Re: DIS: Rice plans?
On 2023-05-19 7:12 PM, blob via agora-discussion wrote:
I've been skimming over some of the past conversations about Rice Plans,
but can't find anything in the rules about them. Would someone mind
explaining it to me? Thanks!
Rice plans are from a new rule brought about by p8969 which has the
following text
{
The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and
Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active
player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so yet in
the current week. Rice Plans can have Signatures, and each Signature must
be of an active player. A Rice Plan has an active player's Signature as
long as that player is consenting to it. An active player can destroy a
Rice Plan that e has created by announcement.
A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs:
- If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that Rice Plan
is Harvested.
- If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, the one
that was created earliest is Harvested.
- In all other cases, nothing happens.
And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends.
Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having no
repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these lists is its
Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list. When a Rice Plan is
Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice Up list, if that player is
active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each player listed in its Rice Down list,
if e has at least 1 Rice then e lose 1 Rice.
If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2 Rice and
more Rice than any other player, then that player wins the game, and all
Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in this manner three times,
this rule repeals itself.
}
tl;dr: players can create "rice plans" which have two sets of players a
"Rice Up" set and a "Rice Down set. a player can consent to give a rice
plan eir signature to support it. the plan with the most signatures goes
through and all of the players in the Rice Up set gain a rice and all of
the players in the Rice Down set lose a rice. if any player has more
than two rice and more rice than any other player e wins. there can only
be three rice wins because then the rule repeals itself
DIS: Rice plans?
I've been skimming over some of the past conversations about Rice Plans, but can't find anything in the rules about them. Would someone mind explaining it to me? Thanks!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Consent
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:49 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:46 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 5/19/23 16:40, Forest Sweeney wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 5/19/23 16:16, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> > > > I consent to all rice plans that have my player in the Rice Up
> > > list and do
> > > > not have my player in the Rice Down list. I also consent to all
> > > rice plans
> > > > that have no players in the Rice Up list and I am not in the
> > > Rice Down list.
> > > >
> > > > (Consent is different than intent, so this is forward looking,
> > > so I have
> > > > now played the rice game for as long as I am active.)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't think this can provide consent for rice plans that do not
> > > yet exist.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Janet Cobb
> > >
> > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd argue that I fit criteria 4 of Rule 2519 ("Consent"):
> > > "4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
> > > take place or assented to it taking place."
> > > --
> > > 4st
> > > Referee
> > > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
> >
> >
> > Actually, let's take a step back.
> >
> > The text of the rule "The Rice Game", as enacted:
> >
> > > The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and
> > > Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active
> > > player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so yet in
> > > the current week. Rice Plans can have Signatures, and each Signature must
> > > be of an active player. A Rice Plan has an active player's Signature as
> > > long as that player is consenting to it. An active player can destroy a
> > > Rice Plan that e has created by announcement.
> > >
> > > A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs:
> > > - If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that Rice Plan
> > > is Harvested.
> > > - If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, the one
> > > that was created earliest is Harvested.
> > > - In all other cases, nothing happens.
> > > And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends.
> > >
> > > Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having no
> > > repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these lists is its
> > > Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list. When a Rice Plan is
> > > Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice Up list, if that player is
> > > active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each player listed in its Rice Down list,
> > > if e has at least 1 Rice then e lose 1 Rice.
> > >
> > > If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2 Rice
> > and
> > > more Rice than any other player, then that player wins the game, and all
> > > Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in this manner three times,
> > > this rule repeals itself.
> >
> >
> > Consent at Power 3 is defined only for actions. What "action" is consent
> > being evaluated for? Certainly not the creation of the rice plan itself.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Rule 2519/2 (Power=3)
> > > Consent
> > >
> > > A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if,
> > > at the time the action took place:
> > >
> > > 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the
> > > action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement;
> > > 2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and
> > > unambiguously indicates eir consent;
> > > 3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or
> > > 4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
> > > take place or assented to it taking place.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Janet Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >
>
> So, if there is no action, then consent just takes on the regular
> meaning Thus, you can consent to rice plans non-publicly, which
> seems... troublesome
> Maybe, hopefully, the "regular meaning" is just the meaning presented in
> the rules.
Alternate argument: If "consent" in that context has the meaning
presented in the rules, then the rules regulate whether it's
successful, then it's regulated, and you CANNOT do it outside of the
R2519 mechanism, which is the only place that describes how it
succeeds or fails.
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Consent
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:46 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/19/23 16:40, Forest Sweeney wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> >
> > On 5/19/23 16:16, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> > > I consent to all rice plans that have my player in the Rice Up
> > list and do
> > > not have my player in the Rice Down list. I also consent to all
> > rice plans
> > > that have no players in the Rice Up list and I am not in the
> > Rice Down list.
> > >
> > > (Consent is different than intent, so this is forward looking,
> > so I have
> > > now played the rice game for as long as I am active.)
> > >
> >
> > I don't think this can provide consent for rice plans that do not
> > yet exist.
> >
> > --
> > Janet Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >
> >
> > I'd argue that I fit criteria 4 of Rule 2519 ("Consent"):
> > "4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
> > take place or assented to it taking place."
> > --
> > 4st
> > Referee
> > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
>
>
> Actually, let's take a step back.
