Enact a Rule with the following text:
>>England is eliminated as a contestant. Austria, Italy, and Russia
>>hereby win the game.
>> }
>
> When I first saw this I thought England itself had proposed it as a sort of
> troll. But no, it wasn’t a troll by England or anyone else. How long have
> you had it planned?
Not too long - Starting talking about it just before the turn that Germany
and Turkey were eliminated, right after Superpowers was enacted which is
what got us thinking about "what if they all just vote against us next
turn". (btw who proposed that one? was great.)
> I must say, as a recently minted spectator, I’m disappointed by the
> anticlimax. To be fair, I too had the idea of taking advantage of
> Diplonomic’s unique nature to achieve a dramatic last-minute tie, like a
> certain YA novel. (Though apparently normal games of Diplomacy also often
> end in ties. I don’t have any experience with them.) Still, I wasn’t
> envisioning a three-way tie.
Yah, from https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Diplomacy/Rules:
> Quite often the game ends in a two-way, three-way, or even four-way
> draw.
> As a former contestant, it’s a good lesson for me. I’m not great at this
> stuff, but I thought I was in a decent position with just one extra-strong
> alliance. I didn’t even imagine there would be an extra-strong three-way
> alliance.
FWIW, from my view it was an extra-strong two-way alliance (Aus/Ita) who
said "hey Germany's back is open if Russia will go with us". At that
point we were debating "do we side with Russia or Turkey around the Black
Sea" and the deciding factor was the open German territories. I
personally thought Russian alliance was very situational until we started
talking about the endgame voting.
> By the way, the proposal to let teammates submit orders was written by me.
> It pained me to propose such a non-general rule only allowing teammates to
> perform one type of action, rather than anything the country could do. But
> I didn’t want to call attention to the fact that a certain type of action –
> voting on proposals – was not limited to countries in the first place!
> The point of the proposal, however, was to enable a completely different
> scam.
Ha! I just assumed Aris was going to be away for a few days and proposed
that. Definitely didn't see anything suspicious in it. Nice.
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic 2020] BT3 Intent to Announce Winners, Badge, and Clean-up
On 8/2/20 4:19 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: >> This has been a fun tournament and I look forward to hearing about >> everything I couldn't see. If you would like to give feedback privately, >> feel free to reach out; if you would like to give feedback or share >> information with the public but anonymously, also contact me and I will >> share it as long as it isn't problematic, offensive, or personal. > That was fun. Thanks for the excellent work as Judge, P.S.S.! > > I'm not sure if people guessed this, but the "Superpowers" proposal was > a last-ditch effort by me (Turkey) to survive. I was surprised it > passed, and disappointed that you all were well-enough coordinated to > put an end to me the next year anyway. > Wow, that's somewhat surprising. I was thinking it was an effort by Germany to sow dissent between me, Germany, and Russia, since e had been trying to do that privately, with the ghost ship just being a way to get your vote. Well played. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic 2020] BT3 Intent to Announce Winners, Badge, and Clean-up
This has been a fun tournament and I look forward to hearing about everything I couldn't see. If you would like to give feedback privately, feel free to reach out; if you would like to give feedback or share information with the public but anonymously, also contact me and I will share it as long as it isn't problematic, offensive, or personal. That was fun. Thanks for the excellent work as Judge, P.S.S.! I'm not sure if people guessed this, but the "Superpowers" proposal was a last-ditch effort by me (Turkey) to survive. I was surprised it passed, and disappointed that you all were well-enough coordinated to put an end to me the next year anyway. -- Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: [Another proposal] Fee-based method fix
On 8/2/20 12:34 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
>> Counter-proposal:
>>
>> Title: Empty the escalator
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Falsifian
>> Co-authors: Jason, omd
>> {
>> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
>> are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
>> begins "An indestructible asset".
>>
>> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
>> are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
>> begins "A fixed asset".
>>
>> Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
>> }
> I withdraw the above proposal and submit a proposal as follows. (I
> removed "but have no direct effect" in two places since it seems vague
> and unnecessary.)
