Re: (@Horsened, @Arbitor) BUS: Re: DIS: Re: [Motivation] The horses Gallop!
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 10:27 PM ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Another possibility is that all that matters is that the *selection* is > by a random process, and the *action itself* merely has to make use of > the selected random numbers (if it occurs), but not necessarily in an > unbiased/equiprobable way. (The Horsened has been taking other actions > in between the random rolls and the motivation action, in a way which > causes the motivation action to become more favourable for em, so e is > also biasing the result of the motivation action in this sense.) > The actions I take before the rolls have the same effect as if i had taken them after the roll, because the motivation only has an effect at the start of the week. Whether I take the action before or after the publication of the random choice action doesn't seem relevant here, but it may be in a different case, such as a collection notice. -- snail
DIS: Proto: Schrodinger's Dice
Proto-Proposal: Schrodinger's Dice (co-author = ais523) Amend Rule 2505 (Random Choices) by replacing this text: The selecting person SHOULD make the selection method public, and SHOULD use a method for which the final probability distribution can be readily confirmed. with this text: The selecting person SHOULD announce the selection method ahead of time, SHOULD use a method for which the final probability distribution can be readily confirmed, and SHALL NOT perform any other regulated actions between performing the selection method and announcing its result. [Maybe these SHOULDs should be upgraded to SHALLs, either across the board, or in certain cases such as officer duties. Or we could just impeach officers suspected of abusing their discretion. Lying about the validity of a method would constitute a No Faking violation, though I expect we will continue to generally trust that Agorabot is not being tampered with behind the scenes, just as we generally trust that no one is using sock-puppet accounts. For context, all random choices currently defined are tied to offices: the Stonemason for Collection Notices, the Mad Engineer for rule selections to mutate the Device, and the Horsened for motivating the horses (anyone CAN do it, but the Horsened SHALL do it unless someone else already did that week).]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Horsened) [Motivation] The horses Gallop!
On 2/12/23 22:40, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 2023-02-12 at 17:37 -0600, secretsnail9 via agora-business > wrote: >> I get a jersey for Sugar, specifying Alexia as the horse to be added >> to Sugar's pulls, by paying a fee of 1 hoof. >> >> I motivate the horses: >> The galloper is Sugar and the random number choice is 2. > What gets me about this particular rules exploit is how consistently > it's been working – I would have expected more duplicate horses to be > rolled, making it impossible. (Also wanted to flag it up in case other > players wanted to do something about it, although other offices have > their perks so we may as well let the Horsened have eirs. It would be > an interesting problem to work out how to word the rules to close that > loophole, though!) > Well it appears any player CAN motivate the horses each week, so this is just a straightforward race. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Horsened) [Motivation] The horses Gallop!
On Sun, 2023-02-12 at 17:37 -0600, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > I get a jersey for Sugar, specifying Alexia as the horse to be added > to Sugar's pulls, by paying a fee of 1 hoof. > > I motivate the horses: > The galloper is Sugar and the random number choice is 2. What gets me about this particular rules exploit is how consistently it's been working – I would have expected more duplicate horses to be rolled, making it impossible. (Also wanted to flag it up in case other players wanted to do something about it, although other offices have their perks so we may as well let the Horsened have eirs. It would be an interesting problem to work out how to word the rules to close that loophole, though!) -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] RTRW 2023
On 2/6/23 01:48, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > I will be running an (informal) contest using the following guidelines. > > As this is informal, I reserve the right to interpret or alter the > guidelines as I see fit (though I don't intend to unless there's a problem). > > # Ruleset Annotations Contest > > ## Purpose > > This is a contest for RTRW 2023. The goal is to update the languishing > ruleset annotations on the FLR. Reminder to please submit annotations if you have them! -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Limited tracking
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 3:19 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I would not like to be considered a coauthor on this one, as IIRC my only > contribution was to speak against the cfj changes which you kept, so I > don’t endorse that. I think having switches that turn on and off on > tracking like that have the potential to create some significant level of > confusion with self-ratification eg if a switch is left off the list, then > ceases to be tracked invisibly, does it self ratify as an open case and > kick off the judge? Or since it’s a single switch type, it’s also not clear > to me that a “allegedly complete list” of the tracked ones wouldn’t ratify > the untracked ones to the default state. Just raises a whole can of worms > that could affect the status of ancient cases in a way we really might not > want. > > -G. > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 1:04 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Proposal: Limited tracking > > (AI = 3, co-authors = Janet, G.) > This proposal would also create unnecessary reports. The assessor would have to report the AI of each proposal weekly, including if there are no unresolved Agoran decisions. (Rule 2379: No News Is Some News). -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Limited tracking
