DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > [Proposal 8639 > failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even by r105 standards? I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Election updates
On 5/1/23 04:27, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > I had in mind to work together with the Promotor to make the Google Sheet > that outputs which Proposal passes or not much more accurate, as well as do > some more Google Sheet magic to make it output a good chunk of the > Assessor's report automatically into a cell in that spreadsheet. > > This would make deputising a lot easier since a lot of the work is already > done by the spreadsheet or would be otherwise just be color-by-the-numbers, > as well as make anyone wanting to improve on that system pretty easy > because of how newbie-friendly Google Sheet formulas as a coding language > is. > > I just didn't announce anything of the sort at the time nor did I > campaign because I didn't see anyone else doing it. I had no idea. So, just to put it on list, there are a few reasons I haven't touched the spreadsheets at all. First, on principle, I don't like the use of anything involving Google Drive for Agora (or any nomic really) because it's not controlled by us and difficult to automatically archive. If I'm putting in work to support an office, I want it to be in something I control. Second, at least with my workflow, doing anything with the spreadsheet would be extra effort to me for no gain. Unless the spreadsheet is absolutely perfect (and, I think anything approaching that would be unwieldy and not "newbie-friendly" at all; I've certainly done some spreadsheet crimes before), I would still have to do all of the same work as I currently do, so updating the spreadsheet with my own votes or anybody else's would just be duplicating effort. Third, I can't use the spreadsheet because I can't trust it. Someone could forget to update it, or someone could update it after casting invalid votes, or several other things could go wrong. I still have to double check anything. I also keep links to all of the relevant messages in commit messages [0], so I have to pull up the original messages (and even if people did put those links in the spreadsheet, it just goes back to "I can't trust it"). The existence of the spreadsheets doesn't save me any time. [0]: https://github.com/AgoraNomic/assessor/commit/daa96064875e3485cc0c9b9c49b7d0f453adcda6 -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Election updates
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 2:09 PM nix via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/23/23 18:45, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: > > I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Assessor > > election. > > * The Vote Collector is the ADoP. > > * The valid options are the candidates (currently 4st, Janet). > > * The voting method is instant runoff. > > * Quorum is 5 (based on 8 voters on Proposal 8955). > > I vote [Yachay, Janet]. Given recent discussion and that Yachay has some > ideas for how e wants to run Assessor, I think I would like to see some > shake-up. > Also - sincere apologies to Yachay for not mentioning campaigning on ideas earlier in the election process. Obviously it’s not clear to new players that it’s ok or expected to do that - and sorry for suggesting towards the end of the voting that you might be “gaming” it.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Election updates
On 5/1/23 17:09, nix via agora-business wrote: > On 4/23/23 18:45, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: >> I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Assessor >> election. >> * The Vote Collector is the ADoP. >> * The valid options are the candidates (currently 4st, Janet). >> * The voting method is instant runoff. >> * Quorum is 5 (based on 8 voters on Proposal 8955). > I vote [Yachay, Janet]. Given recent discussion and that Yachay has some > ideas for how e wants to run Assessor, I think I would like to see some > shake-up. > > Yachay you still need to nominate yourself I think. > >> I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Herald >> election. >> * Current candidates are 4st, nix. >> * Other aspects are same as Assessor decision above. > I voted for myself here. I'm willing to change my vote on this if any > competitors think they can plan and prepare the birthday Tournament, > which is in June. > I believe these votes are late, and both decisions had met quorum at 7 days. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:46, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > While I was supportive of the delegation idea on discord, I’m coming around > to Yachay’s position. I’ve “taken breaks” from arbitor regularly - snail > and Jason both did the job for a bit last year - but when it was > technically resigning without the expectation of getting the job back I > think it felt a bit healthier for the game than this would. That said, > there’s a difference between jobs that will find temporary takers and ones > almost no one will take on for a short time (rulekeepor is like that, or at > least has been historically) > > Maybe making the delegation subject to a public volunteer process - so it’s > treated differently if more than one person want the job, so the > hand-picking potential is more limited? I think it would be actively bad to promote high turnover for Rulekeepor in particular (and, if CotC was official, it as well). Doing it requires knowing a lot of specifics, it's error-prone (god I made so many errors starting off), and having consistent records is very important (the current data format dates back to Alexis, even if the program itself has been rewritten several times). -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 15:05, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > When you do a job manually for a while, you start to use shortcuts, get > faster, streamline, then maybe join a couple of steps using a bit of code… > there’s really no sharp line between “automation” and plain old > “experience” - the two naturally go hand in hand. Yea, that's why I was thinking "doable". I did Stamps with a script, but I think snail is doing it by hand. It doesn't need a script, but it's nice to simplify. A good spot IMO would be for a weekly report to take *at most* 60-90m for a busy week to do by hand, and automation might bring it down to 15-30. If something takes longer than that to do by hand, it basically requires automation for anyone to do it regularly. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 12:37 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 14:36, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > Ideally, I think, everything is doable with automation. In practice tho, > > I'm not sure what that looks like. > > Crucial typo. I think ideally everything is doable *without* automation. When you do a job manually for a while, you start to use shortcuts, get faster, streamline, then maybe join a couple of steps using a bit of code… there’s really no sharp line between “automation” and plain old “experience” - the two naturally go hand in hand.