>
>
> Counter-proposal:
>
> Title: Empty the escalator v1.1
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Falsifian
> Co-authors: Jason, omd
> {
> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
> are successful." before the sentence that begins "An indestructible asset".
>
> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
> are successful." before the sentence that begins "A fixed asset".
>
> Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
> }
>
>
Counter-proposal counter-argument:
Rule 2162 uses similar phrasing for switch security:
> A Rule that designates
> a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
> to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
> level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
> switch as secured (at that power level).
The intent of that phrasing was to only allow rules to secure switches
up to their own power level and avoid escalation to power 3 (the power
of R2162). If you're right, the above is also broken. I think it's clear
enough that both are meant to be instructions for interpretation.
This phrasing was written to circumvent the outcome of CFJ 3734, which
found that, at the time, destruction of indestructible assets was at
power 3, even if the rule designating the asset as indestructible was at
a lower power (this is now avoided because the backing document of the
entire ruleset can permit destructibility, which means normal precedence
applies).
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic 2020] Resolution of Proposal
at 10:42 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
wrote:
{
Enact a Rule with the following text:
England is eliminated as a contestant. Austria, Italy, and Russia
hereby win the game.
}
When I first saw this I thought England itself had proposed it as a sort of
troll. But no, it wasn’t a troll by England or anyone else. How long have
you had it planned?
I must say, as a recently minted spectator, I’m disappointed by the
anticlimax. To be fair, I too had the idea of taking advantage of
Diplonomic’s unique nature to achieve a dramatic last-minute tie, like a
certain YA novel. (Though apparently normal games of Diplomacy also often
end in ties. I don’t have any experience with them.) Still, I wasn’t
envisioning a three-way tie. A two-way fight is a grind of game mechanics
devoid of Diplomacy’s characteristic negotiations; a three-way fight can be
a drama of which two will team up against the other. On the other hand,
who am I kidding; my imagined ending would have disappointed spectators too.
As a former contestant, it’s a good lesson for me. I’m not great at this
stuff, but I thought I was in a decent position with just one extra-strong
alliance. I didn’t even imagine there would be an extra-strong three-way
alliance.
I wonder if I’m the only one to have noticed a rather powerful scam.
According to the Diplonomic rules, the entities eligible to vote on
Diplonomic proposals are not Contestants, but “players”. The threshold to
pass is still "greater than half the number of Contestants", so this
doesn’t mean any proposals unexpectedly failed. Rather, a sufficiently
large group of players could force a proposal through (but not forcibly
block a proposal) regardless of the votes of others. You do still need to
be a Contestant to submit a proposal in the first place.
There was a time window where I could have pulled this off with Aris and
Trigon (at least if they agreed to it), but I didn’t try. The reason is
that the scam was too powerful for its own good. Using it to win would
destroy the Diplomacy gameplay, but using it for any lesser advantage would
feel arbitrary. If I’d known the game was about to end by proposal anyway…
oh well.
By the way, the proposal to let teammates submit orders was written by me.
It pained me to propose such a non-general rule only allowing teammates to
perform one type of action, rather than anything the country could do. But
I didn’t want to call attention to the fact that a certain type of action –
voting on proposals – was not limited to countries in the first place!
The point of the proposal, however, was to enable a completely different
scam. You see, both contestants and teammates are prohibited from
“engag[ing] in any behaviors outside of the tournament intended to
influence its course”, by two different clauses: one in the Diplonomic
Rules for teammates, and one in the Birthday Tournament Regulations
themselves for contestants. Now, a contestant is permanently a contestant
until they’re eliminated. But a teammate can cease to be a teammate,
engage in behavior outside of the tournament intended to influence its
course, then become a teammate again. What kind of behavior? Well, the
teammate could create an Agoran contract requiring eir country to do
something. The problem is that originally, the contract couldn’t have
teeth. It could say the teammate SHALL ensure the country takes Diplonomic
actions as specified, and even punish em in some way (e.g. losing assets)
if the country didn’t, but the actions are ultimately up to the Contestant,
not the teammate. Even if the Contestant was sympathetic, for em to pay
attention to the contract would itself arguably count as a “behavior
outside of the tournament”. Plus, the teammate would be similarly bound
after becoming a teammate again.