>
> The text of the rule "The Rice Game", as enacted:
>
> > The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and
> > Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active
> > player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so yet in
> > the current week. Rice Plans can have Signatures, and each Signature must
> > be of an active player. A Rice Plan has an active player's Signature as
> > long as that player is consenting to it. An active player can destroy a
> > Rice Plan that e has created by announcement.
> >
> > A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs:
> > - If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that Rice Plan
> > is Harvested.
> > - If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, the one
> > that was created earliest is Harvested.
> > - In all other cases, nothing happens.
> > And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends.
> >
> > Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having no
> > repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these lists is its
> > Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list. When a Rice Plan is
> > Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice Up list, if that player is
> > active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each player listed in its Rice Down list,
> > if e has at least 1 Rice then e lose 1 Rice.
> >
> > If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2 Rice
> and
> > more Rice than any other player, then that player wins the game, and all
> > Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in this manner three times,
> > this rule repeals itself.
>
>
> Consent at Power 3 is defined only for actions. What "action" is consent
> being evaluated for? Certainly not the creation of the rice plan itself.
>
>
> >
> > Rule 2519/2 (Power=3)
> > Consent
> >
> > A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if,
> > at the time the action took place:
> >
> > 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the
> > action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement;
> > 2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and
> > unambiguously indicates eir consent;
> > 3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or
> > 4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
> > take place or assented to it taking place.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
So, if there is no action, then consent just takes on the regular
meaning Thus, you can consent to rice plans non-publicly, which
seems... troublesome
Maybe, hopefully, the "regular meaning" is just the meaning presented in
the rules.
--
4st
Referee
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Consent
On 5/19/23 16:40, Forest Sweeney wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On 5/19/23 16:16, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> > I consent to all rice plans that have my player in the Rice Up
> list and do
> > not have my player in the Rice Down list. I also consent to all
> rice plans
> > that have no players in the Rice Up list and I am not in the
> Rice Down list.
> >
> > (Consent is different than intent, so this is forward looking,
> so I have
> > now played the rice game for as long as I am active.)
> >
>
> I don't think this can provide consent for rice plans that do not
> yet exist.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
> I'd argue that I fit criteria 4 of Rule 2519 ("Consent"):
> "4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
> take place or assented to it taking place."
> --
> 4st
> Referee
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Actually, let's take a step back.
The text of the rule "The Rice Game", as enacted:
> The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and
> Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active
> player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so yet in
> the current week. Rice Plans can have Signatures, and each Signature must
> be of an active player. A Rice Plan has an active player's Signature as
> long as that player is consenting to it. An active player can destroy a
> Rice Plan that e has created by announcement.
>
> A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs:
> - If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that Rice Plan
> is Harvested.
> - If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, the one
> that was created earliest is Harvested.
> - In all other cases, nothing happens.
> And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends.
>
> Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having no
> repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these lists is its
> Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list. When a Rice Plan is
> Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice Up list, if that player is
> active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each player listed in its Rice Down list,
> if e has at least 1 Rice then e lose 1 Rice.
>
> If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2 Rice and
> more Rice than any other player, then that player wins the game, and all
> Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in this manner three times,
> this rule repeals itself.
Consent at Power 3 is defined only for actions. What "action" is consent
being evaluated for? Certainly not the creation of the rice plan itself.
>
> Rule 2519/2 (Power=3)
> Consent
>
> A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if,
> at the time the action took place:
>
> 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the
> action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement;
> 2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and
> unambiguously indicates eir consent;
> 3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or
> 4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
> take place or assented to it taking place.
>
>
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Consent
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:40 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I'd argue that I fit criteria 4 of Rule 2519 ("Consent"):
> "4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
> take place or assented to it taking place."
There's quite a few precedents in different contexts that future
actions aren't well-defined things, so "the action" in question is
inherently uncertain if it is a "future not-yet-existing" thing, if
those precedents apply to this situation.
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Consent
*Blows smoke off gun, spins pistol back into holster* On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:42 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:40 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I think it could, because I believe they are providing context which > > reasonably indicates that they want their consent to be applied in that > > way. The 4st point in Rule 2519 seems to allow it. > > > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 5/19/23 16:16, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > > > > I consent to all rice plans that have my player in the Rice Up list > and > > > do > > > > not have my player in the Rice Down list. I also consent to all rice > > > plans > > > > that have no players in the Rice Up list and I am not in the Rice > Down > > > list. > > > > > > > > (Consent is different than intent, so this is forward looking, so I > > have > > > > now played the rice game for as long as I am active.) > > > > > > > > > > I don't think this can provide consent for rice plans that do not yet > > > exist. > > > > > > -- > > > Janet Cobb > > > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > > > > > > > > B-) > > nice > > -- > 4st > Referee > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Consent
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:40 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I think it could, because I believe they are providing context which > reasonably indicates that they want their consent to be applied in that > way. The 4st point in Rule 2519 seems to allow it. > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/19/23 16:16, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > > > I consent to all rice plans that have my player in the Rice Up list and > > do > > > not have my player in the Rice Down list. I also consent to all rice > > plans > > > that have no players in the Rice Up list and I am not in the Rice Down > > list. > > > > > > (Consent is different than intent, so this is forward looking, so I > have > > > now played the rice game for as long as I am active.) > > > > > > > I don't think this can provide consent for rice plans that do not yet > > exist. > > > > -- > > Janet Cobb > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > > > B-) nice -- 4st Referee Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Consent
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/19/23 16:16, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> > I consent to all rice plans that have my player in the Rice Up list and
> do
> > not have my player in the Rice Down list. I also consent to all rice
> plans
> > that have no players in the Rice Up list and I am not in the Rice Down
> list.