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:49, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > I was actually about to post the same thing about #2 in an election getting > the bench lol. It seems like the most effort-economic way to do it. > > And yeah, I think it could work as per-office. I'd prefer just trusting the officer's discretion here. Reducing ceremony for this is good, and a person willing to have done it in the election might not be willing to do it now. Most officers probably would just say "anyone want it?" as nix suggested. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:18, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > The other part of this is: Janet is Rulekeepor purely because no one has > bothered to try to take the position properly. The Elections are meant to > encourage shakeups, but without sufficient platforms for change, then we > shalln't have the change, since Agora does not like change, despite being > open to it. :) That's why I originally took it and didn't drop it immediately, but it's not why I'm still doing it now. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 13:28, nix via agora-business wrote: > An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a > Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. The ADoP SHALL > include which officers are On Vacation in weekly report. Could just say that the set of officers on vacation is part of eir weekly report? This should work though. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
Hrm, now that you mention it I think that would be better, yeah. On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:38 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 14:36, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > Ideally, I think, everything is doable with automation. In practice tho, > > I'm not sure what that looks like. > > Crucial typo. I think ideally everything is doable *without* automation. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:36, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > Ideally, I think, everything is doable with automation. In practice tho, > I'm not sure what that looks like. Crucial typo. I think ideally everything is doable *without* automation. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:28, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Oh, I see now, that's very good. > > Hm. I wonder if there was a way to make offices significantly easier so > that we didn't need to rely on these things or the apparent elitism that > some offices require. This will be case-by-case for each and every office. There's often things we can do, like simplifying formulas, or given officers more discretion (which is not intended to be elitism, it's intended to streamline things because impartial processes that give everyone input take time by definition), splitting offices into multiple parts, etc. Ideally, I think, everything is doable with automation. In practice tho, I'm not sure what that looks like. Managing the rules, for instance, is pretty complex. I'm not really sure what can be done to simplify that besides automation, or at least revision control to trace mistakes. I don't suspect google sheets will solve that either. I guess the other option there is literally simplifying the rules collectively so there's less to manage. Bots and external tools have been discussed many times, they have pros and cons. For a bot, someone has to maintain it, and update it every time we update the rules it interacts with (so possibly weekly). That's maybe less work for me and you, but not less work for its maintainer. Solutions need to be certain they're actually reducing work and not just shuffling it around/hiding it. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
Oh, I see now, that's very good. Hm. I wonder if there was a way to make offices significantly easier so that we didn't need to rely on these things or the apparent elitism that some offices require. But besides resorting to just having everyone play on Google Sheets in parallel to the regular mailing lists, I'm pretty stumped. Maybe a mailbot that you can access through the fora like a command prompt? On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 9:17 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 14:04, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > That seems to alludes that officers prefer to keep their tools to > > themselves or they don't design them to be easily shared in the first > > place, which I don't think is the best practice for Agora overall. > > > > Maybe we can encourage officers to make/use public tools and tutorials > that > > anyone can contribute to and build upon. (Maybe there can be an office > > solely for maintaining and making such tools for the benefit of > everyone?) > > On the contrary most officers keep public repositories on github [0] of > their tools. But teaching someone how to use a script you wrote, > regardless of whether it's public, takes time. > > [0] https://github.com/AgoraNomic > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 14:04, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > That seems to alludes that officers prefer to keep their tools to > themselves or they don't design them to be easily shared in the first > place, which I don't think is the best practice for Agora overall. > > Maybe we can encourage officers to make/use public tools and tutorials that > anyone can contribute to and build upon. (Maybe there can be an office > solely for maintaining and making such tools for the benefit of everyone?) On the contrary most officers keep public repositories on github [0] of their tools. But teaching someone how to use a script you wrote, regardless of whether it's public, takes time. [0] https://github.com/AgoraNomic -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
That seems to alludes that officers prefer to keep their tools to themselves or they don't design them to be easily shared in the first place, which I don't think is the best practice for Agora overall. Maybe we can encourage officers to make/use public tools and tutorials that anyone can contribute to and build upon. (Maybe there can be an office solely for maintaining and making such tools for the benefit of everyone?) On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:56 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 13:49, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > I was actually about to post the same thing about #2 in an election > getting > > the bench lol. It seems like the most effort-economic way to do it. > > > > And yeah, I think it could work as per-office. > > My main concern is still the time this adds. Instead of an officer > informally coming to an agreement with someone, a bench system means > each person on the bench needs time to decide whether they want to do > it. Then if there's automation or information that needs to be > exchanged, that needs to happen. I'm worried this process makes taking a > vacation too difficult to be worth it. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 13:49, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > I was actually about to post the same thing about #2 in an election getting > the bench lol. It seems like the most effort-economic way to do it. > > And yeah, I think it could work as per-office. My main concern is still the time this adds. Instead of an officer informally coming to an agreement with someone, a bench system means each person on the bench needs time to decide whether they want to do it. Then if there's automation or information that needs to be exchanged, that needs to happen. I'm worried this process makes taking a vacation too difficult to be worth it. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
