Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fair rice planning [attn. Ricemastor]
On 5/19/23 00:57, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:55 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> I create and consent to each of the following rice plans: >> >> 1. As follows: >> >> * Rice Up: The empty set. >> >> * Rice Down: The empty set. >> >> 2. As follows: >> >> * Rice Up: The set of active players. >> >> * Rice Down: The empty set. >> >> 3. As follows: >> >> * Rice Up: The empty set. >> >> * Rice Down: The set of active players. >> >> 4. As follows: >> >> * Rice Up: The set of active players. >> >> * Rice Down: The set of active players. >> >> -- >> Janet Cobb >> >> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >> >> > These all fail, since you already created a Rice Plan this week. > -- > snail Ugh. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Fair rice planning [attn. Ricemastor]
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:55 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I create and consent to each of the following rice plans: > > 1. As follows: > > * Rice Up: The empty set. > > * Rice Down: The empty set. > > 2. As follows: > > * Rice Up: The set of active players. > > * Rice Down: The empty set. > > 3. As follows: > > * Rice Up: The empty set. > > * Rice Down: The set of active players. > > 4. As follows: > > * Rice Up: The set of active players. > > * Rice Down: The set of active players. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > These all fail, since you already created a Rice Plan this week. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8971
On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 00:01 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > It doesn't do anything. It has insufficient power to create blots. Ah right, AI 1 but it needs 1.7 (rule 2555). So I agree with you, false alarm. Assuming that the author didn't intentionally set the AI incorrectly, though, this is still evidence that the original proposal was ill- advised. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8971
On 5/19/23 00:00, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 23:09 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: >> The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below: >> > [snip] >> Grant each player that did not vote FOR this proposal 2 blots. > Whoever decided to propose this immediately before several new players > joined (with timing that meant that they had no ability to vote on it > and thus save themself from the blots), you should be ashamed of > yourself. (I think it was mentioned at the time that it was unfair on > inactive players – we missed that it'd be unfair on new players too, > but it's a similar principle.) > > The players who have been around a little longer should probably be > working on cleaning them off the players who just joined? I'm willing > to use my weekly expunge on this, but am not sure which of the new > players to use it on. (I'm planning to use it later this week on one of > the new players, whoever's had the least help from other established > players, randomizing if there's a tie.) > It doesn't do anything. It has insufficient power to create blots. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8971
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 23:09 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below: > [snip] > > Grant each player that did not vote FOR this proposal 2 blots. Whoever decided to propose this immediately before several new players joined (with timing that meant that they had no ability to vote on it and thus save themself from the blots), you should be ashamed of yourself. (I think it was mentioned at the time that it was unfair on inactive players – we missed that it'd be unfair on new players too, but it's a similar principle.) The players who have been around a little longer should probably be working on cleaning them off the players who just joined? I'm willing to use my weekly expunge on this, but am not sure which of the new players to use it on. (I'm planning to use it later this week on one of the new players, whoever's had the least help from other established players, randomizing if there's a tie.) -- ais523
DIS: (Proto) Raybots
Here's an idea I had as a way to a) shake things up in a way that's
likely to lead to lots of interesting CFJs for the next few months (I
came up with it after reading the CFJ archives for cases that looked
interesting), and b) let us experiment with mechanisms for awarding
Radiance that don't need a whole proposal cycle to go through.
The basic idea is to reintroduce the idea of artificial / legal-fiction
persons, but this time, instead of treading back over the old ground of
"let's let players create new persons that they have control over more
or less at will", the new persons are created with 2 Agoran Consent and
are effectively "powered by promises", so everyone knows what the new
persons will and won't do, and any abusive or unfair design can be
objected to. (Using Promises rather than having things happen
platonically makes things easier to track, as the Raybots won't do
anything unless someone cashes the promises.)
In addition to being powered by promises, they serve as a source of
Radiance, being created with some and being able to transfer it to
other players. So the basic economic idea is that if you have a good
Radiance award condition in mind, you can try it out without needing to
go through a whole proposal cycle, and it disappears naturally after
paying out a certain amount of Radiance so there isn't too much cost to
experimentation. In addition to the economic side of things, I'm hoping
there'll be a lot of gameplay simply stemming from trying to create
weird situations, e.g. can we get a Raybot to play the game as a semi-
autonomous player (with the only human action being to cash its
promises when they become cashable)? Could we get one to win? Could we
(and should we) get one to do the duties of an office?
In rule 869, amend
{{{
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons.
}}}
to
{{{
No other entity can be a person, unless explicitly defined to be so by
a rule with power at least 3.
}}}
[Makes it possible to create legal-fiction players again.]
Create a new power-3 rule, "Raybots":
{{{
A Raybot is a type of entity that has been created using the process
described in this rule. Raybots CANNOT be created except as specified
by this rule, and entities that came to exist by any other means are
not Raybots.
Raybots are persons. Raybots are created with their Citizenship switch
set to Registered and their Radiance switch set to 40. Raybots agree to
abide by the Rules.
Motivation is an untracked Raybot switch whose possible values are
texts, and whose default value is "I deregister."
A player CAN create a Raybot with a specified Motivation with 2 Agoran
Consent, unless a Raybot with an identical Motivation was created
within the previous 14 days, and SHOULD specify a name for the Raybot
when doing so.
If, for any given Raybot, at least one of the following conditions is
continuously true for at least 10 seconds, that Raybot ceases to exist:
* e is not a player, and/or
* e is not the creator of any currently existing Promises, and/or
* eir Radiance is 0.
When a Raybot is created, it grants the Library a promise, becoming the
creator of that promise, and whose text is that Raybot's Motivation.
Raybots CANNOT support or object to tabled actions. The voting strength
of a Raybot on an Agoran Decision is 0.
Players SHALL NOT cause Raybots to perform ILLEGAL actions.
