Re: DIS: [Draft Proposal] You can't just call points radiance and not have them do
On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 16:39 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/8/23 05:33, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > > A player CAN, by paying a fee of 5 brights, turn a specified rule > > Radiant. > > A radiant rule CANNOT be repealed. The player that turned a rule > > Radiant > > CAN, by announcement, make it cease being Radiant. > > No. Please no. This restriction is trivially circumventable with an AI-2 proposal (and a proposal equal to the power of the radiant rule could amend it into nothingness), so there isn't actually anything broken/breakable here. There are other issues with it, though (it doesn't do what it seems to, and it isn't tracked properly; there are also arguments that it doesn't have enough Power to work). It could maybe be changed to something along the lines of "specify a rule of power below 2, any proposals that would repeal or amend that rule have their AI increased to 2"? That would have similar functionality to the apparently intended functionality, but very little risk of breaking things. -- ais523
Re: DIS: [Draft Proposal] You can't just call points radiance and not have them do
On 5/8/23 05:33, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
> {{{
> Title: cool shiny things!
> Adoption Index: 2.0
> Author: snail
> Co-author(s):
>
> [First let's change how radiance resets work. This should reduce the timing
> woes of the current system, and encourage spending stamps:]
>
> Amend Rule 2656 (Radiance) to read, in full:
> {
> A player's Radiance is an integer player switch defaulting to 0,
> tracked by the Herald. When a player is "granted" or "gains" a
> specified amount of radiance, eir radiance is increased by that
> amount.
>
> Brights are a currency, tracked by the Herald. When a player wins the
> game, e gains 1 Bright. A player with a radiance of 50 or more CAN, by
> announcement, gain 1 bright, thereby decreasing eir radiance by 50.
>
> At the start of each quarter, the player(s) with the highest radiance
> each gain 5 brights, and then each player gains X/50 brights, rounded down,
> where X is eir radiance. Then, all radiance switches are set to
> 0, and all unsealed stamps are destroyed.
>
> If a player would gain radiance in the 7 days before the beginning of a
> Quarter, e instead gains 1/(7-X) times that amount, rounded down, where X
> is the number of full days before the beginning of the Quarter.
> }
>
> [So you get brights when the quarter ends, if you have enough radiance.
> What can you do with them? Lots of things!]
>
> Enact a new rule titled "Bright Abilities" at power 2, with the following
> text:
> {
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, increase eir Base Rockiness by 1.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, grant a specified pure player 3
> blots.
Can we please not further gamify blots? It hasn't ever ended well.
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, seal up to 5 specified stamps.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, transfer a specified asset from
> the Lost and Found Department to emself.
"liquid"
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, increase eir voting strength on
> ordinary referenda by 2 for a period of 7 days, provided eir voting
> strength is not currently increased this way.
This should be phrased continuously (see Power Stone).
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, increase the radiance of 5
> different specified players by 10 each.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, expunge up to 3 blots from a
> specified player.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 3 brights, wield a specified stone, rules
> to the contrary notwithstanding.
"specifying any values needed to interpret the stone's effects"
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 5 brights, turn a specified rule Radiant.
> A radiant rule CANNOT be repealed. The player that turned a rule Radiant
> CAN, by announcement, make it cease being Radiant.
No. Please no.
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 10 brights, win the game. When a player
> wins the game this way, all brights are destroyed, and then each player is
> granted 1 bright.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 20 brights, Outshine the Sun. The voting
> strength of a player on ordinary referenda is increased by 1 if e has ever
> Outshined the Sun. This bonus SHOULD be compensated if repealed.
> }
>
> [What's this about sealed stamps? You can protect your stamps from the
> quarterly reset by paying brights or radiance, in exchange for only being
> able to use them for the non-radiance wincon.]
>
> Amend Rule 2659 (Stamps) to read, in full:
> {
> Stamps are a category of asset ownable by players . The
> Collector is an office. The Collector tracks Stamps in eir weekly
> report.
>
> For each person there is a corresponding type of stamp.
>
> Sealed is a negative boolean Stamp switch, tracked by the Collector.
> To "seal" a stamp is to make it Sealed. To "unseal" a stamp is to make it
> not Sealed (syn. unsealed).