I was actually about to post the same thing about #2 in an election getting the bench lol. It seems like the most effort-economic way to do it. And yeah, I think it could work as per-office. On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:45 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 13:38, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > Perhaps a "bench" system like in team sports, where there is a main > > officer, but if they can't do their roles, or want to take a vacation, > the > > person on the bench takes the spot until they come back. > > > > The bench positions are elected or otherwise offered to everyone equally > > somehow. > > One bench for each office? Or one bench total. We could automatically > fill the benches from the election results. Whoever got 2nd place gets > first option to the office, then 3rd gets second option. When you run > out, then the officer can just pick someone. > > Thoughts? > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
While I was supportive of the delegation idea on discord, I’m coming around to Yachay’s position. I’ve “taken breaks” from arbitor regularly - snail and Jason both did the job for a bit last year - but when it was technically resigning without the expectation of getting the job back I think it felt a bit healthier for the game than this would. That said, there’s a difference between jobs that will find temporary takers and ones almost no one will take on for a short time (rulekeepor is like that, or at least has been historically) Maybe making the delegation subject to a public volunteer process - so it’s treated differently if more than one person want the job, so the hand-picking potential is more limited? On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 11:32 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I'm not sure if my main point is coming across that the problem would be > the "dynasty" thing, where the veteran gets to hand-pick themselves how the > office continues rather than having a process that is more impartial. > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:24 PM nix via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/1/23 13:20, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 5/1/23 12:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly > > >> encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto > > heads of > > >> who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate > or > > >> not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards > actually > > >> getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an > > unwritten > > >> requirement for it. > > >> > > >> It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it > > bothers > > >> me. > > >> > > >> I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all > > >> deputization/elections as we currently have it. > > > > > > With due respect, this is a newer player perspective. Some roles > (mostly > > > rulekeepor, assessor, arbitor) tend to stay with the same player for > > > several years. And then that player burns out/gets buys/moves on, and > > > suddenly there's nobody that knows how to do them. This is meant to > > > *lessen* the chokehold that established players have on the mechanisms > > > of the game but preventing that from happening. > > > > > > > And the "free-for-all" doesn't exist right now. It takes a lot of work > > to take over certain roles, so what happens is that nobody does, or > > someone does and immediately realizes they were unprepared for the work. > > > > And since experienced players know those are the most likely outcomes, > > they feel obligated to continue to run their office, some players have > > put out reports for multiple years without breaks. It's not healthy; the > > current system is clearly insufficient. > > > > -- > > nix > > Prime Minister, Herald > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 13:38, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Perhaps a "bench" system like in team sports, where there is a main > officer, but if they can't do their roles, or want to take a vacation, the > person on the bench takes the spot until they come back. > > The bench positions are elected or otherwise offered to everyone equally > somehow. One bench for each office? Or one bench total. We could automatically fill the benches from the election results. Whoever got 2nd place gets first option to the office, then 3rd gets second option. When you run out, then the officer can just pick someone. Thoughts? -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
Perhaps a "bench" system like in team sports, where there is a main officer, but if they can't do their roles, or want to take a vacation, the person on the bench takes the spot until they come back. The bench positions are elected or otherwise offered to everyone equally somehow. On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:35 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 13:32, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > I'm not sure if my main point is coming across that the problem would be > > the "dynasty" thing, where the veteran gets to hand-pick themselves how > the > > office continues rather than having a process that is more impartial. > > Oh I see. The reason for picking the delegate was intended to allow the > officer to feel assured there was someone going to do it. Having to do > some sort of mini-election before they leave seems stressful. I was > imagining that in practice most officers would just go "anyone willing > to do this for a month?" and choose whoever said yes. > > What alternative would you suggest? > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