}}}
[The basic mechanic: Raybots are created with 2 Agoran Consent, and act
only as a consequence of players cashing their promises. The idea is
that the Motivation – the initial promise – will specify everything
that the Raybot can do, probably by creating more promises. The
Motivation is untracked because it has no effect beyond the Raybot's
initial creation.
Being players, Raybots are (under this version of the proposal) tracked
by the Registrar. It doesn't seem like that should be enough additional
work to require a new officer?
Raybots are made unable to support/object/meaningfully vote as a
precaution, in order to prevent them being used to flood our consensus
mechanisms if someone finds a way to mass-produce them.
The starting value of 40 Radiance is a guess.]
In rule 2618, amend
{{{
A consenting player CAN, by announcement, grant a specified entity a
promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator.
}}}
to
{{{
A Raybot or a consenting player CAN, by announcement, grant a specified
entity a promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator.
}}}
[It's an interesting philosophical question as to whether Raybots can
consent to things, so avoid the issue by making it possible for Raybots
to create promises by announcement even if they don't consent to them.
For what it's worth, rule 2519(3) means that the Raybot probably is
consenting, but it's better to make it clear.]
Create a new power-1.5 rule, "Raybot Transfer":
{{{
A Raybot CAN spend a specified amount of radiance to grant that much
radiance to a specified player.
A player CAN spend a specified amount of radiance to grant
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8980-8984
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 9:56 PM nix via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/18/23 21:41, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote: > > ID Author(s) AITitle > > > --- > > 8980~ Yachay 1.0 Riding with training wheels > > AGAINST; not because I'm entirely against the idea but I'm really > unclear on this implementation. Sorry if I missed some discussion, but > it sounds like I have to explicitly invoke something, which makes it > invocable, and then someone else can do the action for me? This doesn't > sound very accessible to new users. Am I misunderstanding? > > > 8981~ Janet, nix 2.0 Stone fixes > > FOR > > > 8982~ snail 2.0 Reward the Speaker! > > AGAINST; petition the ADoP to increase speaker complexity instead. > This would make the speaker bonus useless for someone with 3 complexity in offices already, which doesn't sound as fun. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Scamster
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 6:31 PM Forest Sweeney wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 5:08 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 18:57 -0500, nix via agora-discussion wrote: >> > On 5/18/23 18:54, ais523 via agora-business wrote: >> > > -- >> > > H. ais523, Champion×17, M.N., D.N.Phil, Marvy Scamster >> > >> > Appreciate the little humble brag in the signature :p >> >> A portion of that was the result of scams, and scams have historically >> been a source of the Scamster title itself, and the fact that I already >> had the Scamster title was relevant, so it felt appropriate to use the >> whole title (although I had to look it up – it's been a while). >> >> It's the sort of thing that's best brought out only on special >> occasions or when it happens to be extremely relevant to the message, >> though. >> >> -- >> ais523 >> > > I had to try: it's important to reward players frequently and often, so > even the attempt matters as part of that reward cycle: > https://datagame.io/gamification-principles/ > > kthxbye > -- > 4st > Referee > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator > Murphy also put a link in discord: http://mushtheory.wikidot.com/rewards-and-regrets I want more scams, so this works for me also. :) -- 4st Referee Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Scamster
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 5:08 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 18:57 -0500, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/18/23 18:54, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > > -- > > > H. ais523, Champion×17, M.N., D.N.Phil, Marvy Scamster > > > > Appreciate the little humble brag in the signature :p > > A portion of that was the result of scams, and scams have historically > been a source of the Scamster title itself, and the fact that I already > had the Scamster title was relevant, so it felt appropriate to use the > whole title (although I had to look it up – it's been a while). > > It's the sort of thing that's best brought out only on special > occasions or when it happens to be extremely relevant to the message, > though. > > -- > ais523 > I had to try: it's important to reward players frequently and often, so even the attempt matters as part of that reward cycle: https://datagame.io/gamification-principles/ kthxbye -- 4st Referee Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Assessor, @Notary) Deputisation Intent - Assessor
On 5/18/23 16:29, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > Welcome to another episode of me being paranoid about the same enactment > timing scam again. > > I announce my intent to deputise as Assessor to resolve the Agoran > decisions to adopt Proposals 8965, 8966, 8967, 8968, 8969 and 8970. > > I know that the Assessor office means a lot to Janet, and I wouldn't want > to get it through "sniping" it like this anyways, so: > > I pledge to resign from the office of Assessor or otherwise cease to be > Assessor in some way, if I acquire it through deputisation, within 7 days > of becoming Assessor. This pledge lasts 1 month. By the way you can intend to "temporarily deputize" instead, which doesn't take the office from the current holder. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Scamster
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 18:57 -0500, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/18/23 18:54, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > -- > > H. ais523, Champion×17, M.N., D.N.Phil, Marvy Scamster > > Appreciate the little humble brag in the signature :p A portion of that was the result of scams, and scams have historically been a source of the Scamster title itself, and the fact that I already had the Scamster title was relevant, so it felt appropriate to use the whole title (although I had to look it up – it's been a while). It's the sort of thing that's best brought out only on special occasions or when it happens to be extremely relevant to the message, though. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 18:49 -0500, blob via agora-discussion wrote: > I, being the new player, totally agree with this. I would be more than > willing to put some sort of marker in front of my name, as others in the > past have done. How should I go about changing my name--or how have others > in the past done it? Agora doesn't have an "official" concept of names of players: all that's required of, e.g. the Registrar, is to track "information sufficient to identify [...] each player". So a player's name is, in effect, the sequence of letters that other players generally use when referring to them, and to change it, you just need to persuade other players to refer to you in a certain way. Historically, formatting a name change as an action by announcement, i.e. "I change my name to …", has normally been enough to cause other players to start using the new name (except in cases where players attempted to change their name so often that the other players lost track), but there's no actual formal process. Typically Agorans are willing to refer to other players in the way they'd like to be referred to, within reason (which is why there's a tradition of asking new players for their preferred name, even though that isn't required by the rules), so they're generally happy to comply with reasonable requests to use a different name. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Scamster
On 5/18/23 18:54, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > -- > H. ais523, Champion×17, M.N., D.N.Phil, Marvy Scamster Appreciate the little humble brag in the signature :p -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Wow, so many new players