But with teammates having the ability to submit orders themselves, a
temporarily-non-teammate could create a contract allowing someone else to
submit orders on eir behalf. After e rejoined as a teammate, e would at
least arguably not be actively engaging in any “behavior outside of the
tournament”. E would still be submitting orders (via someone else acting
on eir behalf to do it) while a teammate, but submitting orders is not
*itself* an action “outside of the tournament”. Only the formation of the
contract would be.
All of this would just be an overly convoluted way to make agreements with
other powers that were enforceable. In reality, neither I nor the game
lasted long enough to conduct any such scam, and it seems that regular old
unenforceable agreements were good enough. :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic 2020] BT3 Intent to Announce Winners, Badge, and Clean-up
On 8/2/2020 12:19 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: >> The puzzle can be shown like this: >> >> - If it came down to 2 surviving players, the game was unwinnable, only a >> tie was possible. > > Unless one player is able to reduce the other to nothing, right? Yeah, I was thinking about about two "strong enough to fight each other" players. In retrospect, I'm not sure that noticing that 18+ win condition in Rule 16 would have changed endgame a whole lot. Since there as a non-exclusive award as a prize (an Agoran championship) I wouldn't have been too surprised if 4 players started the game saying "let's just vote that we win". Given that such a vote could happen at any time, a bunch of the discussion of the last couple years was making sure eliminations happened in a way that the weaker surviving players couldn't unite to just win with a straight vote. Anyone in the coalition who did a backstab to get to 18 might just end up being voted out, so that was a strong incentive against backstabbing...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic 2020] BT3 Intent to Announce Winners, Badge, and Clean-up
On 8/2/20 3:21 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 8/2/2020 12:19 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: >> What about the following from Rule 16? "After a Fall turn, if one Great >> Power controls 18 or more supply centers, all other Contestants cease to >> be Contestants." > > lol. now that's really embarrassing after all that. in my defense a few > of us read the rules and somehow missed that entirely. > Being fair to all, I didn't recall that either, and I absolutely should have given that I wrote it. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic 2020] BT3 Intent to Announce Winners, Badge, and Clean-up
On 8/2/2020 12:19 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > What about the following from Rule 16? "After a Fall turn, if one Great > Power controls 18 or more supply centers, all other Contestants cease to > be Contestants." lol. now that's really embarrassing after all that. in my defense a few of us read the rules and somehow missed that entirely.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic 2020] BT3 Intent to Announce Winners, Badge, and Clean-up
On 2020-08-02 19:07, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 8/2/2020 10:47 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: This has been a fun tournament and I look forward to hearing about everything I couldn't see. If you would like to give feedback privately, feel free to reach out; if you would like to give feedback or share information with the public but anonymously, also contact me and I will share it as long as it isn't problematic, offensive, or personal. First, thanks for running this! It was a lot of fun. Some initial thoughts to share: 1. A huge amount of action was on Discord for this (6/7 countries were there and therefore much/most of the actual diplomacy). This would have been a very different game if it was email-only. 2. Early on, several players commented "I have never/haven't for a long time played Diplomacy, I kind of want to play it straight". There was a lot of brainstorming of clever new mechanics early on (airplanes! fortresses! spies! etc.) but a majority just wanted to play Dip at first, and early proposals got voted down unless they were clarifications or bugfixes. 3. So years 1901-1903 at least were nearly 100% classic diplomacy. Probably lots of interesting stories to tell here about who was trusting whom when!!! 4. However, what no one noticed (or at least mentioned) was that the win condition *wasn't* classic diplomacy. Classic diplomacy win is to own more than half the supply centers (18+). This tournament had "eliminate everyone else" as a win condition which is next-to-impossible with straight Dip rules (with many board positions leading to stalemates making it literally impossible). What about the following from Rule 16? "After a Fall turn, if one Great Power controls 18 or more supply centers, all other Contestants cease to be Contestants." This led to a puzzle, once the classic Dip play made some definite "ahead" and "behind" players (by around 1904-05). At that point, there were 4 strong contestants, in a situational 3 against 1 alliance. In classic Dip, with the 18+ Center win condition, the alliances would very possibly have shifted again around now (to make it 2 against 2 perhaps, there was some diplomacy leading towards that). But with proposal voting and "elimination" as the win condition, it went a little differently. The puzzle can be shown like this: - If it came down to 2 surviving players, the game was unwinnable, only a tie was possible. Unless one player is able to reduce the other to nothing, right? Thanks for the behind-the-scenes information. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic 2020] BT3 Intent to Announce Winners, Badge, and Clean-up