> >
> > (Consent is different than intent, so this is forward looking, so I have
> > now played the rice game for as long as I am active.)
> >
>
> I don't think this can provide consent for rice plans that do not yet
> exist.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
I'd argue that I fit criteria 4 of Rule 2519 ("Consent"):
"4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
take place or assented to it taking place."
--
4st
Referee
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Consent
I think it could, because I believe they are providing context which reasonably indicates that they want their consent to be applied in that way. The 4st point in Rule 2519 seems to allow it. On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/19/23 16:16, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > > I consent to all rice plans that have my player in the Rice Up list and > do > > not have my player in the Rice Down list. I also consent to all rice > plans > > that have no players in the Rice Up list and I am not in the Rice Down > list. > > > > (Consent is different than intent, so this is forward looking, so I have > > now played the rice game for as long as I am active.) > > > > I don't think this can provide consent for rice plans that do not yet > exist. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:47 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > So, only someone who already is in power and a beneficiary of the system > should be entitled to propose change things? Er, I never said you couldn't propose. I was giving you feedback on how I felt about voting for it. It's a generally interesting point you raise, in that we've (over the years) frequently discussed about not being too entrenched, and giving new players the ability to jump right in without huge handicaps. That said, we are a small community, that takes some service to maintain via officers, and it makes sense to give longer-serving players at least something of a boost - it's not fair to their genuine effort over months to achieve a certain position (become "already in power"), to say a brand-new player jumps in with equal footing. Also, in particular, rule changes often impact officers' jobs, so it seems quite reasonable to give them a bit more say in changes that could include their office duties. And the thing with my "accusation" is - you've already done it once, to be fair. We'd been playing with proposal-based radiance awards for about a year, which were seen as fairly minor rewards for encouraging the writing of good proposals. But within a short time of joining the game, your own voting patterns - making something uncomfortably "political" that was never intended or played that way - became onerous enough that you basically crashed the system (brought us to the point of repealing it, rather than deal with your voting patterns). In doing so, the collateral damage included removing radiance awards for Judges, so Judges no longer get a little bonus for judging. I honestly thought that was a bit thoughtless. This is exactly what I want to avoid again, so I'm quite skeptical about arguments to repeal something that gives bonuses or reward-for-labor (especially longstanding 'service' offices where people aren't just running their own subgame for less than a week :) ) when there's no concrete proposal of anything to compensate. But enough negativity there (sorry) - I don't mean for this to express any actual metagame annoyance, just thoughts about power tradeoffs and design, and I very much look forward to seeing if nix's ideas might work. -G.
Re: DIS: (Proto) Raybots
I think the general idea could be interesting. It's similar to juan's golem
idea, which I was also fond of.
I'm likely not the best to help with wording but, "Raybots agree to abide
by the Rules." seems weird to me. How can it 'agree' to anything?
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5:52 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 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.
> }}}
> [I
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Consent
On 5/19/23 16:16, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > I consent to all rice plans that have my player in the Rice Up list and do > not have my player in the Rice Down list. I also consent to all rice plans > that have no players in the Rice Up list and I am not in the Rice Down list. > > (Consent is different than intent, so this is forward looking, so I have > now played the rice game for as long as I am active.) > I don't think this can provide consent for rice plans that do not yet exist. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Ricemastor] Nihilist gohan
I made a better consent notification anyhow, but thanks for looking out for me! (I noticed my failure to use the right fora as well... such a 4st thing to do!) On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:18 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/19/23 16:11, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:57 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On 5/19/23 14:56, juan via agora-business wrote: > >>> I create and consent to the following Rice Plan: > >>> > >>> Rice Up: [] > >>> Rice Down: [] > >>> > >> I consent to the above rice plan. > >> > >> -- > >> Janet Cobb > >> > >> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >> > >> > > I also consent to this rice plan. > > > NttPF > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > -- 4st Referee Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8980-8984
On 5/19/23 14:21, Beokirby via agora-discussion wrote: On 2023-05-18 10:56 PM, Beokirby via agora-business wrote: On 2023-05-18 10:41 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote: ID Author(s) AI Title --- 8980~ Yachay 1.0 Riding with training wheels 8981~ Janet, nix 2.0 Stone fixes 8982~ snail 2.0 Reward the Speaker! 8983~ Janet 1.0 Sacrilege 8984* nix, ais523 3.0 Clarifying Intentions I vote FOR proposals 8980-8984 (the proposals listed above) -Beokirby I change my vote on 8981 to AGAINST. Replying by default sends your message to agora-discussion. You need to manually change it. Some clients (like thunderbird) have a "reply to list" button that overrides that as well. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8980-8984