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:11 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Where are all of you coming from? > I was searching up about a game called "Mao" on Wikipedia, and I saw "Nomics" are a related article below it. I clicked on it, and here I am.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:36 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 4:44 AM juan via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Note that the "free choice" is qualified by the need to "pick em out > in the full range of Agoran contexts". The Scroll, in particular, is > a living document, and the original Blob has several entries - it > would be equally rude to the original Blob to change eir name notation > in the Scroll and other historical documents, to disambiguate em from > an entirely new player. So we need to balance that, hopefully in a > friendly way. I'll also note that the original Blob turned up for > Agora's 20th anniversary (and earned an Agora XX badge), and there's a > slight change with the 30th coming up... > > Of course, the easiest way to come to consensus (and the nicest, least > rude solution) is to go by what the person wants. But in the case > where it produces a confusing nickname, we can ask (very nicely) the > new player to choose something that's unambiguous[0]. There's been > several of those sorts of conversations with new players over the > years, and in all cases so far the new player has voluntarily modified > their nickname. But if e fails to do that, each officer would need to > come to their own conclusion which could get a little messy. > I, being the new player, totally agree with this. I would be more than willing to put some sort of marker in front of my name, as others in the past have done. How should I go about changing my name--or how have others in the past done it?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 21:32 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by > > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder > > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also > > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a > > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 > > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and > > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not > > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal > > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I > > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. > > Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something > along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not > an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago > at this point). Just happened to notice this: On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 15:21 -0500, nix via agora-official wrote: > Marvy:4st, ais523, CreateSource, > cuddlybanana, duck, G., Janet, > juan, Murphy, R. Lee, snail, > Trigon, Vitor Gonçalves Marvy is a patent title that's currently in use. I suspect that this has no impact on rule 2029 for much the same reason that a player named "Marvy" wouldn't, but it feels like a relevant data point. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:29 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > Or perhaps this is just a case of "the ais523 who has been following > Agora for over 15 years spots things that the ais523 who had been there > for only one year didn't". Lol, I meant to add myself that the rules underlying may have been different at each point (I was thinking R1586 specifically, but definitely R217). And arguing against your past judicial self is a fine Agoran tradition, no real shade intended. > So we may just have to leave the precedent there. That's why past precedents are an "augmenting "not "definitive" factor (amongst other factors) in the current R217, of course...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 14:01 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM ais523 via agora-discussion > wrote: > > That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't > > think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted" > > is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules. > > (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms > > in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to > > define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and > > after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.) > > It was CFJ 2585, and you (Judge ais523) found the exact opposite of > what you just said above. In > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2585, Judge ais523 > wrote: > > > However, by the implicit mention in CFJ 1881, > > and the explicit precedent of CFJ 1534 (that in a rule of historical > > significance such as 104 or 2029, terms used in the rule have the > > meaning they had when the rule was created), not to mention rule 1586, I > > can only conclude that "marvy" in rule 2029 has the meaning it did when > > the Fountain was created. This is a nomic, and rules change over time! I think my ruling in CFJ 2585, based as it was primarily on CFJ 1534, missed that the precedent of CFJ 1534 was probably no longer relevant (and suspect that it may be incorrect). The judge of CFJ 1881 may have made the same mistake. At the time of CFJ 1534, rule 217 looked like this: All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game before applying other standards. This is much more permissive than the current rule 217: in addition to applying only to judgements, it explicitly mentions "other standards" which can be used in cases where none of the four main tests work. At the time of CFJ 1881, it looked like this, somewhat more similar to the current version: 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. but I'm not sure whether the judge noticed that the change might potentially cause the precedent of CFJ 1534 to no longer apply. Additionally, CFJ 1534 was itself a judgement based on rule 217 tests, specifically the best interests of the game: that ruling that Michael Norrish had *continuously* been the Speaker since the start of Agora would break everything (the office of the Speaker used to be *much* more important to the functioning of Agora than it is nowadays), and thus in cases where rules were unclear, it was better to rule that transferrence of the Speaker worked correctly. This means that the precedent might not apply to cases where the the rule 217 tests leaned in a different direction. There's also the factor of "this fits too perfectly to not mention": the rules in place at the time of the Town Fountain's construction were repealed at the time of CFJ 1881, but by the time of CFJ 2585, the underlying rules had been re-enacted in pretty much the same form as they had originally. As such, the old definition of "marvy" was possible to apply to the rules at the time more or less directly. I suspect that the me of 15 years ago would have been so excited that the precedent *could* be applied in this way, that I didn't stop to consider whether I *should*; in fact I suspect that I read the relevant old judgements from the FLR annotations rather than actually reading the judgement itself to see if it were still relevant. (My argument to rule 1586 seems wrong, given that "marvy" wasn't rules-defined at the time.) Or perhaps this is just a case of "the ais523 who has been following Agora for over 15 years spots things that the ais523 who had been there for only one year didn't". Apparently I can still in theory appeal the CFJ, but would require 728 support to do so, which might be hard to obtain in the current gamestate. So we may just have to leave the precedent there. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by > > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder > > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also > > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a > > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 > > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and > > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not > > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal > > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I > > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. > > Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something > along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not > an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago > at this point). > > That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't > think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted" > is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules. > (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms > in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to > define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and > after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.) It was CFJ 2585, and you (Judge ais523) found the exact opposite of what you just said above. In https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2585, Judge ais523 wrote: > However, by the implicit mention in CFJ 1881, > and the explicit precedent of CFJ 1534 (that in a rule of historical > significance such as 104 or 2029, terms used in the rule have the > meaning they had when the rule was created), not to mention rule 1586, I > can only conclude that "marvy" in rule 2029 has the meaning it did when > the Fountain was created. Recently, Judge 4st found, in CFJ 3989, that there just wasn't sufficient evidence to find anyone guilty of this, explicitly refuting CFJ 2585 (unfortunately the evidence/context was left out of this case record): https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3989. In refuting CFJ 2585, Judge 4st also specifically refuted CFJ 1534, which dealt with continuity of the "First Speaker" term, which you cited/upheld in CFJ 2585: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1534 Those 4 cases form the complete set of relevant cases that turn up search the CFJ github for Marvy/Marvies (1881, 2585, 2589 and 3989) plus CFJ 1534 for the more general finding that concerned old terms of art like "First Speaker": -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
Kerim Aydin via agora-business [2023-05-18 13:16]:
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:51 PM nix via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/18/23 14:43, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> > > CFJ: This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain").
