DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Mon, 2022-05-09 at 06:35 +0200, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
business wrote:
> The dice roll was: 88
> This is R2505, Random Choices.
For reference:
{{{
When a Rule specifies that a random choice be made, then the
choice shall be made using whatever probability distribution among
the possible outcomes the Rule specifies, defaulting to a uniform
probability distribution.
The choice can be made using any physical or computational process
whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is
reasonably close to that required by the Rules, and for which the
final choice is not trivially predictable by the selecting person
in advance. The selecting person SHOULD make the selection method
public, and SHOULD use a method for which the final probability
distribution can be readily confirmed.
}}}
We have three sentences to choose from. Any suggestions?
--
ais523
Mad Engineer
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Decriminalizing Lateness
On 5/8/22 17:44, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: A good start, but has room for improvement. Suggested revision: 4. For filled offices with a weekly report, the number of weeks in scope, and the number and percent of those weeks during which the officeholder published its weekly report. 5. For filled offices with a monthly report, the number of months in scope, and the number and percent of those months during which the officeholder published its monthly report. For this purpose, the 13 most recent complete weeks and 3 most recent complete months are in scope, but only those for which the officeholder held that office continuously since it started; and percentages of 0/0 are to be reported as n/a. Oh I really like that. Added to the local copy! -- nix Herald, Collector
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Decriminalizing Lateness
nix wrote: Amend R2138 "The Associate Director of Personnel" by appending: 4. For filled offices, the percent of reports that have been published in a timely fashion since either this clause was added to the rules or the last change in officeholder for the office, whichever is more recent. A good start, but has room for improvement. Suggested revision: 4. For filled offices with a weekly report, the number of weeks in scope, and the number and percent of those weeks during which the officeholder published its weekly report. 5. For filled offices with a monthly report, the number of months in scope, and the number and percent of those months during which the officeholder published its monthly report. For this purpose, the 13 most recent complete weeks and 3 most recent complete months are in scope, but only those for which the officeholder held that office continuously since it started; and percentages of 0/0 are to be reported as n/a.
Re: DIS: Proto: Properly Decriminalizing Lateness
On 5/8/22 17:30, nix via agora-discussion wrote: 4. For filled offices, a reasonably accurate percentage of required reports that have been published within the allotted time within the last month. This is supposed to say "within the current quarter", fixed in local. -- nix Herald, Collector
DIS: Proto: Properly Decriminalizing Lateness
Title: Properly Decriminalizing Lateness AI: 2 Author: nix Co-Authors: G., Jason, secretsnail, Murphy Amend R2557, "Sentencing Guidelines" by replacing: When the rules authorize an investigator to issue a Warning for a violation, e CAN do so by announcement if the violation is described by the rules as a "Class N Crime" where N is 0 or an expression that evaluates to 0. with: When the rules authorize an investigator to issue a Warning for a violation, e CAN do so by announcement if: * the violation is a crime of class 0, OR * the violation is a crime of class 1 and e has not done so for the same player for the same crime this month. Amend R2143, "Official Reports and Duties" by replacing: Failure of a person to perform any duty required of em within the allotted time is the Class 2 Crime of Tardiness. with: Failure of a person to perform any weekly duty required of em within the allotted time is the Class 1+N Crime of Weekly Tardiness, where N is the number of times e has previously committed the crime in the last month. Failure of a person to perform any monthly duty required of em within the allotted time is the Class 3 Crime of Monthly Tardiness. Amend R2138 "The Associate Director of Personnel" by appending: 4. For filled offices, a reasonably accurate percentage of required reports that have been published within the allotted time within the last month. -- nix Herald, Collector
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy-Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8672-8674