On 5/19/23 15:21, Beokirby via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2023-05-18 10:56 PM, Beokirby via agora-business wrote: >> On 2023-05-18 10:41 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote: >>> ID Author(s) AI Title >>> --- >>> 8980~ Yachay 1.0 Riding with training wheels >>> 8981~ Janet, nix 2.0 Stone fixes >>> 8982~ snail 2.0 Reward the Speaker! >>> 8983~ Janet 1.0 Sacrilege >>> 8984* nix, ais523 3.0 Clarifying Intentions >> I vote FOR proposals 8980-8984 (the proposals listed above) >> -Beokirby > I change my vote on 8981 to AGAINST. This needs to be sent to agora-business, not agora-discussion. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Ricemastor] Nihilist gohan
On 5/19/23 16:11, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:57 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 5/19/23 14:56, juan via agora-business wrote: >>> I create and consent to the following Rice Plan: >>> >>> Rice Up: [] >>> Rice Down: [] >>> >> I consent to the above rice plan. >> >> -- >> Janet Cobb >> >> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >> >> > I also consent to this rice plan. NttPF -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Ricemastor] Nihilist gohan
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:57 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/19/23 14:56, juan via agora-business wrote: > > I create and consent to the following Rice Plan: > > > > Rice Up: [] > > Rice Down: [] > > > > I consent to the above rice plan. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > I also consent to this rice plan. -- 4st Referee Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: Very Proto Economy (Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization_
- I like the Focuses idea. - I think you'd really just want to use your Stamps to win rather than anything else. Maybe instead you can only Focus on something if you have the right Stamp or combination of Stamps in your possession? For example, something like: Voting Focus [Requirement: Ownership of 3 or more different Stamps], Justice Focus [Requirement: Ownership of a Stamp type that only up to 2 other players have]; etc On Friday, May 19, 2023, nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/19/23 11:50, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > >> I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps >> system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in >> particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen, >> and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against >> repealing it without a replacement. >> > I do somewhat regret the *full* repeal we did, tho it was an interesting > experiment (that got my a Silver Quill). I've been trying to be more hands > off with economic writing because I want to see other ideas (and I've > written two of the recent ones), but I have had some ideas floating around > that would at least incorporate Stamps. The idea is basically: > > * replace dreams with focuses, and have 3 or 4 focuses. Something like > Voting, Proposing, etc. > > * each stamp type inherits a focus from the person it's minted by, with > stamps belonging to non-players being wildcards for focus > > * players automatically get stamps of eir type, maybe at a rate similar > wealth dream (2 when there's less than 8 total of your type, 1 when there's > less than 16 total, 0 otherwise) > > * cash stamps in sets, where each stamp in the set is of the same class > (or wildcard) to get the associated bonus. Cash voting stamps and get a > voting power increase, cash proposing stamps and get the ability to pend X > proposals. Scale it to large payouts for larger cashing sets, and also > larger payouts for the number of *different* stamps used. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8980-8984
On 2023-05-18 10:56 PM, Beokirby via agora-business wrote: On 2023-05-18 10:41 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote: ID Author(s) AI Title --- 8980~ Yachay 1.0 Riding with training wheels 8981~ Janet, nix 2.0 Stone fixes 8982~ snail 2.0 Reward the Speaker! 8983~ Janet 1.0 Sacrilege 8984* nix, ais523 3.0 Clarifying Intentions I vote FOR proposals 8980-8984 (the proposals listed above) -Beokirby I change my vote on 8981 to AGAINST.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
You could say that to anyone disadvantaged who wants to change how things are, it's not particularly insightful (or accurate, in this case). So, only someone who already is in power and a beneficiary of the system should be entitled to propose change things? I don't think my situation is as bad, though, since I'm an Officer with a Voting Strength bonus myself, and I have enough pocket change to afford fielding the Dream of Power if I wanted to. I think I'm reasonably close to a neutral position in how much I lose or gain from this. Still, it's an interesting accusation. On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 6:49 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:43 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > I don't intend to design an economy, because I don't think I'm competent > > enough to do so. I'll try to contribute where I can, though. > > > > Ah, the typical take-away power with a promise, but an unfulfilled > one. No worries. Power grabs are fine with me, but let's not cloak > it as some kind of "I'm doing this altruistically to solve a bigger > design problem." > > -G. >
DIS: Re: (@Collector, Herald) BUS: The Never-Ending Dance
On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 11:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:25 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > I'd like to thank ais523 for the 4pocalypse where everyone has 44 points. > > > As such, if the 4pocalypse is real, I intend to, with Agoran Consent, > > > grant > > > all current players the badge 4. > > > > I object. -G. > > Side-question: I'm trying to remember if the set of "all current > players" in a tabled action intent is evaluated at the time of intent, > the time of action, or is too unspecified to work as a tabled action > (because the announcer could have meant either). I feel like there > are precedents - anyone remember/point to one? I suspect that under the present rules the tabled action can only work in the case where it's evaluated at the time of the intent, as rule 1728 requires specifying non-default parameter values. This of course doesn't necessarily mean that any specific tabled action attempt must be