DIS: Re: BUS: Rules as Items V4
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 3:31 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> This has been fluctuating from serious to non-serious, which is where a
> rule should be seems there's a little more support now than before, and
> I've made some changes.
> Overall, I'm going to let this sit for review for a bit, but I'd rather add
> co-authors than to become a co-author on this one (seeing as it is
> substantial, and apparently there are players that want me to have the
> office it creates).
>
> TLDR (this is what is intended, at least):
> - each crystal represents uniquely one rule.
> - each crystal grows as it is amended/repealed or stays repealed.
> - each crystal will eventually be transferred if it gets amended too much
> by the non-owner
> - get enough total crystal to win.
>
> Changes from last time (when it wasn't poetry):
> - removed size decreases (added quarterly size increase for repealed rules
> instead)
> - Added instability (instead of transferring immediately after amending it
> once, need to amend it a few times to have it transfer automatically)
> - force all crystallized players to win (not just some crystallized
> players)
>
> {
> The Geologist is the office that tracks crystals.
> Each crystal is a liquid asset.
> Each crystal has three secured natural integer switches,
> one of which is the size, the second is its identity,
> and the third is the instability.
> The default size of a crystal is 1.
> The default instability of a crystal is 0.
> Each Quarter, the size is increased by 1 of all crystals with
> identifiers that don't match any rule number in the current ruleset.
>
> Whenever a proposal amends or repeals a rule:
> - If a crystal with an identity equal to the number of that rule
> exists, combine that proposal with that crystal.
> - Otherwise, grant the author of the proposal a crystal with the
> identity equal to the number of that rule.
>
> Whenever a proposal and a crystal combine:
> - Increase the size of the crystal by 1.
> - If the proposal's author doesn't own the crystal,
> increase the instability of the crystal by 2.
> - If the instability is equal to or larger than the size of the
> crystal, transfer the crystal to the author of the proposal, and
> reduce the instability of the crystal by 3.
>
> A player CAN, by announcement, Shatter the System, and attempting to
> specify all crystallized players, provided that no player has won the
> game by doing so in the past 30 days. An player is crystallized if
> it owns crystals with a total size greater than or equal to the
> number of rules in the current ruleset.
>
> When the System is Shattered, all crystallized players win the game.
> If a player won the game in this manner 4 or more days ago, any
> player CAN repeal this rule by announcement.
> }
>
Whoops, I meant not to the public forum :)
--
4st
Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Standardizing language
On 4/10/23 14:57, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: (Also, it might be better to include context rather than just "first instance of 'may'".) Why? Eliminates any chance of accidentally changing the wrong thing due to a concurrent proposal, and is clearer for the reader on what's being changed. For instance, I couldn't tell you what the first instance of "may" is in either of those rules. I'd rather not have to crossreference the proposal with the rule. This is why I always do something like "replace [sentence or clause] with [sentence or clause]" even if one or two words are all that's changing. The only exception for me is when something is getting renamed, such as "replace all instances of 'Whatsit' with 'Whosit'" where the surrounding context is irrelevant. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald, Collector
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Standardizing language
On 4/10/23 15:51, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-04-10 15:41]:
>> On 4/10/23 15:38, juan via agora-business wrote:
>>> I create and submit the following proposal:
>>>
>>> {
>>> Title: Standardizing CANs
>>> Author: juan
>>> A.I.: 3.0
>>>
>>> Ammend Rule 478 by replacing its first instance of “may”
>>> with “CAN”.
>>>
>>> Ammend Rule 1789 by replacing its first instance of “may”
>>> with “CAN”.
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>> I (unconfidently) don't think the second change is necessary? A person
>> has a natural ability to submit documents, and that doesn't need to be
>> enabled with a CAN.
> 1. It might not be necessary, but its about standartization. Also:
I'm additionally worried that this would make it impossible to submit
(since no method is explicitly given in "CAN submit to the Registrar").
> 2. Does that ability really exist? To “submit” is not to publish. Is
>to do so under a specific intent to perform some task during some
>procedure defined by rules. That's my reading, anyway. It sure works,
>but isn't it clearer to make that action part of the rule's conceptual
>world? Or else we should say “publish” instead of “submit”.