G. wrote: 8672* Murphy 3.0 Inclusivity AGAINST. Thought about this for a good bit. I'm not convinced that "reasonable" shouldn't stay wholly contextual/common law - we're accepting a lot of complex multipart moves that I'd call "reasonable for a well-informed officer but not "reasonable to players in general" so I'm wondering if this truly codifying the existing precedents or if this is making things more stringent. Either way, maybe need more discussion on this one. "_ need only be reasonably clear to the officer(s) required to track it" makes sense, but how to fill in that blank? (Probably throw in a "generally", and leave room for common law to deal with edge cases.) Current uses of "reasonable" or "reasonably" (** indicates that the rule explicitly defines a standard for that context): * R1698 (ossification), reasonable combination of actions * R869 (registration), reasonably clear/unambiguous intent * R869 (compelling non-players), reasonably implied consent * R2139 (registration history), reasonably available information * R2518 (indeterminate values), reasonably available information and determination * R2505 (random choices), reasonably close to what's required ** R217 (rule precedence), low-power rules reasonably clarifying definitions in high-power rules * R217 (right to resolve controversy), reasonable expectation of obtaining resolution * R1681 (FLR change history), reasonable accuracy * R1006 (holding office), reasonably implied consent * R2209 (ratification without objection), if a correct document could be produced with reasonable effort then trying to ratify an incorrect one requires more info to be legal * R2201 (self-ratification), statement to be ratified can't be reasonably ascertained from ruleset + message * R2531 (defendant's rights), reasonably possible standard of care in avoiding an action/inaction normally carrying a fine * R991 (judge rotation), reasonably equal opportunities to judge * R591 (judging DISMISS), insufficient info to judge with reasonable effort * R2492 (recusal), recusal after 4+ days requires apology and/or reasonable explanation before being assigned to another case * R2519 (consent), reasonably clear intent * R2634 (Buoyancy Target), reasonable judgement in calculating * R2545 (auctions), reasonably inferred intent regarding method * R2581 (Tapecutter et al), reasonably quick support/objection Current uses of "available" not already covered: * R1742 (contracts), information publicly or generally available * R2451 (Executive Orders), "The available Cabinet Orders are:" Current uses of "clear" not already covered: * R478 (Fora), clear intent to send a public message / act by announcement * R1789 (Cantus Cygneus), clearly labeled as being one * R106 (adopting proposals), clearly marked comments * R217 (rule interpretation), unclear rules text * R105 (rule changes), clear specification of method * R107 (Agoran decisions), clear specification of info * R683 (voting), clear identification of information and intent * R208 (resolving Agoran decisions), clear identification of what's being resolved ** R2127 (conditional votes), clearly specified/expressed * R2202 (ratification without objection), clear description to avoid Endorsing Forgery * R2201 (self-ratification), clear citation of CoE * R2450 (pledges), clear message * R2545 (auctions), clear intent of punishable requirements * R2654 (The Device), two clauses copied from elsewhere * R2566 (free tournaments), clearly malformed regulations etc.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Re: endgame
we already know that informal auctions are clearly superior to formal ones so what about informal win conditions? this is the next step in agoran evolution On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 9:19 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 5/8/2022 11:13 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, 2022-05-08 at 11:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > >> I withdraw my previous proposal, Endgame. > >> > >> I submit the following proposal, Endgame, AI-1, and pay a pendant to > pend it: > >> > >> --- > >> > >> Create the following power=1 rule, titled Buyout: > >> > >> Any player who has not taken over the economy in the last 30 > >> days CAN pay a fee of N Winsomes to create 500 times N coins > >> in eir possession, provided e does so unconditionally and > >> without disclaimers, acting as emself, in a message body > >> containing no other actions or other action attempts, and > explicitly > >> specifies N in the message (i.e. without indirect references such > >> as "all"). > >> > >> One week after this rule first takes effect, the winds die down. > >> > >> Immediately after Rule 2658 (The Winds Die Down) is repealed, > >> this rule is repealed. > >> > >> - > > > > I'm suddenly really curious about what scam this is trying to prevent. > > > > So, the reason this is "endgame" and not just "trade-in" is of course that > if people start to trade in and there's fewer winsomes in the game, > last-minute wins are quite possible. This is obviously a "move as close > to the deadline as possible" sort of game (if anyone actually tries to win > that way), which are never great in Agora, but any hard end to Sets would > be against a some kind of hard deadline - so I was just trying to make it > as dynamic as possible. > > To that end IMO: > > - Requiring specification of N improves instead of allowing "all" etc. > adds an element of risk to getting it wrong. > > - Conditionals: "If I have enough Winsomes I take over the economy, > otherwise I trade in" greatly reduces the risk of doing stuff last-minute, > making the exercise pretty boring. > > - Disclaimers: You can fake someone out by saying "I trade in 10" if > you've only got 9. But to avoid No Faking, you'd need to include a > disclaimer. This limits that tactic and makes it ILLEGAL to do that kind > of thing. > > - No other actions in the message: You could get around the "explicit > specification of N" by saying "I pay 20, I pay 19, I pay 18..." and having > only the one corresponding with "all" succeed. > > - acting as emself: Unwinding arrangements like the OP is less > interesting if a side-contract is written so one person does it at the > same time on behalf of all the involved parties. > > Will this make an interesting endgame? Dunno. But once I started writing > out the principle of just "all moves must be basic unconditional moves" > there were lots of loopholes to patch - and I'm sure I didn't get them > all... > > -G. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Re: endgame