interpreted in the way that works – it's possible to attempt to take a nonexistent regulated action, it just doesn't work when you do. I also suspect that in this particular case, the specific wording "all current players" unambiguously refers to the player list at the time of the intent, due to the use of the word "current" (which is normally used to clarify, in ambiguous cases, that you're talking about the time at which the message is sent rather than some other relevant time). That said, I don't have any relevant precedents memorised and didn't find one in the parts of the FLR annotations that I checked. They seem most likely to be related to Apathy attempts (a fairly commonly- attempted dependent action that requires specifying a set of players), but given that Apathy attempts almost always fail by a huge margin, there may not have been much cause to CFJ about what happens if they succeed. It's also quite possible that any older precedents will have been invalidated by the change from the old dependent action framework to the tabled action framework that we use nowadays (the nature of the "I intend to …" action was significantly changed, in a way that may well be relevant). -- ais523
DIS: Re: (@Collector, Herald) BUS: The Never-Ending Dance
On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 11:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:25 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > I'd like to thank ais523 for the 4pocalypse where everyone has 44 points. > > > As such, if the 4pocalypse is real, I intend to, with Agoran Consent, > > > grant > > > all current players the badge 4. > > > > I object. -G. > > Side-question: I'm trying to remember if the set of "all current > players" in a tabled action intent is evaluated at the time of intent, > the time of action, or is too unspecified to work as a tabled action > (because the announcer could have meant either). I feel like there > are precedents - anyone remember/point to one? I suspect that under the present rules the tabled action can only work in the case where it's evaluated at the time of the intent, as rule 1728 requires specifying non-default parameter values. This of course doesn't necessarily mean that any specific tabled action attempt must be interpreted in the way that works – it's possible to attempt to take a nonexistent regulated action, it just doesn't work when you do. I also suspect that in this particular case, the specific wording "all current players" unambiguously refers to the player list at the time of the intent, due to the use of the word "current" (which is normally used to clarify, in ambiguous cases, that you're talking about the time at which the message is sent rather than some other relevant time). That said, I don't have any relevant precedents memorised and didn't find one in the parts of the FLR annotations that I checked. They seem most likely to be related to Apathy attempts (a fairly commonly- attempted dependent action that requires specifying a set of players), but given that Apathy attempts almost always fail by a huge margin, there may not have been much cause to CFJ about what happens if they succeed. It's also quite possible that any older precedents will have been invalidated by the change from the old dependent action framework to the tabled action framework that we use nowadays (the nature of the "I intend to …" action was significantly changed, in a way that may well be relevant). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8972-8979
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:41 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/19/23 12:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote > >> 8978* Janet 3.0 Authorized initiation > > FOR, although it doesn't actually solve the issue that brought this > > up, as it doesn't ratify a *proposal's* existence when the decision is > > to adopt a proposal (the equivalent of R2034(4) but on the promotor's > > side). > > > > I think that's part of the "validity" of the initiation? That's really unclear to me. Take a contrived but technically possible counterexample. The Promotor published a notice that says "Decision X is hereby initiated" but doesn't include *anything* about "the matter to be decided" as per R683(3). Then nobody CoEs, so it ratifies as being "valid". But what's "the matter to be decided" been ratified to be? My guess is that an attempt to ratify "valid" when there's no "matter" would introduce an internal conflict with R683(3) and the ratification would fail. But if that's true when there's no "matter", it would be equally true when there's an "invalid matter" (an alleged proposal that isn't a proposal). Ratifying the "validity" does not necessarily cascade to ratify the proposal's existence, but may instead just fail. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Rice contract
On 2023-05-19 1:38 PM, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
There's danger in a contract like this. If you have 0 Rice, and say, I have
1 Rice, and I submit a Rice Plan that gives us both 1 Rice and it ends up
being the Rice Plan that passes, then you lose that round and I win that
round, and we're both set back to 0 Rice.
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 7:21 PM Beokirby via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I create and become party to the following contract:
{
Parties to this contract consent to be signatories to all Rice Plans
with beokirby in the Rice Up list
}
-Beokirby
yes, but no one has any rice yet, so I don't need to worry about that
yet. I'll leave the contract once someone has rice and I don't
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8972-8979
On 5/19/23 12:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote >> 8978* Janet 3.0 Authorized initiation > FOR, although it doesn't actually solve the issue that brought this > up, as it doesn't ratify a *proposal's* existence when the decision is > to adopt a proposal (the equivalent of R2034(4) but on the promotor's > side). > I think that's part of the "validity" of the initiation? -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Rice contract
There's danger in a contract like this. If you have 0 Rice, and say, I have
1 Rice, and I submit a Rice Plan that gives us both 1 Rice and it ends up
being the Rice Plan that passes, then you lose that round and I win that
round, and we're both set back to 0 Rice.