Submission is done by sending a message, which we have held is
unregulated and can be done naturally, e.g. in CFJ3896.
>> (Also, it might be better to include context rather than just "first
>> instance of 'may'".)
> Why?
Eliminates any chance of accidentally changing the wrong thing due to a
concurrent proposal, and is clearer for the reader on what's being changed.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Standardizing language
Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-04-10 15:41]:
> On 4/10/23 15:38, juan via agora-business wrote:
> > I create and submit the following proposal:
> >
> > {
> > Title: Standardizing CANs
> > Author: juan
> > A.I.: 3.0
> >
> > Ammend Rule 478 by replacing its first instance of “may”
> > with “CAN”.
> >
> > Ammend Rule 1789 by replacing its first instance of “may”
> > with “CAN”.
> >
> > }
> >
> >
>
> I (unconfidently) don't think the second change is necessary? A person
> has a natural ability to submit documents, and that doesn't need to be
> enabled with a CAN.
1. It might not be necessary, but its about standartization. Also:
2. Does that ability really exist? To “submit” is not to publish. Is
to do so under a specific intent to perform some task during some
procedure defined by rules. That's my reading, anyway. It sure works,
but isn't it clearer to make that action part of the rule's conceptual
world? Or else we should say “publish” instead of “submit”.
> (Also, it might be better to include context rather than just "first
> instance of 'may'".)
Why?
--
juan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
On 4/10/23 15:42, juan via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Anyhow, I change my vote on 8949 to FOR. >>> >>> P.S.: how scammable? >>> >> I could make a pledge to do so with a time limit of 1 second. > I mean… > >> Allowing a pledge to expire without carrying out an action one pledged >> to do in it constitutes breaking the pledge. (R2450) > Also, the pledge's time limit must be a number of days: > >> The time window of a pledge is W days, where W is the value explicitly >> stated by the pledge, or 60 if the pledge does not explicitly state >> a value. There wouldn't be a "first" such proposal to carry out the action with? I'm not convinced it would be a violation, and if it was it would probably be forgiven under either (3) or (5) of R2531. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:36 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > Wow, ok. Just tried to be cheeky and make a fun little action. Note that > > I also want forgiveness on a missed deadline. Just seemed fair. > > > Sorry, no rebuke implied. And I admittedly didn't check whether you had > earned that before sending, which I probably should have. > > You can \also initiate a Registrar election as the officeholder, and > you'll likely win if you want the ribbon. A reason I voted AGAINST this personally is I also forgot to award myself an Emerald Ribbon sometime back. Where is the line drawn? It's work on the ADoP and others to do an election just for emerald's sake, so why is emerald a "go re-earn it" ribbon and ultraviolet a "it should be back-awarded" ribbon? And is it just for this particular ultraviolet? Etc. No rebuke implied either, I honestly wrestled with this choice too. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-04-10 15:36]: > On 4/10/23 15:32, juan via agora-business wrote: > > Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-04-10 15:25]: > >> On 4/10/23 15:06, juan via agora-business wrote: > 8949* Janet 3.0 Might as well ask? > >>> Conditional: FOR if any of the following conditions are met: > >>> > >>> - Janet has pledged to vote FOR the first proposal that performs the > >>> following action, and no others: Turn juan's Emerald Ribbon Ownership > >>> to true. > >>> > >>> - Janet has successfully acted on eir own behalf to award juan a white > >>> ribbon. > >>> > >>> Otherwise, AGAINST. > >>> > >> I note the pledge condition is scammable. > >> > >> In general, I will not be politicking or offering compensation to try to > >> see this passed. In my view, I'm asking for forgiveness of a deadline > >> and not extra gameplay advantage, so I won't be offering any other > >> gameplay advantage. > > Wow, ok. Just tried to be cheeky and make a fun little action. Note that > > I also want forgiveness on a missed deadline. Just seemed fair. > > > Sorry, no rebuke implied. And I admittedly didn't check whether you had > earned that before sending, which I probably should have. Its fine. I'm a drama queen. > You can \also initiate a Registrar election as the officeholder, and > you'll likely win if you want the ribbon. Hum… good point. Thanks! > > Anyhow, I change my vote on 8949 to FOR. > > > > P.S.: how scammable? > > > I could make a pledge to do so with a time limit of 1 second. I mean… > Allowing a pledge to expire without carrying out an action one pledged > to do in it constitutes breaking the pledge. (R2450) Also, the pledge's time limit must be a number of days: > The time window of a pledge is W days, where W is the value explicitly > stated by the pledge, or 60 if the pledge does not explicitly state > a value. -- juan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
