DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Plan B
On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 10:25 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Plan B
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2657 by, as a single amendment, removing the list items and
> bullet points for the list items starting with each of the following:
> "Charity", "Sharing, "Wealth".
>
> Repeal Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages").
>
> Repeal Rule 2659 ("Stamps").
>
> Repeal Rule 2680 ("Ritual Paper Dance").
>
> Repeal Rule 2656 ("Radiance").
>
>
> [Given a new player winning within a month and a half by stamps by
> simply trading, something needs to change, and with no other radiance
> conditions existing, something needs to change. It doesn't need to be
> this, and I don't necessarily *want* it to be this, but the status quo
> is clearly not working.]
>
> }
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
Oh but Juan and I haven't won yet :(
--
4st
Referee
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: (draft) Rule Trolling
On Sun, 2023-05-07 at 17:24 -0700, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > Title: Did you try turning it off and on? Strongly AGAINST this, it would allow players to easily revoke any asset defined at power 1 from everybody at once via disabling the rule defining it. That would, in effect, make it impossible to have a workable economy unless we went around specifically securing all the economic rules against this. As a simple example, Commune's assets are backed by a Power=1 rule, so this would allow anyone to, with notice, reset the entire tournament. That would make gameplay there effectively impossible. It might also possible be possible to break the proposal system at power 1, by causing the Assessor to no longer be an office (thus making it so that there's nobody who CAN resolve proposals, and nobody can deputise either). I'm not sure that works because there's a power-3 "defaulting" in rule 208 which may make it possible for the Promotor to resolve Agoran Decisions in that case, as a fallback, but I think it might fail due to Cretans. Perhaps we might want to clarify the rules, to make sure. (Note that this would not be an ossification because you could still fix things by RWOing the office, or indeed flipping the switch back again – it's just something I noticed when trying to figure out what implications this proposal would have.) -- ais523
DIS: (draft) Rule Trolling
{
Title: Did you try turning it off and on?
Adoption Index: 1.1
Author: 4st
Co-author:
Enact a new rule with the text:
{
The Switchwitch is an office that tracks witchswitches.
A witchswitch is a positive boolean switch that exists on
every rule that has less power than this rule, and more power
than 0.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a rule with a witchswitch
with a value of FALSE has no effect whatsoever.
Any player can, once per week with 7 days notice and specifying
a witchswitch, flip a witchswitch to FALSE.
Any player can, by announcement and specifying a witchswitch,
flip a witchswitch to TRUE.
}
}
--
4st
Referee
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, @Herald) Stamps for Radiance 2
On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 02:01 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > I pay 5 different Stamps (ais523, nix, snail, Yachay, murphy) to gain > 20 radiance ( 5^2 - 5 = 20 ) > I pay 5 of the same Stamp (ais523) to gain 8 radiance ( (5-1)*2 = 8 ) > > I announce that I have 100 radiance. I therefore win the game. Congratulations! -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon award
Thanks! On Monday, May 8, 2023, Edward Murphy via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I award a Gray Ribbon to Yachay. >
DIS: Proto: More Factors
Proto-Proposal: More Factors (AI = 3) Amend Rule 217 (Interpreting the Rules) by replacing this text: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. with this text: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, probable intent of rule authors, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. This includes (but is not limited to) the scope of a definition or restriction, and whether an attempted action succeeds as intended.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Election updates
nix 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 Unless I missed something, voting already closed (and met quorum), so this vote is ineffective. I'll resolve the elections shortly.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
nix wrote: 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. I think I could do the bare minimum of an ADoP report within 60-90m per week by hand. Automation mainly adds some nice-to-haves that aren't required by the rules (report content, as well as making it vastly simpler to compile recap data for periodic awards).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun [CFJ]
On 5/7/23 16:46, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: I agree, it's not surplusage. A finding that "amend" can include changes other than those explicitly described in Rule 105 would render it surplus. I guess this is the last time I try to write compromise text, if it's going to be used to twist my meaning. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