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 7:21 PM Beokirby via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I create and become party to the following contract:
> {
> Parties to this contract consent to be signatories to all Rice Plans
> with beokirby in the Rice Up list
> }
>
> -Beokirby
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 09:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I sometimes feel like half my arguing at Agora is dedicated to trying > > to persuade people not to repeal the economy. > > > > It rarely works, and the consequence is that most of the time we don't > > have a functional economy. (Having a history of the economy being > > repealed is *also* a problem because it makes it harder to get a new > > economy off the ground – why invest if you think that everything is > > likely going to end up repealed again in the future?) > > Define "works"? tbh, I mostly prefer the periods with no/very limited > economies, because I like the various different subgames on their own, > and whenever we have a "full" economy, then subgame wins become far > too transactional and full of contracts/meta-subgame deals to be very > playable as a standalone competition. "Works" as in inspiring either a replacement economy, or some other sort of replacement gameplay. What normally happens is that there are a few half-hearted attempts to create something new that don't go anywhere, and then the lists fall mostly silent for a few months. Meta-subgame deals don't necessarily require an economy to happen, just two or more subgames. (See, e.g., snail and Murphy trading a stone win for a horse win – as far as I can tell, that transaction didn't involve the economy at all.) The real fix for those, based on experience at other nomics, is to either design the subgame in a way that makes it hard for that sort of deal to have any influence on the subgame, or to create a rule banning players from cooperation for a subgame win. They also don't necessarily seem to happen even when there are lots of subgames and a strong economy (e.g. in the AAA era, the *other*, non- AAA, subgames basically got to run autonomously and I don't recall anyone trying to buy or sell advantages in them; and trading subgame- defined assets seems to have been the intended gameplay of the AAA). (Another interesting data point: Promises were originally partially intended as a method of letting people mint their own currency, backed by things like officer perks. This use never caught on, however, even though there have been times where it could have served as a replacement for a repealed economy. One of the things that I'm hoping for with my Raybots proto is that we end up with tradeable Promises backed by Raybot actions rather than player actions; because Raybots have a limited lifespan, we'd have a currency that naturally decays over time, and because they don't create ongoing obligations on any of the human players, there would likely be less aversion to creating them.) -- ais523
Very Proto Economy (Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization_
On 5/19/23 11:50, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen, and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against repealing it without a replacement. I do somewhat regret the *full* repeal we did, tho it was an interesting experiment (that got my a Silver Quill). I've been trying to be more hands off with economic writing because I want to see other ideas (and I've written two of the recent ones), but I have had some ideas floating around that would at least incorporate Stamps. The idea is basically: * replace dreams with focuses, and have 3 or 4 focuses. Something like Voting, Proposing, etc. * each stamp type inherits a focus from the person it's minted by, with stamps belonging to non-players being wildcards for focus * players automatically get stamps of eir type, maybe at a rate similar wealth dream (2 when there's less than 8 total of your type, 1 when there's less than 16 total, 0 otherwise) * cash stamps in sets, where each stamp in the set is of the same class (or wildcard) to get the associated bonus. Cash voting stamps and get a voting power increase, cash proposing stamps and get the ability to pend X proposals. Scale it to large payouts for larger cashing sets, and also larger payouts for the number of *different* stamps used. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 09:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora- > > discussion wrote: > > > With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your > > > Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall > > > needing > > > a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem. > > > > So offer that as a package? In my experience, when things are taken > > away with the promise of new things to be added later, those things > > stay taken away, and the new things never arrive. > > I sometimes feel like half my arguing at Agora is dedicated to trying > to persuade people not to repeal the economy. > > It rarely works, and the consequence is that most of the time we don't > have a functional economy. (Having a history of the economy being > repealed is *also* a problem because it makes it harder to get a new > economy off the ground – why invest if you think that everything is > likely going to end up repealed again in the future?) Define "works"? tbh, I mostly prefer the periods with no/very limited economies, because I like the various different subgames on their own, and whenever we have a "full" economy, then subgame wins become far too transactional and full of contracts/meta-subgame deals to be very playable as a standalone competition. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 09:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora- > > discussion wrote: > > > With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your > > > Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall > > > needing > > > a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem. > > > > So offer that as a package? In my experience, when things are taken > > away with the promise of new things to be added later, those things > > stay taken away, and the new things never arrive. > > I sometimes feel like half my arguing at Agora is dedicated to trying > to persuade people not to repeal the economy. > > It rarely works, and the consequence is that most of the time we don't > have a functional economy. (Having a history of the economy being > repealed is *also* a problem because it makes it harder to get a new > economy off the ground – why invest if you think that everything is > likely going to end up repealed again in the future?) > > I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps > system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in > particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen, > and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against > repealing it without a replacement. > > (Incidentally, IIRC many of the "officer perks" that Yachay is talking > about elsethread were intentionally added a few years ago, during a > time when there was no functional economy, as an attempt to give the > officers some sort of reward – because there was nothing economic to > reward them with, we needed to use some sort of more direct reward > instead. Some of them are still around nowadays, like the Gray Ribbon.) > > -- > ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemaster) Solidarity