> > > I note and investigate the infraction to be 2 blots. (and as we know, this
> > > investigation only occurs if it does indeed violate the rule).
By the way, I'd really love for more knowledgeable players to share
any lore on the origins of the town fountain and other remnants of
Agora's past.
--
juan
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago at this point). That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted" is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules. (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On 5/18/23 16:08, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/18/23 15:03, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: >> I did call a CFJ on whether it created infractions, so I don't believe I >> violated no faking as I had included sufficient carefulness. :3 > Sufficient carefulness would be not investigating until the CFJ was > resolved, or your timer was almost up, at the very least. > Whether it was sufficiently "misleading" and whether it met the "highest possible standard of care" standard for automatic forgiveness are different issues. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On 5/18/23 15:03, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: I did call a CFJ on whether it created infractions, so I don't believe I violated no faking as I had included sufficient carefulness. :3 Sufficient carefulness would be not investigating until the CFJ was resolved, or your timer was almost up, at the very least. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
I did call a CFJ on whether it created infractions, so I don't believe I
violated no faking as I had included sufficient carefulness. :3
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:52 PM nix via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/18/23 14:43, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> > CFJ: This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain").
> > I note and investigate the infraction to be 2 blots. (and as we know,
> this
> > investigation only occurs if it does indeed violate the rule).
> >
> > Arguments FOR: Ritual Paper Dance enables dancing. Rule 2029 asks us to
> > always dance a powerful dance. Thus, if it were repealed, we could no
> > longer dance. Thus, proposing to repeal it is a crime.
> I note the infraction of No Faking by 4st here. E should know as Arbitor
> that 2029 does not include anything that creates infractions, as it
> contains nothing that creates rule violations. This is both falsy and
> misleading.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>
--
4st
Referee
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On 5/18/23 14:51, nix via agora-business wrote:
On 5/18/23 14:43, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
CFJ: This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain").
I note and investigate the infraction to be 2 blots. (and as we know,
this
investigation only occurs if it does indeed violate the rule).
Arguments FOR: Ritual Paper Dance enables dancing. Rule 2029 asks us to
always dance a powerful dance. Thus, if it were repealed, we could no
longer dance. Thus, proposing to repeal it is a crime.
I note the infraction of No Faking by 4st here. E should know as
Arbitor that 2029 does not include anything that creates infractions,
as it contains nothing that creates rule violations. This is both
falsy and misleading.
*Referee, not Arbitor.
--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: (@Collector, Herald) BUS: The Never-Ending Dance
On 5/18/23 03:41, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: As I understand it, from what I assume to be a layman reading: - After a ritual act happens, there's a 7 day margin of time. - Within that 7 day margin, you CAN anoint by announcement by specifying a few variables. - These variables have restrictions. Of course, it could've been the intent for it to be otherwise, but if I were to read that clause in a vacuum, without knowing the larger context of the game that it's in, my first assumption would be that you can just anoint as much as you want*as long as* you fulfill the restrictions on anointed ritual numbers. It just so happens that fulfilling that restriction is incredibly easy. I can see where you're coming from here, with the time period. I think it's true if we were just referring to a time period the default assumption would be "as much as you can within the time period", but there's both a trigger and a time period here. I read this clause as only apply once per trigger, and the time period is just an expiration on the enablement. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Scamster
On 5/18/23 14:16, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: I think this will fail but, I think it could be interesting regardless to have an unofficial (or official) record of the methods for how each win was achieved. That's not what I would use titles for. That would be better suited for bringing back the Reporter office and writing about it I think. I'd use titles to recognize something bigger about a player. ais523 is already a known scammer (and a very good one) with that exact title already, I don't think it makes much sense to give it to em every time e attempts so. Additionally, I still don't consider this scam successful pending CFJ, and I wouldn't give that title out for an unsuccessful one. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Scamster
I think this will fail but, I think it could be interesting regardless to have an unofficial (or official) record of the methods for how each win was achieved. On Thursday, May 18, 2023, nix via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/18/23 14:06, Forest Sweeney via agora-official wrote: > >> I intend to, with 2 Agoran Consent, award ais523 the patent title of >> Scamster for their recent 4pocalypse intent. All scams should be awarded! >> > I object. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BUS (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675
Just to advertise myself a bit here, these kind of situations is what my
Invocation Proposal is trying to alleviate.
On Thursday, May 18, 2023, nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/18/23 14:06, Beokirby via agora-business wrote:
>
>> I intent to clean Rule 2675 ("Dream Wandering") by replacing " ore " with
>> " or "
>> Sorry for the trouble.
>>
> No trouble at all! The rules will always have some level of learning
> curve, but it's also incumbent on the more experienced players to think
> about when that learning curve is necessary/good for the game, and when
> it's due to traditions/conventions we've developed that maybe we should
> shed. When a new player makes a mistake, it can be just as much a fault of
> the experienced players for making something needlessly difficult.