>
> A player with at least 20 radiance CAN, by announcement, seal a specified
> stamp e owns, thereby decreasing eir radiance by 20.
>
> Any player CAN, once per week, pay X unsealed Stamps, where each
> specified
> Stamp is a different type, to gain (X^2)-X radiance.
>
> Any player CAN, once per week, pay X unsealed Stamps, where each
> Stamp is
> the same type, to gain (X-1)*2 radiance.
>
> Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps, where N is the current
> number of active players and each specified Stamp is of a
> different type.
> }
Fungibility?
>
> [I hope you like this idea! Please let me know your thoughts, especially
> about the Bright Abilities. This system could easily be added to, with
> alternate ways to gain radiance! Or if someone comes up with one really
> good radiance gaining game, this would work with it.]
>
> }}}
> --
> snail
I'm concerned about balance. Some of these effects seem much more
powerful per bright than others.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st
On 5/8/23 16:08, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:53 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> The below CFJ is 4023. I assign it to 4st. >> >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4023 >> >> === CFJ 4023 === >> >> Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0. >> >> == >> >> Caller:Aspen >> Barred:Janet >> >> Judge: 4st >> >> == >> >> History: >> >> Called by Aspen: 02 May 2023 16:16:29 >> Assigned to 4st: [now] >> >> == >> >> Caller's Arguments: >> >> Adoption message of proposal in question (proposal 8639, 'sole quorum'): >> >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html >> >> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb wrote: >>> On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb 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. >>> >>> Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said. >>> >>> I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's >>> title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to >>> that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule >>> rather than that my reading is wrong). >>> >>> My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only >>> and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is >>> inherently ambiguous. >> -- >> >> Gratuitous Arguments by nix: >> >> Gratuitous FOR: >> >> "ambiguous" requires more than one possible interpretation. I don't >> understand the assertion that something is "ambiguous" without >> clarifying the two or more ways to interpret it. >> >> Additionally, the rules do not define "amend". They name "amending the >> text" as a rule change, but that's not a definition. It's clear (and >> AFAICT, unambiguous) that "amend the power" refers to changing the power. >> >> >> Gratuitous Arguments by Janet: >> >> I've was consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's >> title" doesn't work, until we explicitly amended Rule 105 to say that it >> does work (P8871). We agreed that legislation was needed there, and the >> fact that Rule 105 now *explicitly* uses "amend" for one non-text change >> but not another suggests that rule changes where it is not used should >> be able to use "amend". If they could, "syn. amend the title of" would >> be surplusage. >> >> >> Gratuitous Arguments by nix: >> >> I wrote that section. It's not surplusage, it was an attempt to >> compromise with the Rulekeepor by disambiguating, since it seemed clear >> e wasn't going to change eir mind. This grat strips authorial intent to >> argue the exact opposite of what the intent was. >> >> >> Gratuitous Arguments by Janet: >> >> 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. >> >> >> Gratuitous Arguments by G.: >> >> Janet's logic about "surplussage" is a bit of a fallacy that leads to >> a problematic cycle. Consider the following: >> >> 1. A single player finds something in the rules unclear to em. >> Instead of testing by CFJ e makes a proposal to add clarifying text. >> >> 2. Voters see it as harmless - it wasn't unclear to them, the >> clarification proposed is what they assumed the text meant all along, >> but it must have been unclear to someone, and better safe than sorry >> right? >> >> 3. Once the added text is adopted, the original player uses it as >> proof (via "surplussage") that the original text would absolutely be >> read in the opposite way if the clarifying text was removed, also >> perhaps citing other places in the rules that the same original >> language must now be unclear. This leads to a round of adding >> clarifying language to other areas, and the assumptions that it's >> always needed, when the original text was never tested by CFJ and >> might have been perfectly clear to most people. >> >> This kind of ratchet, wherein adding "extra" clarity is assumed to >> weaken the text of the original, is not logicially sound
DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:53 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The below CFJ is 4023. I assign it to 4st. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4023 > > === CFJ 4023 === > > Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0. > > == > > Caller:Aspen > Barred:Janet > > Judge: 4st > > == > > History: > > Called by Aspen: 02 May 2023 16:16:29 > Assigned to 4st: [now] > > == > > Caller's Arguments: > > Adoption message of proposal in question (proposal 8639, 'sole quorum'): > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb wrote: > > On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb 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. > > > > > > Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said. > > > > I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's > > title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to > > that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule > > rather than that my reading is wrong). > > > > My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only > > and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is > > inherently ambiguous. > > -- > > Gratuitous Arguments by nix: > > Gratuitous FOR: > > "ambiguous" requires more than one possible interpretation. I don't > understand the assertion that something is "ambiguous" without > clarifying the two or more ways to interpret it. > > Additionally, the rules do not define "amend". They name "amending the > text" as a rule change, but that's not a definition. It's clear (and > AFAICT, unambiguous) that "amend the power" refers to changing the power. > > > Gratuitous Arguments by Janet: > > I've was consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's > title" doesn't work, until we explicitly amended Rule 105 to say that it > does work (P8871). We agreed that legislation was needed there, and the > fact that Rule 105 now *explicitly* uses "amend" for one non-text change > but not another suggests that rule changes where it is not used should > be able to use "amend". If they could, "syn. amend the title of" would > be surplusage. > > > Gratuitous Arguments by nix: > > I wrote that section. It's not surplusage, it was an attempt to > compromise with the Rulekeepor by disambiguating, since it seemed clear > e wasn't going to change eir mind. This grat strips authorial intent to > argue the exact opposite of what the intent was. > > > Gratuitous Arguments by Janet: > > 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. > > > Gratuitous Arguments by G.: > > Janet's logic about "surplussage" is a bit of a fallacy that leads to > a problematic cycle. Consider the following: > > 1. A single player finds something in the rules unclear to em. > Instead of testing by CFJ e makes a proposal to add clarifying text. > > 2. Voters see it as harmless - it wasn't unclear to them, the > clarification proposed is what they assumed the text meant all along, > but it must have been unclear to someone, and better safe than sorry > right? > > 3. Once the added text is adopted, the original player uses it as > proof (via "surplussage") that the original text would absolutely be > read in the opposite way if the clarifying text was removed, also > perhaps citing other places in the rules that the same original > language must now be unclear. This leads to a round of adding > clarifying language to other areas, and the assumptions that it's > always needed, when the original text was never tested by CFJ and > might have been perfectly clear to most people. > > This kind of ratchet, wherein adding "extra" clarity is assumed to > weaken the text of the original, is not logicially sound reasoning, > nor does it make for good rules-writing. Whatever else the merits of > this particular case, that logic should not be a reason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Plan B
On 5/8/23 03:39, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > - It's very easy to find trades that are net beneficial for the traders. > Most people seem to agree that trading Stamps 1-for-1 is generally > reasonable and a good trade. Just have the same person do that enough times > with different people and they'll end up winning fairly unimpeded. > - The economy, in ideal conditions, produces enough 'raw materials' for two > people to win /every week/ (everyone sets their Dream to Wealth and then > two people are given one of each Stamp and use it to win with the 'pay many > different Stamps as active players' wincon). We're a good distance away > from those conditions, but we might need to throttle how much 'win raw > materials' is being pumped into us per week. The massive stockpiles of > Stamps are an issue too. > - Apathy. A lot of people didn't seem to be as engaged as I am with Stamps, > so I just didn't have to worry about certain things. First point and last point are the same reason. In a more competitive economy people do not trade 1-to-1. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) Break Everything Contract?
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 7:39 AM Forest Sweeney
wrote:
> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 7:32 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I create and join the following contract:
>> {
>> Players can leave this contract at any time.
>> When a player makes a rule change via proposal, that proposal CAN directly
>> private information in this contract, even if the author is not party to
>> this contract. This contract has private information that is a copy of the
>> Agoran ruleset.
>> }
>>
>> CFJ (No I do not bar Janet): This proposal introduces "any ambiguity" into
>> all rule changes.
>> Arguments FOR: "change/alter/modify/update/amend/fix a rule/the power/the
>> title to read", "delete/destroy/shred/eliminate a rule", and
>> "create/spawn/induce a rule" are presumed to introduce ambiguity even
>> though all seem pretty clear that they want to make a rule/power/title be
>> something, repeal a rule, or enact a rule. Repeal a portion of a rule
>> seems
>> to introduce a similar ambiguity. THUS, this contract would introduce a
>> global ambiguity: did the author mean to do the rule change to the
>> contract... or the rule? (See Rule 105 "Any ambiguity in the specification
>> of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect."