On 5/8/2022 11:13 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 2022-05-08 at 11:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> I withdraw my previous proposal, Endgame. >> >> I submit the following proposal, Endgame, AI-1, and pay a pendant to pend it: >> >> --- >> >> Create the following power=1 rule, titled Buyout: >> >> Any player who has not taken over the economy in the last 30 >> days CAN pay a fee of N Winsomes to create 500 times N coins >> in eir possession, provided e does so unconditionally and >> without disclaimers, acting as emself, in a message body >> containing no other actions or other action attempts, and explicitly >> specifies N in the message (i.e. without indirect references such >> as "all"). >> >> One week after this rule first takes effect, the winds die down. >> >> Immediately after Rule 2658 (The Winds Die Down) is repealed, >> this rule is repealed. >> >> - > > I'm suddenly really curious about what scam this is trying to prevent. > So, the reason this is "endgame" and not just "trade-in" is of course that if people start to trade in and there's fewer winsomes in the game, last-minute wins are quite possible. This is obviously a "move as close to the deadline as possible" sort of game (if anyone actually tries to win that way), which are never great in Agora, but any hard end to Sets would be against a some kind of hard deadline - so I was just trying to make it as dynamic as possible. To that end IMO: - Requiring specification of N improves instead of allowing "all" etc. adds an element of risk to getting it wrong. - Conditionals: "If I have enough Winsomes I take over the economy, otherwise I trade in" greatly reduces the risk of doing stuff last-minute, making the exercise pretty boring. - Disclaimers: You can fake someone out by saying "I trade in 10" if you've only got 9. But to avoid No Faking, you'd need to include a disclaimer. This limits that tactic and makes it ILLEGAL to do that kind of thing. - No other actions in the message: You could get around the "explicit specification of N" by saying "I pay 20, I pay 19, I pay 18..." and having only the one corresponding with "all" succeed. - acting as emself: Unwinding arrangements like the OP is less interesting if a side-contract is written so one person does it at the same time on behalf of all the involved parties. Will this make an interesting endgame? Dunno. But once I started writing out the principle of just "all moves must be basic unconditional moves" there were lots of loopholes to patch - and I'm sure I didn't get them all... -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Re: endgame
On Sun, 2022-05-08 at 11:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > I withdraw my previous proposal, Endgame. > > I submit the following proposal, Endgame, AI-1, and pay a pendant to pend it: > > --- > > Create the following power=1 rule, titled Buyout: > > Any player who has not taken over the economy in the last 30 > days CAN pay a fee of N Winsomes to create 500 times N coins > in eir possession, provided e does so unconditionally and > without disclaimers, acting as emself, in a message body > containing no other actions or other action attempts, and explicitly > specifies N in the message (i.e. without indirect references such > as "all"). > > One week after this rule first takes effect, the winds die down. > > Immediately after Rule 2658 (The Winds Die Down) is repealed, > this rule is repealed. > > - I'm suddenly really curious about what scam this is trying to prevent. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer stays alive
agora moment On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 11:32 PM ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2022-05-07 at 17:05 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > On 5/7/22 13:21, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > On 5/7/2022 4:32 AM, Madrid via agora-business wrote: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNFzfwLM72c > > > > > > > > haha you cant dereg me > > > > > > > > i intend to declare apathy btw, specifying myself > > > I object. > > > > As do I. > > I assume that this is meant to mean "I also object", but I don't want > to take the risk that it's interpreted as "I also intend to declare > apathy". > > To be on the safe side, I object to all intents to declare apathy. > (Disclaimer: some of these actions fail because I've objected to the > intent already, and you can't object to the same intent twice.) > > -- > ais523 > >