Well... I'd like to see Janet take a break and we'll find out how this process works anyways. It's all part of perfecting these processes I don't imagine anyone would willingly volunteer to be a delegate, considering that few even opted to become candidates in the recent elections. On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 11:33 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I'm not sure if my main point is coming across that the problem would be > the "dynasty" thing, where the veteran gets to hand-pick themselves how the > office continues rather than having a process that is more impartial. > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:24 PM nix via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/1/23 13:20, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 5/1/23 12:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly > > >> encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto > > heads of > > >> who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate > or > > >> not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards > actually > > >> getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an > > unwritten > > >> requirement for it. > > >> > > >> It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it > > bothers > > >> me. > > >> > > >> I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all > > >> deputization/elections as we currently have it. > > > > > > With due respect, this is a newer player perspective. Some roles > (mostly > > > rulekeepor, assessor, arbitor) tend to stay with the same player for > > > several years. And then that player burns out/gets buys/moves on, and > > > suddenly there's nobody that knows how to do them. This is meant to > > > *lessen* the chokehold that established players have on the mechanisms > > > of the game but preventing that from happening. > > > > > > > And the "free-for-all" doesn't exist right now. It takes a lot of work > > to take over certain roles, so what happens is that nobody does, or > > someone does and immediately realizes they were unprepared for the work. > > > > And since experienced players know those are the most likely outcomes, > > they feel obligated to continue to run their office, some players have > > put out reports for multiple years without breaks. It's not healthy; the > > current system is clearly insufficient. > > > > -- > > nix > > Prime Minister, Herald > > > > > -- 4st Referee Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 13:32, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > I'm not sure if my main point is coming across that the problem would be > the "dynasty" thing, where the veteran gets to hand-pick themselves how the > office continues rather than having a process that is more impartial. Oh I see. The reason for picking the delegate was intended to allow the officer to feel assured there was someone going to do it. Having to do some sort of mini-election before they leave seems stressful. I was imagining that in practice most officers would just go "anyone willing to do this for a month?" and choose whoever said yes. What alternative would you suggest? -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
I'm not sure if my main point is coming across that the problem would be the "dynasty" thing, where the veteran gets to hand-pick themselves how the office continues rather than having a process that is more impartial. On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:24 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 13:20, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/1/23 12:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > >> I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly > >> encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto > heads of > >> who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate or > >> not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards actually > >> getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an > unwritten > >> requirement for it. > >> > >> It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it > bothers > >> me. > >> > >> I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all > >> deputization/elections as we currently have it. > > > > With due respect, this is a newer player perspective. Some roles (mostly > > rulekeepor, assessor, arbitor) tend to stay with the same player for > > several years. And then that player burns out/gets buys/moves on, and > > suddenly there's nobody that knows how to do them. This is meant to > > *lessen* the chokehold that established players have on the mechanisms > > of the game but preventing that from happening. > > > > And the "free-for-all" doesn't exist right now. It takes a lot of work > to take over certain roles, so what happens is that nobody does, or > someone does and immediately realizes they were unprepared for the work. > > And since experienced players know those are the most likely outcomes, > they feel obligated to continue to run their office, some players have > put out reports for multiple years without breaks. It's not healthy; the > current system is clearly insufficient. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 13:20, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/1/23 12:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: >> I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly >> encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto heads of >> who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate or >> not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards actually >> getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an unwritten >> requirement for it. >> >> It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it bothers >> me. >> >> I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all >> deputization/elections as we currently have it. > > With due respect, this is a newer player perspective. Some roles (mostly > rulekeepor, assessor, arbitor) tend to stay with the same player for > several years. And then that player burns out/gets buys/moves on, and > suddenly there's nobody that knows how to do them. This is meant to > *lessen* the chokehold that established players have on the mechanisms > of the game but preventing that from happening. > And the "free-for-all" doesn't exist right now. It takes a lot of work to take over certain roles, so what happens is that nobody does, or someone does and immediately realizes they were unprepared for the work. And since experienced players know those are the most likely outcomes, they feel obligated to continue to run their office, some players have put out reports for multiple years without breaks. It's not healthy; the current system is clearly insufficient. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On 5/1/23 12:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly > encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto heads of > who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate or > not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards actually > getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an unwritten > requirement for it. > > It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it bothers > me. > > I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all > deputization/elections as we currently have it. With due respect, this is a newer player perspective. Some roles (mostly rulekeepor, assessor, arbitor) tend to stay with the same player for several years. And then that player burns out/gets buys/moves on, and suddenly there's nobody that knows how to do them. This is meant to *lessen* the chokehold that established players have on the mechanisms of the game but preventing that from happening. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
It's actually the opposite: right now we HAVE dynasties of players who just
have had these roles forever, and they've never taken a break. Encouraging
them to take a break, and specifying a different player, forces more
change-ups than we have currently, because we trust so much currently in
the incumbents.