>>
>> Arguments AGAINST: It should be implied that things in Agora are
>> reasonable
>> unless otherwise stated. EG Amend the power of something should be a
>> valid,
>> unambiguous rule change, because it is reasonable to interpret it that
>> way.
>>
>> (Another argument against that may make this matter unfortunately trivial:
>> R217 means the rules take precedence over contracts, although the rules
>> are
>> silent on whether this introduces ambiguity, however, the fact that I have
>> to ask implies that it is so?)
>>
>> I then leave the contract and shred it (so the notary has no extra labor).
>>
>> --
>> 4st
>> Referee
>> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>>
>
> I withdraw this CFJ (so I can resubmit after getting the contract right).
> I create and join the following contract (new! clearly saying what
> proposal can do!):
> {
> Players can leave this contract at any time.
> When a player makes a rule change via proposal, that proposal CAN directly
> apply that rule change to private information in this contract, even if
> the author
> is not party to this contract. This contract has private information that
> is a copy
> of the Agoran ruleset.
> }
>
> CFJ (No I do not bar Janet): This proposal introduces "any ambiguity" into
> all rule changes.
> Arguments FOR: "change/alter/modify/update/amend/fix a rule/the power/the
> title to read", "delete/destroy/shred/eliminate a rule", and
> "create/spawn/induce a rule" are presumed to introduce ambiguity even
> though all seem pretty clear that they want to make a rule/power/title be
> something, repeal a rule, or enact a rule. Repeal a portion of a rule seems
> to introduce a similar ambiguity. THUS, this contract would introduce a
> global ambiguity: did the author mean to do the rule change to the
> contract... or the rule? (See Rule 105 "Any ambiguity in the specification
> of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect."
>
> Arguments AGAINST: It should be implied that things in Agora are reasonable
> unless otherwise stated. EG Amend the power of something should be a valid,
> unambiguous rule change, because it is reasonable to interpret it that way.
>
> (Another argument against that may make this matter unfortunately trivial:
> R217 means the rules take precedence over contracts, although the rules are
> silent on whether this introduces ambiguity, however, the fact that I have
> to ask implies that it is so?)
>
> I then leave the contract and shred it (so the notary has no extra labor).
> --
> 4st
> Referee
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>
Er typo: "This proposal introduces" should be "This contract introduces"
--
4st
Referee
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: [Draft Proposal] You can't just call points radiance and not have them do
Overall I like the proposal and its intent. It seems fun. I like the Bright
ability system a lot.
- We might want there to be some kind of activated countdown for
Bright-win-resets so that it doesn't take people by surprise and makes them
suddenly lose a whole lot of their hard-earned Brights. Maybe something
like "with notice..."
- Who tracks what rules are Radiant? Even then, it can be subverted by just
amending rules to say nothing rather than repealing them. I'm not too sure
about this ability.
- We might want to add, just in case, speed limits for Radiance/Bright/win
gains just in case some kind of infinite loop scam exists. For example, "A
person can only earn at most 100 Radiance a day, 10 Brights a day...". I'm
also kind of concerned about the seemingly plausible 1/0 thing in the
1/(7-X) equation.
- We might want to also limit how many 10 Bright wins per week/month are
possible because of how much "win raw material" it can easily produce (you
could produce more Brights than you spend via winning). Maybe make it just
once per month?
- It could be good to have an anti Bright-hoarding mechanic. It felt
oppressive to have ais/Aspen/etc sit on massive piles of Stamps, I'd rather
not have to feel that again. Maybe you can create an Unstable Star with 1
Bright, which after 1 month goes supernova and resets everyone's Bright to
0 except your own?
- I'm fine with the outshining the sun thing. It seems like an alright
super endgame goal for those that are into that, without being too broken.
On Monday, May 8, 2023, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> {{{
> Title: cool shiny things!