On 4/10/23 15:32, juan via agora-business wrote: > Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-04-10 15:25]: >> On 4/10/23 15:06, juan via agora-business wrote: 8949* Janet 3.0 Might as well ask? >>> Conditional: FOR if any of the following conditions are met: >>> >>> - Janet has pledged to vote FOR the first proposal that performs the >>> following action, and no others: Turn juan's Emerald Ribbon Ownership >>> to true. >>> >>> - Janet has successfully acted on eir own behalf to award juan a white >>> ribbon. >>> >>> Otherwise, AGAINST. >>> >> I note the pledge condition is scammable. >> >> In general, I will not be politicking or offering compensation to try to >> see this passed. In my view, I'm asking for forgiveness of a deadline >> and not extra gameplay advantage, so I won't be offering any other >> gameplay advantage. > Wow, ok. Just tried to be cheeky and make a fun little action. Note that > I also want forgiveness on a missed deadline. Just seemed fair. Sorry, no rebuke implied. And I admittedly didn't check whether you had earned that before sending, which I probably should have. You can \also initiate a Registrar election as the officeholder, and you'll likely win if you want the ribbon. > Anyhow, I change my vote on 8949 to FOR. > > P.S.: how scammable? > I could make a pledge to do so with a time limit of 1 second. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
secretsnail9 via agora-discussion [2023-04-10 14:10]: > I recommend tagging your proposals with "[Proposal]". I almost missed > G.'s proposal because it wasn't tagged, and once I got it I thought I had > them all, but apparently not. It's my bad for missing (@Promotor) though, > even if [Proposal] is more appropriate. I'll distribute them later today. Ok, will do it. -- juan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
nix via agora-discussion [2023-04-10 14:11]: > On 4/10/23 14:06, juan via agora-business wrote: > > > 8950~ nix 2.0 Major Stamp Reform > > AGAINST. Don't touch my stamps. > > > > Ugh, I give up. I don't think there's a good consensus on what kind of play > people want right now. Honestly, I just want one win, and stamps seem to be my best option. -- juan
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
On 4/10/23 15:06, juan via agora-business wrote: >> 8949* Janet 3.0 Might as well ask? > Conditional: FOR if any of the following conditions are met: > > - Janet has pledged to vote FOR the first proposal that performs the > following action, and no others: Turn juan's Emerald Ribbon Ownership > to true. > > - Janet has successfully acted on eir own behalf to award juan a white > ribbon. > > Otherwise, AGAINST. > I note the pledge condition is scammable. In general, I will not be politicking or offering compensation to try to see this passed. In my view, I'm asking for forgiveness of a deadline and not extra gameplay advantage, so I won't be offering any other gameplay advantage. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
On 4/10/23 14:06, juan via agora-business wrote: 8950~ nix 2.0 Major Stamp Reform AGAINST. Don't touch my stamps. Ugh, I give up. I don't think there's a good consensus on what kind of play people want right now. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald, Collector
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
> On Apr 10, 2023, at 1:57 PM, juan via agora-business > wrote: > > secretsnail9 via agora-official [2023-04-09 18:37]: >> PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW >> >> […] >> >> ID Author(s) AITitle >> --- >> 8946~ 4st 2.0 Horses Can Dream/Horse Virus >> 8947~ Janet 1.0 Stamp win removal >> 8948~ G. 2.0 Undo Burden >> 8949* Janet 3.0 Might as well ask? >> 8950~ nix 2.0 Major Stamp Reform >> 8951~ nix, 4st, Janet 2.0 Gathering Stone Power v3 >> >> >> The proposal pool contains the following proposals: >> >> ID Author(s) AITitle >> --- > > CoE: there are two proposals missing here. > > - https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg44368.html > - https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg44323.html > > I mean. Am I doing something wrong? Sure, I haven't tagged one of the > messages, but it's been like the fourth or fifth proposal I created that > went to the void. > > -- > juan I recommend tagging your proposals with "[Proposal]". I almost missed G.'s proposal because it wasn't tagged, and once I got it I thought I had them all, but apparently not. It's my bad for missing (@Promotor) though, even if [Proposal] is more appropriate. I'll distribute them later today. -- snail