Essentially, it would be more of a "hey do you want to try this role, see
if you would be any good at it? I need a break from being the
Rulekeepor/Assessor/etc for since FOREVER."
I can see where that meaning comes across... but the part that really comes
across in this rule is the "SHOULD" take a vacation. (EG Janet has had eir
roles for a long long time, and the prior rulekeepor had had it for like 8
years or something, so this encourages shakeup.)
The other part of this is: Janet is Rulekeepor purely because no one has
bothered to try to take the position properly. The Elections are meant to
encourage shakeups, but without sufficient platforms for change, then we
shalln't have the change, since Agora does not like change, despite being
open to it. :)
This just means that a player can now just "screw off" for their vacation
and not worry about eir role when they come back. And if the delegate does
a good enough job, that puts them in an even stronger position to overthrow
the incumbent.
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 11:01 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Wow, I did some major word soup there, I hope my point came across anyways
> lol
>
> On Monday, May 1, 2023, Yachay Wayllukuq
> wrote:
>
> > I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly
> > encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto heads
> of
> > who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate or
> > not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards actually
> > getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an unwritten
> > requirement for it.
> >
> > It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it
> > bothers me.
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all
> > deputization/elections as we currently have it.
> >
> > On Monday, May 1, 2023, nix via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I submit the following proposal:
> >>
> >> {
> >> Title: Delegation
> >> AI: 3
> >> Author: nix
> >> Co-Author(s): Janet
> >>
> >> [This proposal adds Vacations and Delegation, which encourage officers
> >> to take time off and give the responsibility to someone else for a
> >> while. Not only is this intended to reduce burnout for officers, but it
> >> is also intended to be an opportunity for other players to learn an
> >> office without fully committing to it.]
> >>
> >> Amend R2438 by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an
> >> office" with "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office or is
> >> delegated an office"
> >>
> >> Enact a new Power=3 rule titled "Vacations & Delegation" with the
> >> following text:
> >>
> >> An officer CAN and SHOULD take a Vacation from a specified office e
> >> has continuously held for over 6 months with 7 day notice, if e has
> >> not done so in the last year. When e does so, e can optionally
> >> specify a player to be eir Delegate.
> >>
> >> An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a
> >> Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. The ADoP SHALL
> >> include which officers are On Vacation in weekly report.
> >>
> >> If an officer specified a Delegate when taking a Vacation, and the
> >> Delegate has publicly consented, then the Delegate can act as if e
> >> is the holder of the Office while the officer is On Vacation.
> >>
> >> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, while an officer is On
> >> Vacation that officer NEED NOT comply with any duties of that
> >> office, and the delegate, if any, SHALL comply with all duties of
> >> the office as if e held the office.
> >> }
> >> --
> >> nix
> >> Prime Minister, Herald
> >>
> >
>
--
4st
Referee and Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
Wow, I did some major word soup there, I hope my point came across anyways
lol
On Monday, May 1, 2023, Yachay Wayllukuq wrote:
> I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly
> encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto heads of
> who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate or
> not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards actually
> getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an unwritten
> requirement for it.
>
> It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it
> bothers me.
>
> I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all
> deputization/elections as we currently have it.
>
> On Monday, May 1, 2023, nix via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> {
>> Title: Delegation
>> AI: 3
>> Author: nix
>> Co-Author(s): Janet
>>
>> [This proposal adds Vacations and Delegation, which encourage officers
>> to take time off and give the responsibility to someone else for a
>> while. Not only is this intended to reduce burnout for officers, but it
>> is also intended to be an opportunity for other players to learn an
>> office without fully committing to it.]