>
> I do think in this case the required explicitness is helpful. Hiding the
> details of an intent, especially one about rules, can be used for nefarious
> things. So they're held to high standards.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BUS (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:07 PM Beokirby via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I intent to clean Rule 2675 ("Dream Wandering") by replacing " ore "
> with " or "
> Sorry for the trouble.
>
> -Beokirby
>
>
Don't be sorry I'm like HERE for this Drama! :D
:P
--
4st
Referee
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675
There's actually two criteria to think about here. One is the
criteria for intent announcements (R1728). but the other is the
criteria for rule change specifications in R105, specifically:
> A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
> full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
> specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
> least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
> take effect.
While it means "the full text of the rule change" (not the full rule)
the 'but edited to replace' thing below is a person saying that they
are publishing the rule change text, but not actually publishing it.
One longstanding Agoran phrase is called "the fallacy of I Say I Did,
Therefore I Did" (abbreviated ISIDTID, or sometimes just "ISID"). The
concept is that saying "I publish the thing above except with this
edit" is not *actually* publishing that combined thing, but rather
merely *saying* you are publishing the combined thing, which doesn't
meet the criteria in R105 (most likely - I'm guessing at what the CFJ
outcome would be).
-G.
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:52 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> I don't think that "re-submission" or "editting" intents are a thing but
> the language seems to refer to just one single possible outcome, even if
> its not worded precisely.
>
> I want this to be good enough to work, but I'm not sure if CfJs are on my
> side on this.
>
> On Thursday, May 18, 2023, beokirby agora via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I re-submit my intent but edited to be replacing " ore " with " or "
> >
> > -Beokirby
> >
> > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/18/23 14:36, beokirby agora via agora-business wrote:
> > > > I intend to clean Rule 2675 ("Dream of Wandering") by replacing "ore"
> > > with
> > > > "or"
> > > >
> > > > -Beokirby
> > >
> > >
> > > I object. There are multiple instances of "ore" in that text (some part
> > > of other words), and not all of them should be replaced.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Janet Cobb
> > >
> > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> > >
> > >
> >
Re: DIS: [Proto] Clarifying Intentions
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:48 -0500, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > Any feedback on the below before I submit it? The example should be introduced with "for example" not "For example" (the capitalisation is wrong for mid-sentence). Other than that, it makes sense. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: BUS (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675
On 5/18/23 14:06, Beokirby via agora-business wrote:
I intent to clean Rule 2675 ("Dream Wandering") by replacing " ore "
with " or "
Sorry for the trouble.
No trouble at all! The rules will always have some level of learning
curve, but it's also incumbent on the more experienced players to think
about when that learning curve is necessary/good for the game, and when
it's due to traditions/conventions we've developed that maybe we should
shed. When a new player makes a mistake, it can be just as much a fault
of the experienced players for making something needlessly difficult.
I do think in this case the required explicitness is helpful. Hiding the
details of an intent, especially one about rules, can be used for
nefarious things. So they're held to high standards.
--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675
I don't think that "re-submission" or "editting" intents are a thing but
the language seems to refer to just one single possible outcome, even if
its not worded precisely.
I want this to be good enough to work, but I'm not sure if CfJs are on my
side on this.
On Thursday, May 18, 2023, beokirby agora via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I re-submit my intent but edited to be replacing " ore " with " or "
>
> -Beokirby
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 5/18/23 14:36, beokirby agora via agora-business wrote:
> > > I intend to clean Rule 2675 ("Dream of Wandering") by replacing "ore"
> > with
> > > "or"
> > >
> > > -Beokirby
> >
> >
> > I object. There are multiple instances of "ore" in that text (some part
> > of other words), and not all of them should be replaced.
> >
> > --
> > Janet Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >
> >
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora
On 5/18/23 13:45, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: Maybe we could use a metaphor or just something similar and illustrative? "A player may begin to Chant for a particular action (...) When a player has been Chanting for (...)" "Chant", "Spellcast" or "Summon"; perhaps. Fantasy-themed things for 'charging up' to do something. Could be any other theme too. Just to open up more words we could resort to. That's always a decent idea, tho it can be thematically incoherent when we lean too far into different metaphors for various things (not necessarily wrong but aesthetically displeasing IMO). In this case I think the most obvious solution is to require the phrasing "I table an intent to" instead of just "I intend to". I may submit something to that effect later. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:22 AM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 11:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > hehe we can still fool old players sometimes - "intend" has a > > "specific meaning" for registration as well as for other contexts, so > > beokirby registered exactly as per the rules: > > > > > An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or > > > prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that > > > indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e > > > intends to become a player at that time. > > It's still worth warning the new players, though, because "intend" > wording works for registration, and (for a different reason) for the > first step in taking a tabled action, but doesn't work for anything > else. > > IIRC the reason it works for registration is partly that new players > kept getting it wrong, and partly because we wanted to change the > registration rules to have an entire new set of "did my registration > work?" CFJs. That change was ages ago now, though, so I might be > misremembering the details. CFJ 1263 (about my first registration, lol) was the genesis of this. The rules at the time required a player to "request registration" - Caller Blob felt that a statement of "I register" wasn't a request, and requests should be required for it to work, as it "should inculcate some humility into new Players". Judge Steve disagreed, and felt that "it is a bad idea to be too nit-picky about the precise forms of words used to effect game actions. This is especially true where new Players are concerned." The result of that CFJ initially to accept "I register" as a successful "request" to register, followed by a removal of the 'request' language from the rule and the gradual softening of the strictness of that requirement over time, as a few more accidental registration failures happened. Of course, as it got squishier/more flexible, it led to registration attempts purposefully pushing the envelope (as Agorans do) on just how flexible one could express registration intent. So it didn't really decrease the "X is a player" CFJs - though it made them harder to trigger accidentally by newbies, you had to work at it to have a controversial registration. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1263 -G.
DIS: [Proto] Clarifying Intentions
Any feedback on the below before I submit it?