Technically you need to "consent" to having your "Signature" on a "Rice Plan", but given how lenient consent rules are (Rule 2519, point 4 especially), I believe this and the others like it are fine. It just needs to be "reasonably clear from context". I think it's a great advantage that the consent rules have, for general playability. I'm going to assume that this and others like it are valid ways to give Signatures on Rice Plans, when I eventually post my report as Ricemastor. On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 6:46 PM Beokirby via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 2023-05-19 1:33 AM, Katie Davenport via agora-business wrote: > > I create and consent to the following rice plan. > > > > [ > > Rice Up: [inalienableWright, beokirby, blob] > > Rice Down: [ ] > > ] > > > > -inalienableWright (Katie) > I consent to this list >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 09:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora- > discussion wrote: > > With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your > > Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall needing > > a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem. > > So offer that as a package? In my experience, when things are taken > away with the promise of new things to be added later, those things > stay taken away, and the new things never arrive. I sometimes feel like half my arguing at Agora is dedicated to trying to persuade people not to repeal the economy. It rarely works, and the consequence is that most of the time we don't have a functional economy. (Having a history of the economy being repealed is *also* a problem because it makes it harder to get a new economy off the ground – why invest if you think that everything is likely going to end up repealed again in the future?) I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen, and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against repealing it without a replacement. (Incidentally, IIRC many of the "officer perks" that Yachay is talking about elsethread were intentionally added a few years ago, during a time when there was no functional economy, as an attempt to give the officers some sort of reward – because there was nothing economic to reward them with, we needed to use some sort of more direct reward instead. Some of them are still around nowadays, like the Gray Ribbon.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:43 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > I don't intend to design an economy, because I don't think I'm competent > enough to do so. I'll try to contribute where I can, though. > Ah, the typical take-away power with a promise, but an unfulfilled one. No worries. Power grabs are fine with me, but let's not cloak it as some kind of "I'm doing this altruistically to solve a bigger design problem." -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemaster) Solidarity
On 2023-05-19 1:33 AM, Katie Davenport via agora-business wrote: I create and consent to the following rice plan. [ Rice Up: [inalienableWright, beokirby, blob] Rice Down: [ ] ] -inalienableWright (Katie) I consent to this list
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
I don't intend to design an economy, because I don't think I'm competent enough to do so. I'll try to contribute where I can, though. On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 6:40 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > wrote: > > With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your > > Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall > needing > > a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem. > > So offer that as a package? In my experience, when things are taken > away with the promise of new things to be added later, those things > stay taken away, and the new things never arrive. > > -G. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
Most newer players aren't going to know how to navigate the game and competently use mechanics like Stones or Dreams (I still don't know how Stones are meant to work). And even then, there's an opportunity cost in it all. A player that already is well-off can afford to use their Dream for things other than the Wealth one, a new, poor one, has to make a much harder choice. But, yes, this would nerf Voting Strength bonuses across the board, which aligns with my intent of wanting to equalize it all. On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 6:28 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/19/23 11:26, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > But, no. I don't think that any player deserves ~4 times the voting > > strength of a newbie, regardless of the reason. I want other players to > be > > able to play nomic, especially newbies, and they need a relevant amount > of > > voting strength in order to do so. I want them to matter. > To be clear, being an officer only gives you at most twice as much. The > players with more than that have more because of things unrelated to > having an office, like the Power Stone and dream. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your > Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall needing > a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem. So offer that as a package? In my experience, when things are taken away with the promise of new things to be added later, those things stay taken away, and the new things never arrive. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On 5/19/23 11:26, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: But, no. I don't think that any player deserves ~4 times the voting strength of a newbie, regardless of the reason. I want other players to be able to play nomic, especially newbies, and they need a relevant amount of voting strength in order to do so. I want them to matter. To be clear, being an officer only gives you at most twice as much. The players with more than that have more because of things unrelated to having an office, like the Power Stone and dream. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5:51 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > > Let's give everyone a more equal chance to be relevant. > > > > > So right now, Officers' only reward is increased voting strength (I > believe), and the game is growing with lots of new players so > officers' work is getting harder. Yes, and as a (new) Officer, I'm aware of that. Fortunately, other offices have other advantages. The Tailor can arbitrarily hand out Gray Ribbons, the Assessor gets an exceptional first-move advantage on scamming new rules, the Arbitor can subtly but significantly mold the whole game itself through interpretation by fudging who gets which CfJ. Other offices get other similar advantages through their own special actions, some, like Ricemastor (which only tracks and has no special actions of its own), arguably gets none of that kind. But *even then*, they still get ribbon benefits as well (eg. Green, Emerald; which may not be attractive for the hyper-veterans, but they are still benefits which may motivate newer players and serve as 'payment' still, like myself). None of those things would change. > And of course, an influx of new > players *already* dilutes that strength. What do you have in mind to > compensate for their time & effort if you nerf their only benefit? > > -G. > It's curious that you'd take that position. But, no. I don't think that any player deserves ~4 times the voting strength of a newbie, regardless of the reason. I want other players to be able to play nomic, especially newbies, and they need a relevant amount of voting strength in order to do so. I want them to matter. With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall needing a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5:51 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > > > Let's give everyone a more equal chance to be relevant. > > So right now, Officers' only reward is increased voting strength (I believe), and the game is growing with lots of new players so officers' work is getting harder. And of course, an influx of new players *already* dilutes that strength. What do you have in mind to compensate for their time & effort if you nerf their only benefit? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8980-8984
On 5/19/23 03:45, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: 8981~ Janet, nix 2.0 Stone fixes PRESENT for now, I haven't studied those rules yet Well, the gist of the intended change is that some of the stones say their own name in their effects, when it'd be better to say "this stone". For instance, the Soul Stone says to swap The Soul Stone for a specified stone. The problem is the Recursion Stone can act like the Soul Stone, but because of the wording it would move the Soul Stone around instead of itself. Changing soul stone to say something to the effect of 'swap this stone with the specified stone' makes the Recursion Stone operate normally. Unfortunately, there's a typo in the proposal that breaks something else. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 2:08 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following two Proposals:
>
> Title: Democratization (low AI version)
> AI: 1
> Author: Yachay
> Co-Authors: None
> /*Comment: I'm fine with rewarding officers and such with more voting
> power, but it seems obscene to me when certain players can have almost four
> (4!!!) times the voting power of a newbie. It's too greedy, too
> controlling, too much.