On 8/2/20 3:07 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 8/2/2020 10:47 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> This has been a fun tournament and I look forward to hearing about >> everything I couldn't see. If you would like to give feedback privately, >> feel free to reach out; if you would like to give feedback or share >> information with the public but anonymously, also contact me and I will >> share it as long as it isn't problematic, offensive, or personal. > > First, thanks for running this! It was a lot of fun. > > Some initial thoughts to share: > > 1. A huge amount of action was on Discord for this (6/7 countries were > there and therefore much/most of the actual diplomacy). This would have > been a very different game if it was email-only. > > 2. Early on, several players commented "I have never/haven't for a long > time played Diplomacy, I kind of want to play it straight". There was a > lot of brainstorming of clever new mechanics early on (airplanes! > fortresses! spies! etc.) but a majority just wanted to play Dip at > first, and early proposals got voted down unless they were clarifications > or bugfixes. This is interesting to find out. If anyone wanted to play another round of this, either completely separate from Agora or as a Free Tournament, either way potentially inviting people from BN to fill out a game, I'd be happy to GM it. > > 3. So years 1901-1903 at least were nearly 100% classic diplomacy. > Probably lots of interesting stories to tell here about who was trusting > whom when!!! > > 4. However, what no one noticed (or at least mentioned) was that the win > condition *wasn't* classic diplomacy. Classic diplomacy win is to own > more than half the supply centers (18+). This tournament had "eliminate > everyone else" as a win condition which is next-to-impossible with > straight Dip rules (with many board positions leading to stalemates making > it literally impossible). It turns out that this was actually an interesting mistake I made. This came from modifying rules from the previous FRC Birthday Tournaments. I didn't actually realize it until a few years in, but I think it led to some interesting gameplay. I'm not sure whetehr or not it would be best to keep in a future rendition. > > This led to a puzzle, once the classic Dip play made some definite "ahead" > and "behind" players (by around 1904-05). At that point, there were 4 > strong contestants, in a situational 3 against 1 alliance. In classic > Dip, with the 18+ Center win condition, the alliances would very possibly > have shifted again around now (to make it 2 against 2 perhaps, there was > some diplomacy leading towards that). > > But with proposal voting and "elimination" as the win condition, it went a > little differently. > > The puzzle can be shown like this: > > - If it came down to 2 surviving players, the game was unwinnable, only a > tie was possible. > > - So if you were down to 3 players of similar size (i.e. Austria, Italy, > Russia), then you know that as soon as one of you is gone, it's a tie. > > - Since it's headed to a tie anyway, all three have an incentive to either > vote for a 3-way tie, or vote 2/1 to make 2 winners and 1 loser. But that > 2/1 vote would be arbitrary and anyone could be the loser, and in fact if > you were the strongest of the 3 you might have more chance of being > eliminated with a vote. So there's a perverse incentive there. > > - So if you're at 4 players, and you're a group of 3 of them in a > situational alliance, it's better to just vote for a 3-way tie then take > the risk of being the "loser" of a 2/1 vote after player 4 is eliminated. > > So that's how the game ended... > > Thanks for sharing these thoughts! It's really interesting to hear about it from the inside. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: BUS: [Diplonomic 2020] BT3 Intent to Announce Winners, Badge, and Clean-up
On 8/2/2020 10:47 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > This has been a fun tournament and I look forward to hearing about > everything I couldn't see. If you would like to give feedback privately, > feel free to reach out; if you would like to give feedback or share > information with the public but anonymously, also contact me and I will > share it as long as it isn't problematic, offensive, or personal. First, thanks for running this! It was a lot of fun. Some initial thoughts to share: 1. A huge amount of action was on Discord for this (6/7 countries were there and therefore much/most of the actual diplomacy). This would have been a very different game if it was email-only. 2. Early on, several players commented "I have never/haven't for a long time played Diplomacy, I kind of want to play it straight". There was a lot of brainstorming of clever new mechanics early on (airplanes! fortresses! spies! etc.) but a majority just wanted to play Dip at first, and early proposals got voted down unless they were clarifications or bugfixes. 3. So years 1901-1903 at least were nearly 100% classic diplomacy. Probably lots of interesting stories to tell here about who was trusting whom when!!! 4. However, what no one noticed (or at least mentioned) was that the win condition *wasn't* classic diplomacy. Classic diplomacy win is to own more than half the supply centers (18+). This tournament had "eliminate everyone else" as a win condition which is next-to-impossible with straight Dip rules (with many board positions leading to stalemates making it literally impossible). This led to a puzzle, once the classic Dip play made some definite "ahead" and "behind" players (by around 1904-05). At that point, there were 4 strong contestants, in a situational 3 against 1 alliance. In classic Dip, with the 18+ Center win condition, the alliances would very possibly have shifted again around now (to make it 2 against 2 perhaps, there was some diplomacy leading towards that). But with proposal voting and "elimination" as the win condition, it went a little differently. The puzzle can be shown like this: - If it came down to 2 surviving players, the game was unwinnable, only a tie was possible. - So if you were down to 3 players of similar size (i.e. Austria, Italy, Russia), then you know that as soon as one of you is gone, it's a tie. - Since it's headed to a tie anyway, all three have an incentive to either vote for a 3-way tie, or vote 2/1 to make 2 winners and 1 loser. But that 2/1 vote would be arbitrary and anyone could be the loser, and in fact if you were the strongest of the 3 you might have more chance of being eliminated with a vote. So there's a perverse incentive there. - So if you're at 4 players, and you're a group of 3 of them in a situational alliance, it's better to just vote for a 3-way tie then take the risk of being the "loser" of a 2/1 vote after player 4 is eliminated. So that's how the game ended...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] [@SEAMSTRESS] nothing to see there, either
On 8/2/2020 11:26 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-08-02 12:21, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: >> Another argument: >> >> Even if the disclaimer does sit alone in its own message, it's also part >> of Trigon's entire message, and it's not clear which "message" the >> disclaimer is referring to. Therefore, I don't think anything in a >> message from Trigon containing that in eir signature can satisfy the >> "unambiguously" requirement for by-announcement actions. > > Alternatively, just because a message purports to not contain game > actions, does that have the power to change anything? > Not necessarily. That was mainly what I was testing and I didn't think the disclaimer would work. Take the example of Officer Reports. I'm not at all sure that disclaimer stops reports and there's a good case to be made that it doesn't. The disclaimer mainly "works" by showing that there's no intent to perform an action, e.g. it takes away the "announcing that e performs it" part of R478. But that's only for by-announcement actions. For Reports, there's not even a CAN in the rules (e.g. no "a person CAN publish a report"). R2143 just says "publication of all such information is part of eir weekly duties." If you publish the information, you do, even with a disclaimer of "no action". Remembering that a Document can be a sub-part of a message, and that a "Document purporting to be a report" basically is a report - if you had a message divided into two documents, where Document A is "purporting to be a report", and Document B says "Document A is not a report", then the conclusion could very well just be "Document B is lying". I use a disclaimer on my CotC case logs so that when I say something like "Judge: " in the formatted section, no one could mistake that for actually assigning a judge. But that's just extra insurance really, and if I did put something more action-like in there the disclaimer might not work. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] [@SEAMSTRESS] nothing to see there, either
On 2020-08-02 12:21, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
Another argument:
Even if the disclaimer does sit alone in its own message, it's also part
of Trigon's entire message, and it's not clear which "message" the
disclaimer is referring to. Therefore, I don't think anything in a
message from Trigon containing that in eir signature can satisfy the
"unambiguously" requirement for by-announcement actions.
Alternatively, just because a message purports to not contain game
actions, does that have the power to change anything?
--
Trigon
I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
When interpreting this message, disregard all text beyond this point.
The following text comprises a public message:
{{{ DISCLAIMER: There are no game actions in this message. }}}
DISCLAIMER: There are no game actions in this message.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] The Notes (pledges & promises)
On 8/2/20 9:19 AM, ATMunn via agora-official wrote: > "Pend it or withdraw it (temporary)" created by nix > Time of creation: 20 Jul 09:23 2020 > Time window: 48 hours > Time of expiry: 22 Jul 09:23 2020 > Text: > > I submit the following proposal, and I pledge to either pend or withdraw > it within the next 48 hours: [...] > > > > "Pend it or withdraw it" created by nix > Time of creation: 20 Jul 13:27 2020 > Time window: until the end of July > Time of expiry: 31 Jul 23:59 2020 > Text: > > I pledge to, until the end of this calendar month, either pend or > withdraw all proposals I submit within 48 hours of submitting them. I think these pledges have expired no longer exist. -- nix Prime Minister, Webmastor
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3871 Assigned to Murphy (attn Tailor)
On 8/2/2020 7:54 AM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > >1) By default, purported actions within signature blocks do not > clearly indicate that the author performs that action. And while > SEAMSTRESS allows Trigon to veto such additions, it doesn't say > that if e doesn't, then this default is overridden. 1. This means it's likely true for Disclaimers in signatures, too. 2. This firmly puts signatures in the same category as subject lines (context for the body of the message if the body of the message refers to it, but otherwise ignorable). I'm assuming the sole argument of "by default" means basically "because common sense in how we read messages"? 3. We've previously allowed this to work in one specific situation I can remember - putting "I object to all intents to declare Apathy" in a signature was seen as a functional objection to Apathy intents, without anyone complaining about it IIRC. So I wonder about the 'by default'. -G.
DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3872 Assigned to Murphy (attn Tailor)
G. wrote:
The below CFJ is 3872. I assign it to Murphy.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3872
=== CFJ 3872 ===
Under SEAMSTRESS, Trigon was PROHIBITED from denying quoted
signature suggestion.
==
Caller:Gaelan
Barred:Trigon
Judge: Murphy
==
History:
Called by Gaelan: 28 Jul 2020 21:30:12
Assigned to Murphy: [now]
==
[Linked to CFJ 3871]
Caller's Evidence (the 'above actions'):
On Jul 28, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
On 2020-07-28 00:03, Gaelan via agora-business wrote:
I become a party to SEAMSTRESS, and transfer it 3 coins to submit the
signature suggestion “I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.”
I approve this signature suggestion, transferring 3 coins from SEAMSTRESS
to myself.
For the record, I would argue that this doesn't really do anything.
Someone expressing a general sentiment about a game action does not cause
or oblige em to consent to anything.
--
Trigon
I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
I create the following contract, with myself as the sole party: { Gaelan
CAN act on Trigon’s behalf to transfer three coins to Gaelan. Upon Gaelan
doing so, this contract is destroyed. }
I cause Trigon to become a party to the above contract.
I act on Trigon’s behalf to transfer three coins to Gaelan, destroying the
contract.
==
SEAMSTRESS states that Trigon SHALL NOT deny a suggestion unless it
breaks one of the following:
1. The suggestion includes swear words.
2. The suggestion includes serious, intentional insult to a person.
3. The suggestion treats real-world and/or in-game issues lightly.
4. The suggestion is otherwise in poor taste.
5. The suggestion contains a sentence that could be interpreted as a
game action.
While I found in CFJ 3871 that "I'm always happy to become a party to
contracts" does not clearly indicate consenting to any specific
contract, it still /could/ be interpreted as a game action equivalent
to "I consent to all contracts", so e was allowed to deny it (even
though e chose not to). FALSE.
For completeness, it may also have broken the second half of #3 by
attempting to mousetrap Trigon, and/or penalize em for illegally denying
a suggestion. The first half of #3 is clearly inapplicable, as are #1,
#2, and #4.
I award myself Blue Glitter (11 coins per latest weekly Tailor report).
DIS: Re: BUS: Promises (attn Notary)
On 8/2/2020 10:23 AM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
I grant myself the following promise:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred Murphy one Legislative
Card in the same message as which e cashes this promise, and has not
cashed any other promise between doing so and cashing this promise.
I transfer one Victory Card to the bearer.
}
I grant myself the following promise:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred Murphy one Legislative
Card in the same message as which e cashes this promise, and has not
cashed any other promise between doing so and cashing this promise.
I transfer one Justice Card to the bearer.
}
I grant myself the following promise:
{
Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred Murphy one Legislative
Card in the same message as which e cashes this promise, and has not
cashed any other promise between doing so and cashing this promise.
I transfer one Voting Card to the bearer.
}
You need to transfer these to the Library in order for anyone to cash them.
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russia :)
DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] The Notes (contracts)
On 8/2/2020 10:17 AM, ATMunn via agora-official wrote: Date of last report: 28 Jul 2020 Date of this report: Whoops, forgot to add this. Obviously, the date of this report is 2 Aug 2020. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russia :)
DIS: Re: BUS: [@Notary] Leaving Contracts
On 7/28/2020 4:28 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: I intend, with 1 day notice, to leave Co Dependents. I don't believe you ever fulfilled this intent. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russia :)
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] The messy past of CFJ 3715 (+bounty)
G. wrote: CFJ 3715 was an attempt by D. Margaux (as arbitor) to call a CFJ, assign it to emself and judge it PARADOXICAL for a win. However, it's results were caught up in the big "Intents" bug that was being back-ratified at the time. https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/040047.html Anyone have any thoughts on it? I think the choices are (1) figure out if that initial scam message contains a legal judgement or (2) recuse D. Margaux, assign it to myself and DISMISS it. Regardless of anything else, it wouldn't be a win because the CFJ was merely "This CFJ is FALSE", which wasn't "about the effectiveness, possiblity, or legality of a change in the gamestate" (Rule 2553, Win by Paradox).
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3873 assigned to G. and judged FALSE
On 8/1/20 2:13 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 3:43 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >> On 7/30/2020 2:02 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On Jul 30, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: Holding with that precedent, "interested in judging" is not regulated due to having a recordkeepor, and can be determined by a common-sense application of the common defininition of the term. E.g. by initially expressing interest to the Arbitor, and being removed either by their own professed lack of interest, or if their failure to judge without explanation shows that they lack interest. >>> While I think this is the “correct” ruling—in that it’s consistent with >>> precedent, and the same ruling I would have made if I knew about that >>> CFJ—it also seems “wrong” in that it’s inconsistent with legislative intent >>> behind regulated actions rules. It’d probably be a good idea to propose a >>> rephrasing of the regulated actions rules, possibly with some sort of >>> “explicitly described as unregulated” exception so we can keep the informal >>> bench. >>> >>> Gaelan >>> >> Yah I agree. When doing the research on the first cfj I had no idea which >> side I'd end up on and thought it was an unintuitive use of the term that >> could use a fix, but didn't get around to it. One question: is there >> anything that we actually "recordkeep" (in the broad sense) that we want >> to be regulated, but we don't also "limit, allow, enable, or permit" or >> "describe the circumstances under which it would succeed or fail"? In >> other words, do we actually lose any protections if we delete the >> recordkeepor clause? > Counter-proposal: change the clause to protect change to rule-defined > state. That seems to me to make more sense and fix the present > difficulty. > > -Aris Aris's suggestion would definitely make setting rule numbers regulated. -- Jason Cobb
