Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Auction Ratification
On 1/24/22 22:28, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>
>> I create the following proposal, then pay a fee of one pendant to cause
>> it to become pending.
>>
>> Title: Auction Self-Ratification
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Jason
>> Coauthors:
>>
>> Set the power of Rule 2545 to 3.
>>
>> Amend Rule 2545 by appending the following paragraphs:
>> {
>>
>> An public document purporting to state the final results of an action in
>A auction
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
Thanks! Resubmitted.
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Auction Ratification
On Mon, 24 Jan 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I create the following proposal, then pay a fee of one pendant to cause
it to become pending.
Title: Auction Self-Ratification
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason
Coauthors:
Set the power of Rule 2545 to 3.
Amend Rule 2545 by appending the following paragraphs:
{
An public document purporting to state the final results of an action in
A auction
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring
On 1/24/2022 1:38 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> On Jan 24, 2022, at 9:34 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> >> Further, if it's trying to take into account past-only but forcing the >> assessor to calculate "instantaneous" results (e.g. the assessor has to >> calculate whether something would pass at every given moment) seems like a >> textbook case of "unreasonable effort" also making it too ambiguous to >> succeed? > > This is the interpretation I intended; you might be right about the > unreasonable effort. Ignoring that, there's a counter-strategy by setting up actual conditional votes early on, such that those conditional votes cause your conditional action to evaluate the wrong way. Example: 2 unconditional FOR votes cast first. Conditional vote cast second: "If Gaelan has voted unconditionally AGAINST, then AGAINST, otherwise FOR." (conditional not evaluated until the end). Gaelan then does: "If it would pass right now even if I voted AGAINST, then I cast an unconditional AGAINST, otherwise an unconditional FOR." (conditional evaluated at time of message). When Gaelan's vote is evaluated at the time of casting, there's 3 votes FOR, and Galean would be 1 AGAINST, so that resolves as Gaelan voting unconditionally AGAINST and it "would" succeed. But then at the time of actual evaluation, Gaelan's unconditional AGAINST flips the conditional ballot to a 2/2 tie and the proposal fails. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring
> On Jan 24, 2022, at 9:34 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Further, if it's trying to take into account past-only but forcing the > assessor to calculate "instantaneous" results (e.g. the assessor has to > calculate whether something would pass at every given moment) seems like a > textbook case of "unreasonable effort" also making it too ambiguous to > succeed? This is the interpretation I intended; you might be right about the unreasonable effort.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring
On 1/24/2022 1:20 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Jan 23, 2022, at 10:02 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> >> Yup, and if more than one person have that idea and all change at about >> the same time, the proposal might fail - that's part of the fun of it... >> (at least, that strategy was by design in my mind, it's possible of course >> that it wouldn't end up being fun). > > The “safe” strategy is to use a conditional: > > I perform the following action if, if proposal was resolved immediately > before or after this action, it would have the same outcome: > I change my vote on proposal to AGAINST. > > (Note that this isn’t a conditional vote: it’s a normal change of vote, as a > normal conditional action.) I think there's pretty strong precedents that outside of the explicitly-legislated conditional votes, conditionals have to be resolvable with information available at the time of the conditional message - no future conditionals allowed (i.e. depending on future conditionals just makes it an ambiguous announcement). Further, if it's trying to take into account past-only but forcing the assessor to calculate "instantaneous" results (e.g. the assessor has to calculate whether something would pass at every given moment) seems like a textbook case of "unreasonable effort" also making it too ambiguous to succeed? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring
> On Jan 23, 2022, at 10:02 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Yup, and if more than one person have that idea and all change at about > the same time, the proposal might fail - that's part of the fun of it... > (at least, that strategy was by design in my mind, it's possible of course > that it wouldn't end up being fun). The “safe” strategy is to use a conditional: I perform the following action if, if proposal was resolved immediately before or after this action, it would have the same outcome: I change my vote on proposal to AGAINST. (Note that this isn’t a conditional vote: it’s a normal change of vote, as a normal conditional action.) Of course, the endgame this converges on is every player sending that message soon before the proposal resolves, but before too many others send similar messages. Gaelan
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Outside assistance
> On Jan 23, 2022, at 8:52 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business > wrote: > > Proposal: Outside assistance > (AI = 4) > > Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing "players" with > "persons". > > [Explicitly avoids the interpretation suggested on CFJ 8591 that > the "players making arbitrary changes" clause requires a current > player, even if registration remains unblocked.] This mostly seems like a good idea, but one potential concern: What if we end up with a rule along the lines of “Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, people other than Hillary Rodham Clinton CANNOT resolve Agoran Decisions.” Maybe any action by the former secretary of state doesn’t meet the “reasonable” standard, but I’m not sure that’s a risk I’m willing to take. * * * Actually, it occurs to me, there might be a current bug here. Imagine this scenario, which I don’t think is too unrealistic: - For some reason, one specific player’s action becomes necessary to make the game continue - maybe something is broken with offices and one player is stuck as the Assessor, or maybe someone scammed themselves a dictatorship with inadequate protections. (In practice, we’d probably also need ratification, RWO, or tabled actions to be broken.) - That player stops playing Agora, and can’t be reached. Action by that player being “unreasonable” wouldn't help: whatever game state change got us into this mess happened before we knew the player was inactive. The player stopping playing isn’t a gamestate change, or if it is, the best AIAN could do is give us a legal fiction that e's around, which doesn’t actually help us. (And I think it’s safe to say that AIAN doesn’t retroactively undo an action if information later comes to light that affects “reasonableness”.) Attempts to deregister the player would cause Agora to be ossified, and therefore fail. But none of that actually helps clean up the mess! * * * Anyway, I think the fix here is to replace “players” with something along the lines of “arbitrary persons” - then, any gamestate change that would cause the fate of the game to rest on one specific person acting as required would fail. Gaelan