Sorry I accidentally deleted a sentence at the beginning of my reply that said this concern was in spite of the first proposal sentence - just not really seeing the benefit of the partial tracking like that for cfjs On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 1:18 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > I would not like to be considered a coauthor on this one, as IIRC my only > contribution was to speak against the cfj changes which you kept, so I > don’t endorse that. I think having switches that turn on and off on > tracking like that have the potential to create some significant level of > confusion with self-ratification eg if a switch is left off the list, then > ceases to be tracked invisibly, does it self ratify as an open case and > kick off the judge? Or since it’s a single switch type, it’s also not clear > to me that a “allegedly complete list” of the tracked ones wouldn’t ratify > the untracked ones to the default state. Just raises a whole can of worms > that could affect the status of ancient cases in a way we really might not > want. > > -G. > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 1:04 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> Proposal: Limited tracking >> (AI = 3, co-authors = Janet, G.) >> >> Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by adding this paragraph to the list item >> regarding tracking: >> >> Alternatively, if the rules assign an office to track only some >> instances of a switch, then the report includes the value of >> those instances, but a document purporting to be such a list is >> not self-ratifying. >> >> Amend Rule 2606 (Proposal Classes) by replacing this text: >> >>Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured >>untracked Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default) >>and democratic. >> >> with this text: >> >>Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured >>Class switch, tracked by the Promotor for proposals in the >>Proposal Pool, with possible values ordinary (the default) and >>democratic. >> >> Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing this >> text: >> >>Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran >>decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. >> >> with this text: >> >>Adoption index (AI) is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions and >>proposals, secured at power 2, tracked by the Assessor for Agoran >>decisions not yet resolved, and by the Promotor for proposals in >>the Proposal Pool. >> >> Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing this text: >> >>Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any >>person or former person, or "unassigned" (default). >> >> with this text: >> >>Judge is a CFJ switch, tracked by the Arbitor for CFJs that have >>been unassigned at any point during the past week, with possible >>values of any person or former person, or "unassigned" (default). >> >
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Limited tracking
I would not like to be considered a coauthor on this one, as IIRC my only contribution was to speak against the cfj changes which you kept, so I don’t endorse that. I think having switches that turn on and off on tracking like that have the potential to create some significant level of confusion with self-ratification eg if a switch is left off the list, then ceases to be tracked invisibly, does it self ratify as an open case and kick off the judge? Or since it’s a single switch type, it’s also not clear to me that a “allegedly complete list” of the tracked ones wouldn’t ratify the untracked ones to the default state. Just raises a whole can of worms that could affect the status of ancient cases in a way we really might not want. -G. On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 1:04 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Proposal: Limited tracking > (AI = 3, co-authors = Janet, G.) > > Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by adding this paragraph to the list item > regarding tracking: > > Alternatively, if the rules assign an office to track only some > instances of a switch, then the report includes the value of > those instances, but a document purporting to be such a list is > not self-ratifying. > > Amend Rule 2606 (Proposal Classes) by replacing this text: > >Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured >untracked Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default) >and democratic. > > with this text: > >Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured >Class switch, tracked by the Promotor for proposals in the >Proposal Pool, with possible values ordinary (the default) and >democratic. > > Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing this > text: > >Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran >decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. > > with this text: > >Adoption index (AI) is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions and >proposals, secured at power 2, tracked by the Assessor for Agoran >decisions not yet resolved, and by the Promotor for proposals in >the Proposal Pool. > > Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing this text: > >Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any >person or former person, or "unassigned" (default). > > with this text: > >Judge is a CFJ switch, tracked by the Arbitor for CFJs that have >been unassigned at any point during the past week, with possible >values of any person or former person, or "unassigned" (default). >