{
Title: Clarify Intentions
AI: 3
Author: nix
[The current wording seems to suggest that players should say something
like "I intend to register." While effective, it's quite different than
the conventional way of doing most actions. This version disambiguates
that.]
Amend R869 by replacing:
An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that
indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e
intends to become a player at that time. No person can be a player
if e is part of another player or another player is part of em.
with:
An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that
indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously eir
desire to become a player at that time (For example, by saying "I
register"). No person can be a player if e is part of another
player or another player is part of em.
}
--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675
On 5/18/23 14:44, beokirby agora via agora-discussion wrote: > I re-submit my intent but edited to be replacing " ore " with " or " > > -Beokirby First, this was sent to DIS (agora-discussion), so it doesn't work as an action. Second, the communication standard for intents is extremely high, so this may not work. You should write out a full new intent. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora
Maybe we could use a metaphor or just something similar and illustrative? "A player may begin to Chant for a particular action (...) When a player has been Chanting for (...)" "Chant", "Spellcast" or "Summon"; perhaps. Fantasy-themed things for 'charging up' to do something. Could be any other theme too. Just to open up more words we could resort to. On Thursday, May 18, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > There's a bit of a discussion on Discord right now, that "intend" (or > synonyms like "plan") have an implication of "doing in future, not > now" in many contexts, which adds to the confusion for registration - > and has specifically called out in the past in terms of "consent now" > versus "consent later". A verb like "desire" as in "desires to become > a player at that time" might work better as it better indicates "wants > to/consents to right now". > > -G. > > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:33 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > Hm. We should probably use different words for registration "intents" and > > tabled "intents". > > > > In fact, I think it could be good to keyword things in the ruleset, sort > of > > like how MTG and plenty of other games do it, like; [Lifesteal] or > [Flash]. > > I believe we already have something like it in "Mother, May I?", but > > perhaps it could be productive to expand it to the ruleset's terms in > > general. Like that, it's much more obvious that it's some agora-specific > > language for a certain mechanic and it doesn't mean what it reads on the > > tin. > > > > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 8:22 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 11:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > hehe we can still fool old players sometimes - "intend" has a > > > > "specific meaning" for registration as well as for other contexts, so > > > > beokirby registered exactly as per the rules: > > > > > > > > > An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or > > > > > prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that > > > > > indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously > that e > > > > > intends to become a player at that time. > > > > > > It's still worth warning the new players, though, because "intend" > > > wording works for registration, and (for a different reason) for the > > > first step in taking a tabled action, but doesn't work for anything > > > else. > > > > > > IIRC the reason it works for registration is partly that new players > > > kept getting it wrong, and partly because we wanted to change the > > > registration rules to have an entire new set of "did my registration > > > work?" CFJs. That change was ages ago now, though, so I might be > > > misremembering the details. > > > > > > -- > > > ais523 > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675
I re-submit my intent but edited to be replacing " ore " with " or "
-Beokirby
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/18/23 14:36, beokirby agora via agora-business wrote:
> > I intend to clean Rule 2675 ("Dream of Wandering") by replacing "ore"
> with
> > "or"
> >
> > -Beokirby
>
>
> I object. There are multiple instances of "ore" in that text (some part
> of other words), and not all of them should be replaced.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675
Suggestion: match more text:
EG "16 ore" to "16 or"
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:38 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/18/23 14:36, beokirby agora via agora-business wrote:
> > I intend to clean Rule 2675 ("Dream of Wandering") by replacing "ore"
> with
> > "or"
> >
> > -Beokirby
>
>
> I object. There are multiple instances of "ore" in that text (some part
> of other words), and not all of them should be replaced.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
--
4st
Referee
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora
There's a bit of a discussion on Discord right now, that "intend" (or synonyms like "plan") have an implication of "doing in future, not now" in many contexts, which adds to the confusion for registration - and has specifically called out in the past in terms of "consent now" versus "consent later". A verb like "desire" as in "desires to become a player at that time" might work better as it better indicates "wants to/consents to right now". -G. On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:33 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > Hm. We should probably use different words for registration "intents" and > tabled "intents". > > In fact, I think it could be good to keyword things in the ruleset, sort of > like how MTG and plenty of other games do it, like; [Lifesteal] or [Flash]. > I believe we already have something like it in "Mother, May I?", but > perhaps it could be productive to expand it to the ruleset's terms in > general. Like that, it's much more obvious that it's some agora-specific > language for a certain mechanic and it doesn't mean what it reads on the > tin. > > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 8:22 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 11:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > hehe we can still fool old players sometimes - "intend" has a > > > "specific meaning" for registration as well as for other contexts, so > > > beokirby registered exactly as per the rules: > > > > > > > An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or > > > > prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that > > > > indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e > > > > intends to become a player at that time. > > > > It's still worth warning the new players, though, because "intend" > > wording works for registration, and (for a different reason) for the > > first step in taking a tabled action, but doesn't work for anything > > else. > > > > IIRC the reason it works for registration is partly that new players > > kept getting it wrong, and partly because we wanted to change the > > registration rules to have an entire new set of "did my registration > > work?" CFJs. That change was ages ago now, though, so I might be > > misremembering the details. > > > > -- > > ais523 > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora
On 5/18/23 13:32, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: Hm. We should probably use different words for registration "intents" and tabled "intents". In fact, I think it could be good to keyword things in the ruleset, sort of like how MTG and plenty of other games do it, like; [Lifesteal] or [Flash]. I believe we already have something like it in "Mother, May I?", but perhaps it could be productive to expand it to the ruleset's terms in general. Like that, it's much more obvious that it's some agora-specific language for a certain mechanic and it doesn't mean what it reads on the tin. I think the "A player CAN "envision"..." format is already adding keywords. I think the issue here is that the chosen keyword is also a very common word. Going to the MTG metaphor, keywords are usually very specifically not words that would get confused with other things. It might be best to change the mechanism for tabling actions to "I table an intent to..." so it's very clearly distinct from just casually talking about your intents. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora
Hm. We should probably use different words for registration "intents" and tabled "intents". In fact, I think it could be good to keyword things in the ruleset, sort of like how MTG and plenty of other games do it, like; [Lifesteal] or [Flash]. I believe we already have something like it in "Mother, May I?", but perhaps it could be productive to expand it to the ruleset's terms in general. Like that, it's much more obvious that it's some agora-specific language for a certain mechanic and it doesn't mean what it reads on the tin. On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 8:22 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 11:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > hehe we can still fool old players sometimes - "intend" has a > > "specific meaning" for registration as well as for other contexts, so > > beokirby registered exactly as per the rules: > > > > > An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or > > > prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that > > > indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e > > > intends to become a player at that time. > > It's still worth warning the new players, though, because "intend" > wording works for registration, and (for a different reason) for the > first step in taking a tabled action, but doesn't work for anything > else. > > IIRC the reason it works for registration is partly that new players > kept getting it wrong, and partly because we wanted to change the > registration rules to have an entire new set of "did my registration > work?" CFJs. That change was ages ago now, though, so I might be > misremembering the details. > > -- > ais523 >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora
On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 11:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > hehe we can still fool old players sometimes - "intend" has a > "specific meaning" for registration as well as for other contexts, so > beokirby registered exactly as per the rules: > > > An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or > > prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that > > indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e > > intends to become a player at that time. It's still worth warning the new players, though, because "intend" wording works for registration, and (for a different reason) for the first step in taking a tabled action, but doesn't work for anything else. IIRC the reason it works for registration is partly that new players kept getting it wrong, and partly because we wanted to change the registration rules to have an entire new set of "did my registration work?" CFJs. That change was ages ago now, though, so I might be misremembering the details. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:09 AM nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/18/23 13:06, beokirby agora via agora-business wrote: > > I intend to register as a player of Agora. > > My name is beokirby. > > > > I will then grant myself a welcome package and envision a dream of gardens > Welcome beokirby! Keep in mind that phrases like "I intend" actually > have a specific meaning in Agora. If you want to do something, it's > usually best to just say "I do this" so instead of "I intend to > register" you can just say "I register." hehe we can still fool old players sometimes - "intend" has a "specific meaning" for registration as well as for other contexts, so beokirby registered exactly as per the rules: > An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or > prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that > indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e > intends to become a player at that time. -G.
Re: DIS: Wow, so many new players
On 5/18/2023 2:11 PM, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: Where are all of you coming from? There's a Tumblr post about Agora going around; that's how me and beokirby got here at least.
DIS: Wow, so many new players
Where are all of you coming from?
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora
On 5/18/23 13:06, beokirby agora via agora-business wrote: I intend to register as a player of Agora. My name is beokirby. I will then grant myself a welcome package and envision a dream of gardens Welcome beokirby! Keep in mind that phrases like "I intend" actually have a specific meaning in Agora. If you want to do something, it's usually best to just say "I do this" so instead of "I intend to register" you can just say "I register." -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Is this thing on?
This message contains no game actions.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 4:44 AM juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-05-17 23:21]: > > On 5/17/23 20:13, nix via agora-business wrote: > > > On 5/17/23 19:10, Christian Arguinzoni via agora-business wrote: > > >> I would like to register for the nomic game Agora. My preferred name is > > >> blob. Thank you! > > > Welcome! I grant blob a Welcome Package. This is interesting because > > > this might be the first time we have a new player with the same name as > > > a previous player. I'm not sure how best to handle it in historical > > > documents. Curious what people think? > > > > > > > For more ephemeral reports, I don't think there's a problem. My concerns > > are the ruleset and the Registrar's monthly, where I would strongly > > object to using the same name to refer to distinct persons. > > I think this is kind of rude… People are free to choose their own names, > at least in Agora, and I believe its an important principle. Players are not wholly "free to choose their own" Agoran nicknames. It comes down to ambiguity in reports - Officers need to note the person in some way that passes a CFJ/COE test of unambiguity, which means have something unique for every different person. Outside of the reports (like for by announcement actions) if a shortened version of a nickname (a nickname nickname?) is the same as a former player, the chance of ambiguity is low, so that might be useable. A key finding on nicknames: CFJ 1361 finding by Judge Steve: "a nickname is a name that a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in the full range of Agoran contexts. " Note that the "free choice" is qualified by the need to "pick em out in the full range of Agoran contexts". The Scroll, in particular, is a living document, and the original Blob has several entries - it would be equally rude to the original Blob to change eir name notation in the Scroll and other historical documents, to disambiguate em from an entirely new player. So we need to balance that, hopefully in a friendly way. I'll also note that the original Blob turned up for Agora's 20th anniversary (and earned an Agora XX badge), and there's a slight change with the 30th coming up... Of course, the easiest way to come to consensus (and the nicest, least rude solution) is to go by what the person wants. But in the case where it produces a confusing nickname, we can ask (very nicely) the new player to choose something that's unambiguous[0]. There's been several of those sorts of conversations with new players over the years, and in all cases so far the new player has voluntarily modified their nickname. But if e fails to do that, each officer would need to come to their own conclusion which could get a little messy. A couple other CFJs where free nickname-choosing was "blocked": CFJ 1703, judge root: In spite of CFJ 1361, comex's attempt to change eir nickname to "Murphy" failed (Murphy was a current player, not a former player), because it did not allow for reliable disambiguation. CFJ 3467, judge G.: when a player selected 天火狐 as eir nickname, it was reasonable/official to use the transliteration Tenhigitsune as the name in report (note that during deliberations, the transliteration was made with the player's consent). For a while, officers varied in whether they used 天火狐 or Tenhigitsune, and it was generally considered that either worked. [0] For a while, we actually had some tighter rules on it, including "a player SHALL NOT choose a confusing nickname" and "a player SHALL sign every public message with eir nickname". This being Agora, this was seen as thoughtcrime and caused a lot of CFJs as people purposefully played the Bendyboot Crumpetpatch game of seeing how far they could twist their nicknames without criming. And of course, for new players saying "you just committed a crime because you didn't know about a player with your nickname ten years ago" was ... not really welcoming. Fun times! Citations: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1361 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1703 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3467 -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora
On 5/18/23 06:44, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
I think this is kind of rude… People are free to choose their own names,
at least in Agora, and I believe its an important principle.