>>
>> Amend R2438 by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an
>> office" with "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office or is
>> delegated an office"
>>
>> Enact a new Power=3 rule titled "Vacations & Delegation" with the
>> following text:
>>
>> An officer CAN and SHOULD take a Vacation from a specified office e
>> has continuously held for over 6 months with 7 day notice, if e has
>> not done so in the last year. When e does so, e can optionally
>> specify a player to be eir Delegate.
>>
>> An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a
>> Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. The ADoP SHALL
>> include which officers are On Vacation in weekly report.
>>
>> If an officer specified a Delegate when taking a Vacation, and the
>> Delegate has publicly consented, then the Delegate can act as if e
>> is the holder of the Office while the officer is On Vacation.
>>
>> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, while an officer is On
>> Vacation that officer NEED NOT comply with any duties of that
>> office, and the delegate, if any, SHALL comply with all duties of
>> the office as if e held the office.
>> }
>> --
>> nix
>> Prime Minister, Herald
>>
>
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly
encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto heads of
who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate or
not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards actually
getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an unwritten
requirement for it.
It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it bothers
me.
I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all
deputization/elections as we currently have it.
On Monday, May 1, 2023, nix via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: Delegation
> AI: 3
> Author: nix
> Co-Author(s): Janet
>
> [This proposal adds Vacations and Delegation, which encourage officers
> to take time off and give the responsibility to someone else for a
> while. Not only is this intended to reduce burnout for officers, but it
> is also intended to be an opportunity for other players to learn an
> office without fully committing to it.]
>
> Amend R2438 by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an
> office" with "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office or is
> delegated an office"
>
> Enact a new Power=3 rule titled "Vacations & Delegation" with the
> following text:
>
> An officer CAN and SHOULD take a Vacation from a specified office e
> has continuously held for over 6 months with 7 day notice, if e has
> not done so in the last year. When e does so, e can optionally
> specify a player to be eir Delegate.
>
> An officer is On Vacation from a specified office if e has taken a
> Vacation from that office in the last 30 days. The ADoP SHALL
> include which officers are On Vacation in weekly report.
>
> If an officer specified a Delegate when taking a Vacation, and the
> Delegate has publicly consented, then the Delegate can act as if e
> is the holder of the Office while the officer is On Vacation.
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, while an officer is On
> Vacation that officer NEED NOT comply with any duties of that
> office, and the delegate, if any, SHALL comply with all duties of
> the office as if e held the office.
> }
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Inactivity intent - Cuddlybanana
On 5/1/23 08:48, Rose Strong via agora-discussion wrote: Oh On Mon, May 1, 2023, 4:36 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: I make cuddlybanana inactive On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 1:36 PM Yachay Wayllukuq < yachaywayllu...@gmail.com> wrote: I intend, with notice, to make cuddlybanana inactive You can still reactivate yourself by announcement whenever you want. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Inactivity intent - Cuddlybanana
Oh On Mon, May 1, 2023, 4:36 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I make cuddlybanana inactive > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 1:36 PM Yachay Wayllukuq < > yachaywayllu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I intend, with notice, to make cuddlybanana inactive > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Election updates
I had in mind to work together with the Promotor to make the Google Sheet that outputs which Proposal passes or not much more accurate, as well as do some more Google Sheet magic to make it output a good chunk of the Assessor's report automatically into a cell in that spreadsheet. This would make deputising a lot easier since a lot of the work is already done by the spreadsheet or would be otherwise just be color-by-the-numbers, as well as make anyone wanting to improve on that system pretty easy because of how newbie-friendly Google Sheet formulas as a coding language is. I just didn't announce anything of the sort at the time nor did I campaign because I didn't see anyone else doing it. I had no idea. On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 1:18 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 4:11 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business > wrote: > > > For the Herald Election, I vote [4st, Yachay, nix]. > > > For the Assessor Election, I vote [Yachay, 4st, Janet]. > > I vote (nix) for Herald. > I vote (Janet) for Assessor. > > While I really like supporting "new" officers, the newer candidates in > this case have treated this a bit like a prize not an election, in > that they have not given any reasons why they should be elected (i.e. > no campaigning). The incumbents have strong records so I would expect > some level of thought into "what could be better" about the offices, > as a campaign position for challengers, to show that they have a > concern and interest in the particular office itself. > > -G. >