> Adoption Index: 2.0
> Author: snail
> Co-author(s):
>
> [First let's change how radiance resets work. This should reduce the timing
> woes of the current system, and encourage spending stamps:]
>
> Amend Rule 2656 (Radiance) to read, in full:
> {
> A player's Radiance is an integer player switch defaulting to 0,
> tracked by the Herald. When a player is "granted" or "gains" a
> specified amount of radiance, eir radiance is increased by that
> amount.
>
> Brights are a currency, tracked by the Herald. When a player wins the
> game, e gains 1 Bright. A player with a radiance of 50 or more CAN, by
> announcement, gain 1 bright, thereby decreasing eir radiance by 50.
>
> At the start of each quarter, the player(s) with the highest radiance
> each gain 5 brights, and then each player gains X/50 brights, rounded down,
> where X is eir radiance. Then, all radiance switches are set to
> 0, and all unsealed stamps are destroyed.
>
> If a player would gain radiance in the 7 days before the beginning of a
> Quarter, e instead gains 1/(7-X) times that amount, rounded down, where X
> is the number of full days before the beginning of the Quarter.
> }
>
> [So you get brights when the quarter ends, if you have enough radiance.
> What can you do with them? Lots of things!]
>
> Enact a new rule titled "Bright Abilities" at power 2, with the following
> text:
> {
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, increase eir Base Rockiness by
> 1.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, grant a specified pure player 3
> blots.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, seal up to 5 specified stamps.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, transfer a specified asset from
> the Lost and Found Department to emself.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, increase eir voting strength on
> ordinary referenda by 2 for a period of 7 days, provided eir voting
> strength is not currently increased this way.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, increase the radiance of 5
> different specified players by 10 each.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, expunge up to 3 blots from a
> specified player.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 3 brights, wield a specified stone, rules
> to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 5 brights, turn a specified rule Radiant.
> A radiant rule CANNOT be repealed. The player that turned a rule Radiant
> CAN, by announcement, make it cease being Radiant.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 10 brights, win the game. When a player
> wins the game this way, all brights are destroyed, and then each player is
> granted 1 bright.
>
> A player CAN, by paying a fee of 20 brights, Outshine the Sun. The voting
> strength of a player on ordinary referenda is increased by 1 if e has ever
> Outshined the Sun. This bonus SHOULD be compensated if repealed.
> }
>
> [What's this about sealed stamps? You can protect your stamps from the
> quarterly reset by paying brights or radiance, in exchange for only being
> able to use them for the non-radiance wincon.]
>
> Amend Rule 2659 (Stamps) to read, in full:
> {
> Stamps are a category of asset ownable by players . The
> Collector is an office. The Collector tracks Stamps in eir weekly
> report.
>
> For each person
Re: DIS: [Draft Proposal] You can't just call points radiance and not have them do
On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 04:33 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > [I hope you like this idea! Please let me know your thoughts, especially > about the Bright Abilities. This system could easily be added to, with > alternate ways to gain radiance! Or if someone comes up with one really > good radiance gaining game, this would work with it.] The basic system seems fine, but everything generally seems rather expensive? I think this won't function at all unless it's paired with better ways to gain radiance or easier ways to obtain stamps. (As it is, creating stamps is almost impossible unless a new player joins.) As an example, imagine a new player trying to do anything useful with stamps. They can get to approximately 100 radiance by massively devaluing their stamp (as seen with Yachay recently, who would have struggled to get significantly more than 100). Spending that would let them seal 10 stamps, but they no longer have the resources to obtain any, so maybe they only get to seal 5 stamps, but they're going to have trouble obtaining even those. I guess one way to think about it is to consider how much time investment a Bright reflects (taking into account the fact that new players have some inherent advantages which gives them a starting point with more than 0 "time investment" banked). Using Yachay's win as a measuring point, one and a half months were enough for a new player to gain, in effect, two Brights; thus it seems like it's likely that without new player advantages, each Bright is going to take at least a couple of months' worth of effort and neglect of other parts of the game, which means that most of the Bright Abilities are too expensive for people to consider using; I'd expect them to be confined primarily to the victory-related requirements. (The system as a whole is somewhat reminiscent of Leadership Tokens, which IIRC people were unwilling to use for anything other than the victory condition.) In terms of the abilities themselves, I have a feeling that there should be something along the lines of "prevent this proposal passing", which can be circumvented by making the same proposal week after week until the obstructor runs out of Brights, but not by submitting the same proposal repeatedly in the same week; that's an example of an ability that is potentially useful economically rather than just as a victory marker. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Plan B
On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 13:55 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > my current thoughts are along the lines of "add Radiance for > participation actions like proposing / officiating / judging / even > voting And to clarify: by this I mean voting *at all*, not specifically for contrary votes (which are clearly trouble). -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Plan B
On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 01:24 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > Given a new player winning within a month and a half by stamps by > simply trading, something needs to change I disagree with this part of your statement – I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with a new player being able to win within a month and a half by trading: * The fact that Yachay is new gave em something valuable to trade, Yachay stamps. The stamps system is inherently designed so that players who haven't previously engaged with it have an advantage, so we should expect new players to be able to take advantage of that. This sort of win can't easily be repeated by Yachay in the future: in order to pull it off, e's created a situation in which a) almost everyone who's economically active owns a Yachay stamp and thus b) not only are they hard to trade, they're also hard to create (with Dream of Wealth losing much of its power). Along similar lines, most established players would have difficulty doing the same thing, so it isn't like this is an overly easy route to victory. * Agora is probably making its victory conditions too hard nowadays: one and a half months historically seems to have been about right for a victory, for someone who's trying hard to get it. My first win of Agora was likewise around a month and a half after registering (April 28 2008 to June 17 2008). Likewise with Alexis (March 7 2009 to April 27 2009). Bucky has won Agora four times despite never being a player at all. I was once able to keep up the pace of winning every 1½ months for an entire year (a sequence of 8 wins starting after Agora's Birthday 2008 and with the last on Agora's Birthday 2009). * Yachay's victory was beneficial for several players, such as me: I'm a long way behind, e.g., Murphy or snail in the Radiance race. A Radiance reset has effectively no negative impact on me, and yet it makes it harder for players to challenge attempts by me to Radiance win in the future. With wins by new players, it's often the case that more established players could stop the win, but choose not to (e.g. I could have stopped this win by reacting to the timing scam and winning first – I realised what was going on at the time – and I noticed the scam that Alexis used for eir first win at the time but likewise chose to stay silent). * In addition to devaluing eir stamps, Yachay also had to sacrifice in other parts of the game to make the win work: in particular, e was locked out of most of the Dreams due to eir need to print stamps. This means that aiming for this win gave em less influence in other parts of the game, such as the proposals system. This would be a more relevant drawback if more of the Dreams did something useful, but in general it does make sense that there's a tradeoff here. All in all, I don't think there's a bug related to this in particular to be fixed. Repealing almost all the ways to gain Radiance does need fixing, of course; but I don't think that repealing the others is a good way to do it. After thinking things over during the revision process for my thesis, my current thoughts are along the lines of "add Radiance for participation actions like proposing / officiating / judging / even voting, remove the reset on Radiance wins, and increase the amount of Radiance that's required to win in order to reduce the rate of wins obtainable purely by grinding"; when I find time to finish off my thesis I'll try to formulate the argument for that more clearly. -- ais523
DIS: [Draft Proposal] You can't just call points radiance and not have them do
{{{
Title: cool shiny things!
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-author(s):
[First let's change how radiance resets work. This should reduce the timing
woes of the current system, and encourage spending stamps:]
Amend Rule 2656 (Radiance) to read, in full:
{
A player's Radiance is an integer player switch defaulting to 0,
tracked by the Herald. When a player is "granted" or "gains" a
specified amount of radiance, eir radiance is increased by that
amount.
Brights are a currency, tracked by the Herald. When a player wins the
game, e gains 1 Bright. A player with a radiance of 50 or more CAN, by
announcement, gain 1 bright, thereby decreasing eir radiance by 50.
At the start of each quarter, the player(s) with the highest radiance
each gain 5 brights, and then each player gains X/50 brights, rounded down,
where X is eir radiance. Then, all radiance switches are set to
0, and all unsealed stamps are destroyed.
If a player would gain radiance in the 7 days before the beginning of a
Quarter, e instead gains 1/(7-X) times that amount, rounded down, where X
is the number of full days before the beginning of the Quarter.
}
[So you get brights when the quarter ends, if you have enough radiance.
What can you do with them? Lots of things!]
Enact a new rule titled "Bright Abilities" at power 2, with the following
text:
{
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, increase eir Base Rockiness by 1.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, grant a specified pure player 3
blots.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 1 bright, seal up to 5 specified stamps.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, transfer a specified asset from
the Lost and Found Department to emself.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, increase eir voting strength on
ordinary referenda by 2 for a period of 7 days, provided eir voting
strength is not currently increased this way.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, increase the radiance of 5
different specified players by 10 each.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 2 brights, expunge up to 3 blots from a
specified player.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 3 brights, wield a specified stone, rules
to the contrary notwithstanding.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 5 brights, turn a specified rule Radiant.
A radiant rule CANNOT be repealed. The player that turned a rule Radiant
CAN, by announcement, make it cease being Radiant.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 10 brights, win the game. When a player
wins the game this way, all brights are destroyed, and then each player is
granted 1 bright.
A player CAN, by paying a fee of 20 brights, Outshine the Sun. The voting
strength of a player on ordinary referenda is increased by 1 if e has ever
Outshined the Sun. This bonus SHOULD be compensated if repealed.
}
[What's this about sealed stamps? You can protect your stamps from the
quarterly reset by paying brights or radiance, in exchange for only being
able to use them for the non-radiance wincon.]
Amend Rule 2659 (Stamps) to read, in full:
{
Stamps are a category of asset ownable by players . The
Collector is an office. The Collector tracks Stamps in eir weekly
report.
For each person there is a corresponding type of stamp.
Sealed is a negative boolean Stamp switch, tracked by the Collector.
To "seal" a stamp is to make it Sealed. To "unseal" a stamp is to make it
not Sealed (syn. unsealed).
A player with at least 20 radiance CAN, by announcement, seal a specified
stamp e owns, thereby decreasing eir radiance by 20.
Any player CAN, once per week, pay X unsealed Stamps, where each
specified
Stamp is a different type, to gain (X^2)-X radiance.
Any player CAN, once per week, pay X unsealed Stamps, where each
Stamp is
the same type, to gain (X-1)*2 radiance.
Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps, where N is the current
number of active players and each specified Stamp is of a
different type.
}
[I hope you like this idea! Please let me know your thoughts, especially
about the Bright Abilities. This system could easily be added to, with
alternate ways to gain radiance! Or if someone comes up with one really
good radiance gaining game, this would work with it.]
}}}
--
snail
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Plan B
I believe that a few things contributed to me winning:
- It's very easy to find trades that are net beneficial for the traders.
Most people seem to agree that trading Stamps 1-for-1 is generally
reasonable and a good trade. Just have the same person do that enough times
with different people and they'll end up winning fairly unimpeded.
- The economy, in ideal conditions, produces enough 'raw materials' for two
people to win /every week/ (everyone sets their Dream to Wealth and then
two people are given one of each Stamp and use it to win with the 'pay many
different Stamps as active players' wincon). We're a good distance away
from those conditions, but we might need to throttle how much 'win raw
materials' is being pumped into us per week. The massive stockpiles of
Stamps are an issue too.
- Apathy. A lot of people didn't seem to be as engaged as I am with Stamps,
so I just didn't have to worry about certain things.
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 7:25 AM 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
>
>
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Prime Minister/@Herald) Proper Congratulations
Thanks! Yeah, I had to speed up quite a few things because of the blot thing, but I'm relieved that it all worked out in the end. On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:11 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I petition the Prime Minister to assign Yachay to the office of Speaker and > award em a platinum ribbon. > I petition the Herald to award em Champion and award em an ultraviolet > ribbon. > > (it's a shame the thoughtcrime wasn't properly investigated yet. Tsk tsk!) > -- > 4st > Referee > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, @Herald) Stamps for Radiance 2
Thank you ais and snail, and thank you for your help! On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 8:06 AM secretsnail9 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 7:08 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > Congrats Yachay! This is a pretty quick win. Normally wins are marked with > [DoV] in the subject (Date of Victory) btw. > -- > snail >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, @Herald) Stamps for Radiance 2
On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 7:08 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 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 > Congrats Yachay! This is a pretty quick win. Normally wins are marked with [DoV] in the subject (Date of Victory) btw. -- snail