The problem seems to stem from the way the rules define persons regardless
of their interactions with game state. It's the same issue as when we
suspect two alleged players are actually the same person. I know we must
enforce the at-most-one-player-per-person mechanic, but I also wish
we had better ways of identifying players. Perhaps a combo of name and
email address? With possibilities of announcing changes or aliases?
I agree with this in principle. I suppose a notation could be added to
registrar monthly and scroll that indicates something like blob{0} and
blob{1} are different players. That seems like a fairly clean solution
to that part.
But as ais523 mentioned, this could be more of an issue with just
regular actions that could reasonably refer to either player. In this
case that seems unlikely because of the timespan between the two
players, but it could be an issue if there was a closer timeline, or
overlap.
--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora
On Wed, 2023-05-17 at 19:13 -0500, nix via agora-business wrote: > On 5/17/23 19:10, Christian Arguinzoni via agora-business wrote: > > I would like to register for the nomic game Agora. My preferred name is > > blob. Thank you! > > Welcome! I grant blob a Welcome Package. This is interesting because > this might be the first time we have a new player with the same name as > a previous player. I'm not sure how best to handle it in historical > documents. Curious what people think? I vaguely remember that precedent is along the lines of "a player's name in Agora is the name that other players use to refer to em". If a player attempts to select an ambiguous nickname, the resulting name can't be used to unambiguously refer to em, so it doesn't work as a name. If someone posted "Blob" to the mailing lists without clarification, which person would we take it as referring to? I think it would depend on context, being an unambiguous reference to the new player in some contexts, and being ambiguous in others. As such, I think that anyone who has a duty to identify a *player* can just use "Blob" unambiguously, whereas anyone who has a duty to identify a *person* must clarify which "Blob" e is talking about. Historical documents like the Registrar's and Herald's reports thus most likely need footnotes to disambiguate. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora
Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-05-17 23:21]: > On 5/17/23 20:13, nix via agora-business wrote: > > On 5/17/23 19:10, Christian Arguinzoni via agora-business wrote: > >> I would like to register for the nomic game Agora. My preferred name is > >> blob. Thank you! > > Welcome! I grant blob a Welcome Package. This is interesting because > > this might be the first time we have a new player with the same name as > > a previous player. I'm not sure how best to handle it in historical > > documents. Curious what people think? > > > > For more ephemeral reports, I don't think there's a problem. My concerns > are the ruleset and the Registrar's monthly, where I would strongly > object to using the same name to refer to distinct persons. I think this is kind of rude… People are free to choose their own names, at least in Agora, and I believe its an important principle. The problem seems to stem from the way the rules define persons regardless of their interactions with game state. It's the same issue as when we suspect two alleged players are actually the same person. I know we must enforce the at-most-one-player-per-person mechanic, but I also wish we had better ways of identifying players. Perhaps a combo of name and email address? With possibilities of announcing changes or aliases? -- juan Registrar
DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: (@Collector, Herald) BUS: The Never-Ending Dance
I speculate that some (contrived) interpretations might've become custom because of a vested interest for it to be so. "I'll win the game just if I convince enough people that this is the interpretation that we should all go by!". And with enough time, a contrived interpretation becomes game custom. I don't think this is one of these cases. As mentioned, the protagonist is this clause: "When a ritual act is performed, any player CAN, within 7 days, by announcement anoint a ritual number, specifying the ritual act and the new ritual number. The anointed ritual number must be 0 or not more than 1 greater than the greatest previously anointed ritual number." As I understand it, from what I assume to be a layman reading: - After a ritual act happens, there's a 7 day margin of time. - Within that 7 day margin, you CAN anoint by announcement by specifying a few variables. - These variables have restrictions. Of course, it could've been the intent for it to be otherwise, but if I were to read that clause in a vacuum, without knowing the larger context of the game that it's in, my first assumption would be that you can just anoint as much as you want *as long as* you fulfill the restrictions on anointed ritual numbers. It just so happens that fulfilling that restriction is incredibly easy. I do feel a gut reaction towards trying to foil scams, "there has to be something wrong", "a win shouldn't come this easy"; but - being honest with myself is more important to me than that. I don't know about what other rules or insights might come to screw with the scam, but ais' interpretation of this protagonist clause, and what I read to be Agoran custom, seems to line up with how I believe (and now realize) it should be read. On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:36 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 4:14 PM nix via agora-business wrote: > > I CFJ on the following statement: "Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a > > ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act." > > > > Gratuitous thoughts: > > > > To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN > > [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is the > > way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of > > pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a > > card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing in > > the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would > > interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations in > > other games. > > > > -- > > nix > > Prime Minister, Herald > > > > Gratuitous: > > In any board game, if a rule said "When you place your meeple, you can > draw a card", I don't think any board game group in the world would > interpret it as meaning you can empty the deck. I wholly agree that > the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current custom and that, > barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained totally fairly > under that assumption. But I sure am interested in how the assumption > came to be - so I might ask the judge to look into details or first > principles if e's willing to pursue it a bit, instead of just saying > "it's our common custom" (which is a totally fair reason to uphold the > win). > > For example, tabled actions are written continuously - a player can > perform the tabled action "if e is [currently] a sponsor" of an > appropriate intent. Some of the "multiple wins from one trigger" > successes were based on Apathy intents. If the precedent was written > originally for the tabled action case, and depended on the continuity > of the condition, it might have been an error to extend it to "When X > happens, a player CAN Y" language. >