Re: DIS: Interest check - Softcombat Roleplay duels
Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion [2023-04-09 07:27]: > Would Agora be interested in roleplay combat? I would be very interested in role-playing games within Agora. Indeed, I've even researched some minimal system that would be suitable. I found TinyD6. Now, I can't find its rules online, so I'll reproduce them here. (u.d.m.s.o = “unless DM says otherwise”) - A N-test is a Nd6 roll (N defauting to 2). It succeeds if you roll 5 or 6 in any of the die. - Combat starts with an Initiative test for all involved players: the sum of a 2d6. - Combat is turn-based, following the order of eir Initiative tests, from largest to smallest (reroll for ties). - Each turn, a player has a right for two Actions, each of which can be: - Move - Attack - Focus - Evade - Misc - Move: Every player moves the same distance within one Action u.d.m.s.o. - Attack: - you must be in range (determined by weapon). - Do a test. If you are not proficient with a weapon, N = 1. If you are proficient, N = 2. If you master it, N = 3. - A successful test deals 1 point of damage u.d.m.s.o. - Focus: your next test succeeds on a 4, 5, or 6. - Evade: every time someone attacks you, a 1-test determines if you avoid taking damage. - Misc: things like grabbing stuff, passing it to allies, unsheathing weapons, etc. There are more details, but I don't think they are pertinent. -- juan
Re: DIS: (@Arbitor) I can has be judge
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 11:36 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > Hm, I thought I already asked this, but I'd like to become "interested" as > a judge. > (must be my bad, since now I can't find it!) You were added when you asked, just haven't rotated to the top yet, from the Gazette: > INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE > --- > 4012 snail > 4017 ais523 > 4st > 4018 nix > 4019 Janet > 4021 G. > (timeout: 4018 Murphy)
DIS: (@Arbitor) I can has be judge
Hm, I thought I already asked this, but I'd like to become "interested" as a judge. (must be my bad, since now I can't find it!) -- 4st Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: [CotC] CFJ 4019 Judged FALSE by Janet
> Motion to extend filed: 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 > Judged FALSE by Janet:01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 heh forgot to fill these in, defaulted to 0. Fixed in the archive as: > History: > > Called by Juan: 27 Mar 2023 18:21:13 > Assigned to Janet:02 Apr 2023 17:59:43 > Motion to extend filed: 08 Apr 2023 06:16:09 > Judged FALSE by Janet:10 Apr 2023 14:26:39
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
On Mon, 2023-04-10 at 09:11 -0500, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 4/10/23 07:40, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > AGAINST - I agree with most of this, but halving stamps every month is > > too frequent, and likely going to lead to very uninteresting gameplay > > (I suspect there isn't enough time to accumulate enough stamps to make > > trades worthwhile) - the 1/week restriction on cashing stamps also > > means that there won't be enough time for players with existing stamp > > holdings to spend them before they get halved > Would quarterly be better? > > Maybe the once a week limitation is unnecessary. Quarterly would be fine, I think. The once a week limitation feels unnecessary to me in the state where the new rules have been in place for a while, and haven't been changed since. It might have to be kept to be more robust to future rule changes occur and/or to short-term imbalances caused by rule changes. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
On 4/10/23 07:40, ais523 via agora-business wrote: AGAINST - I agree with most of this, but halving stamps every month is too frequent, and likely going to lead to very uninteresting gameplay (I suspect there isn't enough time to accumulate enough stamps to make trades worthwhile) - the 1/week restriction on cashing stamps also means that there won't be enough time for players with existing stamp holdings to spend them before they get halved Would quarterly be better? Maybe the once a week limitation is unnecessary. -- nix Collector, Herald