>
> Let's give everyone a more equal chance to be relevant.
>
> This is a low AI version. Amending the rule that gives players the default
> 3 Voting Strength would require a AI-3 Proposal, which seems difficult to
> pass or at least, it would be very easy to block.*/
>
> If the Proposal named "Democratization (high AI version)" is ADOPTED, then
> this Proposal does nothing. Otherwise:
>
> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Democratization" that says:
>
> {Each player has their voting strength increased by 5.}
>
Unfortunately, voting Strength is secured at power=2.
>
>
> Title: Democratization (high AI version)
> AI: 3
> Author: Yachay
> Co-Authors: None
> /*Comment: I'm fine with rewarding officers and such with more voting
> power, but it seems obscene to me when certain players can have almost four
> (4!!!) times the voting power of a newbie. It's too greedy, too
> controlling, too much.
>
> Let's give everyone a more equal chance to be relevant.
>
> This is the high AI version. This is tidier, as it keeps it all in the same
> rule, but it would be harder to pass/easier to block because of its
> enormous AI requirement.*/
>
> If the Proposal named "Democratization (low AI version)" is ADOPTED, then
> this Proposal does nothing. Otherwise:
>
> Amend the first paragraph of Rule 2422 (Power 3) to read in full:
>
> {The voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision is an integer
> between 0 and 15 inclusive, defined by rules of power 2 or greater. If not
> otherwise specified, the voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision
> is 8.}
>
(Personally, I'd rather just split the difference with a power=2 rule than
to modify such a high power rule to do the same thing)
--
4st
Referee
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Strengths for Proposals 8965-8970
Holy shit that's a lot of voting power On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 6:52 AM Janet Cobb via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > STRENGTHS FOR PROPOSAL 8965 > === > > Strengths for person G. > --- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Arbitor > > Strengths for person Aspen > -- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > > Strengths for person 4st > > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Referee > > Strengths for person Janet > -- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > 8 | Increased by 3 due to Power Stone > 11 | Complexity bonus for offices Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason; > clamped to 3 > > Strengths for person Murphy > --- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Complexity bonus for offices ADoP, Tailor > > Strengths for person snail > -- > 3 | Initial > 6 | Complexity bonus for offices Collector, Dream Keeper, Notary, > Promotor, Speaker; clamped to 3 > > Strengths for person omd > > 3 | Initial > > Strengths for person nix > > 3 | Initial > 6 | Complexity bonus for offices Herald, Prime Minister, Webmastor > > Strengths for person juan > - > 3 | Initial > 4 | Complexity bonus for offices Registrar > > STRENGTHS FOR PROPOSAL 8966 > === > > STRENGTHS FOR PROPOSAL 8967 > === > > Strengths for person G. > --- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Arbitor > > Strengths for person Aspen > -- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > > Strengths for person 4st > > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Referee > > Strengths for person Janet > -- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > 8 | Increased by 3 due to Power Stone > 11 | Complexity bonus for offices Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason; > clamped to 3 > > Strengths for person Murphy > --- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Complexity bonus for offices ADoP, Tailor > > Strengths for person snail > -- > 3 | Initial > 6 | Complexity bonus for offices Collector, Dream Keeper, Notary, > Promotor, Speaker; clamped to 3 > > Strengths for person omd > > 3 | Initial > > Strengths for person nix > > 3 | Initial > 6 | Complexity bonus for offices Herald, Prime Minister, Webmastor > > Strengths for person juan > - > 3 | Initial > 4 | Complexity bonus for offices Registrar > > STRENGTHS FOR PROPOSAL 8968 > === > > Strengths for person G. > --- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Arbitor > > Strengths for person Aspen > -- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > > Strengths for person 4st > > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Referee > > Strengths for person Janet > -- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > 8 | Increased by 3 due to Power Stone > 11 | Complexity bonus for offices Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason; > clamped to 3 > > Strengths for person Murphy > --- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Complexity bonus for offices ADoP, Tailor > > Strengths for person snail > -- > 3 | Initial > 6 | Complexity bonus for offices Collector, Dream Keeper, Notary, > Promotor, Speaker; clamped to 3 > > Strengths for person omd > > 3 | Initial > > Strengths for person nix > > 3 | Initial > 6 | Complexity bonus for offices Herald, Prime Minister, Webmastor > > Strengths for person juan > - > 3 | Initial > 4 | Complexity bonus for offices Registrar > > STRENGTHS FOR PROPOSAL 8969 > === > > Strengths for person G. > --- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Arbitor > > Strengths for person Aspen > -- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > > Strengths for person 4st > > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > 7 | Complexity bonus for offices Referee > > Strengths for person Janet > -- > 3 | Initial > 5 | Increased by 2 due to Dream of Power > 8 | Increased by 3 due to Power Stone > 11 | Complexity bonus for offices Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemaso
