Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Promise anti-escalation
This has been the best possible outcome
lør. 20. mai 2023, 11:07 p.m. skrev Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>:
> On 5/21/23 01:59, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I counter by instead submitting the following proposal:
> >
> > {Adoption index = 3
> >
> > [Stop making small changes to fix things. This security issue happens all
> > the time.]
>
>
> Exactly what non-small change would you want here? Your proposal is
> "small", too. This is really getting annoying.
>
>
> > Enact the following rule:"By default and unless otherwise specified,
> > assets, switches, and eir properties are secured at the power level of
> the
> > rule that defines them."}
>
>
> First, NttPF.
>
> Second, you've put the "adoption index" inside the text of the proposal.
>
> Third, why is this in a new rule? There's a perfectly good rule this can
> go into (R1688).
>
> Fourth, there are likely to be breakages, and I find it unlikely you
> audited the entire ruleset for things that might break.
>
> Fifth, when things inevitably do break, how would they be fixed? In all
> likelihood, more small proposals, fixing them piecewise as they're
> found. This isn't preventing "small changes" at all.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Promise anti-escalation
On 5/21/23 01:59, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> I counter by instead submitting the following proposal:
>
> {Adoption index = 3
>
> [Stop making small changes to fix things. This security issue happens all
> the time.]
Exactly what non-small change would you want here? Your proposal is
"small", too. This is really getting annoying.
> Enact the following rule:"By default and unless otherwise specified,
> assets, switches, and eir properties are secured at the power level of the
> rule that defines them."}
First, NttPF.
Second, you've put the "adoption index" inside the text of the proposal.
Third, why is this in a new rule? There's a perfectly good rule this can
go into (R1688).
Fourth, there are likely to be breakages, and I find it unlikely you
audited the entire ruleset for things that might break.
Fifth, when things inevitably do break, how would they be fixed? In all
likelihood, more small proposals, fixing them piecewise as they're
found. This isn't preventing "small changes" at all.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Promise anti-escalation
I counter by instead submitting the following proposal:
{Adoption index = 3
[Stop making small changes to fix things. This security issue happens all
the time.]
Enact the following rule:"By default and unless otherwise specified,
assets, switches, and eir properties are secured at the power level of the
rule that defines them."}
Re: DIS: (Proto) Raybots
On 5/20/23 23:30, Janet Cobb wrote:
>> 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.]
> What happens to such promises when the Raybot ceases to exist?
>
>
Actually, in general persons ceasing to exist is likely to cause
problems, and the current ruleset is careful to avoid it (R869/51's "is
or ever was"; you remain an Agoran person after you die).
I'm not sure there's a good solution here. Having disabled Raybots just
sit around doing nothing isn't ideal. Auditing the whole ruleset for
issues caused by this is probably good to do anyway but error-prone (and
future proposals are reasonably likely to introduce new problems).
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: (Proto) Raybots
On 5/18/23 23:51, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> 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.
May want to say "Immediately after a Raybot is created, eir Citizenship
switch is set to...", just to avoid the fencepost issue?
> Motivation is an untracked Raybot switch whose possible values are
> texts, and whose default value is "I deregister."
I'm not sure this exactly matters, but this promise wouldn't be
resolvable since deregistration on behalf is prohibited.
> 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.
May want to add a RttCN clause to the support/objection prohibition.
Also, this should probably add a large fixed decrease to voting strength
to ensure it really stays 0 (which we may also want to do for festivals,
come to think of it).
Here's the list of zombie prohibitions as of its repeal:
> The master of a zombie CAN act on behalf of em, except a master
> CANNOT act on behalf of a zombie to:
> - initiate, support, object to, or perform a dependent action;
> - act on behalf of that zombie's zombies;
> - bid in a zombie auction;
> - enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement;
> - initiate a Call for Judgement;
> - create blots;
> - deregister.
> Players SHALL NOT cause Raybots to perform ILLEGAL actions.
This turns any infraction into a class-2 infraction if it can be done
through a Raybot.
> 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.]
What happens to such promises when the Raybot ceases to exist?
> 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 that much
> radiance to a specified Raybot.
> }}}
"non-Raybot"? Also, this arguably makes a Raybot directly transferring
to another Raybot ambiguous, as there are two methods that could be used
(even if they do the same thing).
> In rule 2659, amend
> {{{
> For each person there is a corresponding type of stamp.
> }}}
> to
> {{{
> For each non-Raybot person there is a corresponding type of stamp.
> }}}
What happens if a stamp would be created of a Raybot's type (e.g. if it
had the Wealth dream)? Might be cleaner to continuously destroy stamps
of Raybot type instead.
> {{{
> Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps, where N is the current number of
> active players and each specified Stamp is of a different type.
> }}}
> to
> {{{
> Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps, where N is the current number of
> active non-Raybot players and each specified Stamp is of a different
> type.
> }}}
> [Prevent Raybots from being counting towards Stamp victories, as they
> would badly unbalance them if created in number.]
>
Just for defense-in-depth, "each specified Stamp is of a different
non-Raybot type"?
> I'm interested in feedback about both the general idea, and the wording
> of the proposal to implement it. I am encouraged that, despite being an
> apparently major mechanic, it doesn't add much text to the rules,
> because it's mostly building on what's there at the moment.
>
I'm not sure that I want this gameplay, though I agree that it's
interesting. (This is "I'm legitimately undecided", not "I weakly think
I don't want
Re: DIS: (Proto) Raybots
I dig this idea; the idea of being able to set up limited-purpose
Radiance automata is very fun, and I feel like it will almost certainly
give rise to some absolutely wild stuff. I do also like that Raybots can
create other Raybots (though the identical motivation proviso means that
you'd need to get creative to be able to have that work on any sort of
scale). That could get used to give a Raybot effectively infinite
radiance (I think, with the way that promises are structured, that you
could have a Raybot create a second Raybot that promises to give all its
radiance to the first bot, then cash that promise), but again, having
the Raybot's full capabilities be public from the jump should prevent
that from being too much of a problem.
On 5/18/2023 11:51 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion 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 co
Re: DIS: Rice plans?
Ah, okay. Thanks!
Re: DIS: Proto - Labor Tokens
Here's a go at incorporating all these thoughts: = Proto: Human Resources v0.02 AI: 2 Retitle Rule 2632 (Complexity) to "Office Worth". Amend Rule 2632 to read in full: Complexity is a natural office switch reflecting how complex it is to fulfill the duties of its office. It has a default of 10 and a maximum value of 40. Perkiness is a natural office switch reflecting the degree of game advantage an officer might legally realize through discretionary choices made during the exercise of eir office. It has a default of 0 and a maximum value of 40. The Worth of an office is its Complexity minus its Perkiness, with a minimum of 0. The ADoP tracks Complexity and Perkiness, and CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip the Complexity or Perkiness (or both simultaneously) of an office to specified possible values. [I translated the current 0-3 range to 0-40 instead of 0-30, because if we go with weekly rewards like setting dreams, the maximum could be scaled to earning that ability 4 weeks of the month with a 40 Unit payout] BE IT RESOLVED: The complexity of each office is hereby set to 10 times the complexity of that office as defined immediately before this proposal took effect. BE IT RESOLVED: The ADoP is hereby PETITIONED to lead a discussion on appropriate values for Perkiness for each office, and to then set perkinessess as able via the tabled action process and as guided by the discussion. Enact the following Rule, Wages. Labor Tokens are a fixed currency tracked by the ADoP, with ownership entirely restricted to Players. Each time a player performs an Act of Labor, the [officer or self- service?] associated with the condition CAN once by announcement, and SHALL in an officially timely fashion, grant the associated number of labor tokens to the player. Below is a list of Acts of Labor, their associated office, and number of labor tokens: * Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that publication was the first report published for that office in the relevant time period (week or month respectively) to fulfill an official weekly or monthly duty: 1 labor token times the worth of the office (ADoP). * Resolving a referendum, provided that no other referendum had been resolved earlier in that Agoran week: 1 labor token times the worth of the office of Assessor (ADoP). * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time limit to do so, unless at the time of judgement the case was open due to self-filing a motion to reconsider it: 4 labor tokens (Arbitor). [The language above is from when we rewarded tasks via Coins, which is reasonably well tested in terms of equating relative effort of different tasks. In terms of absolute amounts there's bound to be a bunch of tweaking/discussion before the next draft...] Enact a Rule, Daydreams, with Power=2 and the following text: A player CAN daydream, specifying a dream, for a fee of 10 labor tokens. If exactly one wandering has occurred since a player last daydreamed, that player is subject to the effects of having eir dream set to eir last specified daydream, in addition to being subject to any effects of eir current dream. [that "subject to the effects of ... in addition to any effects" is hopefully clear in intent, though may need some technical wordsmithing either here or on a per-dream basis in order to function.] [On purpose, this doesn't stack - one bonus daydream per wandering is the max buy.] [Needs to be power=2 because it enables a voting strength bonus.] [Just noticed the "If exactly one wandering has occurred" has a bit of a bug if a player daydreams on two successive weeks - noting that for later.] TODO: add Labor Token Decay to one of the above rule texts. =
Re: DIS: Proto - Labor Tokens
On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 4:22 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I like the overall idea! Some comments: > > On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 4:24 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > Labor Tokens are a fixed asset, tracked by the (ADoP?). > I could see either fixed or liquid working here, though on first read > I agree with you on fixed, as it limits how transactional this could > be. OTOH, in the bigger picture using labor as the basis of a trading > economy makes a lot of sense too. > > Labor Tokens could support an economy I suppose (as long as there's a reasonable way for the unemployed non-officers to get significant amounts of Labor Tokens as well) but my intent is that Labor Tokens is a safe little bubble that can ensure payment to officers regardless of what's happening outside of it. It is intended to be agnostic. But, it's just a matter of aesthetics in the end, I suppose; because we can just amend anything to anything else. > > Professionals CAN > Maybe include judges as professionals - a reward for judging of some kind? > That seems OK to me, sure. > by announcement gain once per month an amount of Labor Tokens equal to the > > complexity of eir Office times ten, with that amount being affected > Should a person get tokens if they hold an office very briefly? One > way we did it before was like a salary: "If a player held an office > for 16+ days in the previous month, and was not found guilty of any > unforgivable crimes associated with eir office during that month, e > CAN gain..." Another option we used before was "N Labor tokens per > report published". > I like a lot the N Labor Tokens per report published idea. I like how proportional it would make the rewards. > > multiplicatively by the following: > > - x0.85 if the Office has a Special Privilege > Rather than scaling by privilege, maybe combine the concepts under > complexity? (turn "complexity" into "wage" and make it equal to > complexity minus privilege level). Overall this "privilege" idea is a > bit uncertain for me - what looks like a perk from the outside (e.g. > Assessor's duties) is not really a useful thing that often. But if we > use the idea, the privileges definitely aren't equal so making it > binary seems pretty coarse. If we go with the "wage" of using > (complexity - privilege), the level of privilege for each office could > be subject to consensus discussion, like complexity was/is, or > (complexity - privilege) could be just discussed as a whole. > Yeah, I think that's a good idea. > - x1.5 if the Officer hasn't committed any Monthly or Weekly Tardiness > > crimes since they last gained Labor Tokens or became the current holder > of > > their Office. > The tardiness part should probably not be platonic, the ADoP/other > players shouldn't need to look for unnoticed crimes? Alternatively, > if the reward level is scaled by number of reports/making reports, > this takes care of itself without being entangled with the justice > system. > Yeah, the number of reports thing seems to work better than this. > If a certain Labor Token has existed for more than 2 months, any player > CAN > > destroy it by announcement and are ENCOURAGED to. > This means Labor Tokens aren't fungible and the recordkeepor would > have to track every one separately - and the user would have to > remember to specify "spend the older tokens not the newer ones". > Seems like more complication than it's worth? Though I wholly agree > we don't want endless accumulation of these things - maybe some kind > of quarterly reduction, taxes, or forced handsize reduction like: "if > a player has more than N tokens, any player CAN spend them on that > player's behalf with Notice, and the ADoP is ENCOURAGED to do so" or > something. > I think the forced handsize reduction is probably good, or perhaps there is just a strict limit of how many Labor Tokens (as a fixed asset) you can own at any time. > > If, for some reason, Officers cannot be reasonably retributed in Labor > > Tokens, players are ENCOURAGED to propose ways to amend it so that they > are. > We've often talked about awarding people for one-off jobs (example: > anyone could offer a major contribution to the website). Maybe a pool > of tokens that could be awarded by some kind of Tabled Action for > specific labors (this might be an add-on expansion for a later > proposal). > I think this can be good too. Maybe a 'Bounty' for X Tokens can be created with Y support/consent/something, and Bounties are tracked by the... ADoP? Hopefully this isn't all too much for them. > > Labor Tokens can be spent by announcement for the following benefits: > > - "Voting Strength", for 10 Labor Tokens: The Officer gains 1 Voting > > Strength for the next 30 days. > > - "Blot Removal", for X Labor Tokens: The Officer, upon purchasing this > > benefit, also expunges X blots from a person. > > - "Subgame benefit X", for X Labor Tokens:
Re: Very Proto Economy (Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization_
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:07 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > - 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. I like the idea of making Proposing a focus (or in a simple modification, make it a Dream with a similar level of pending-ability to the expunging dream). But I'll admit I'm a bit burned out on "mix and match set trading" as an economic basis (fine with it as a pure subgame like the current stamps). I'm leaning more towards the 'labor tokens' idea of personal but non-tradable specialization (e.g. everyone gets one focus/dream, and doing labors can give you the limited ability to have a second focus/dream at the same time). -G.
Re: DIS: Proto - Labor Tokens
I like the overall idea! Some comments: On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 4:24 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > Labor Tokens are a fixed asset, tracked by the (ADoP?). I could see either fixed or liquid working here, though on first read I agree with you on fixed, as it limits how transactional this could be. OTOH, in the bigger picture using labor as the basis of a trading economy makes a lot of sense too. > Professionals CAN Maybe include judges as professionals - a reward for judging of some kind? > by announcement gain once per month an amount of Labor Tokens equal to the > complexity of eir Office times ten, with that amount being affected Should a person get tokens if they hold an office very briefly? One way we did it before was like a salary: "If a player held an office for 16+ days in the previous month, and was not found guilty of any unforgivable crimes associated with eir office during that month, e CAN gain..." Another option we used before was "N Labor tokens per report published". > multiplicatively by the following: > - x0.85 if the Office has a Special Privilege Rather than scaling by privilege, maybe combine the concepts under complexity? (turn "complexity" into "wage" and make it equal to complexity minus privilege level). Overall this "privilege" idea is a bit uncertain for me - what looks like a perk from the outside (e.g. Assessor's duties) is not really a useful thing that often. But if we use the idea, the privileges definitely aren't equal so making it binary seems pretty coarse. If we go with the "wage" of using (complexity - privilege), the level of privilege for each office could be subject to consensus discussion, like complexity was/is, or (complexity - privilege) could be just discussed as a whole. > - x1.5 if the Officer hasn't committed any Monthly or Weekly Tardiness > crimes since they last gained Labor Tokens or became the current holder of > their Office. The tardiness part should probably not be platonic, the ADoP/other players shouldn't need to look for unnoticed crimes? Alternatively, if the reward level is scaled by number of reports/making reports, this takes care of itself without being entangled with the justice system. > If a certain Labor Token has existed for more than 2 months, any player CAN > destroy it by announcement and are ENCOURAGED to. This means Labor Tokens aren't fungible and the recordkeepor would have to track every one separately - and the user would have to remember to specify "spend the older tokens not the newer ones". Seems like more complication than it's worth? Though I wholly agree we don't want endless accumulation of these things - maybe some kind of quarterly reduction, taxes, or forced handsize reduction like: "if a player has more than N tokens, any player CAN spend them on that player's behalf with Notice, and the ADoP is ENCOURAGED to do so" or something. > If, for some reason, Officers cannot be reasonably retributed in Labor > Tokens, players are ENCOURAGED to propose ways to amend it so that they are. We've often talked about awarding people for one-off jobs (example: anyone could offer a major contribution to the website). Maybe a pool of tokens that could be awarded by some kind of Tabled Action for specific labors (this might be an add-on expansion for a later proposal). > Labor Tokens can be spent by announcement for the following benefits: > - "Voting Strength", for 10 Labor Tokens: The Officer gains 1 Voting > Strength for the next 30 days. > - "Blot Removal", for X Labor Tokens: The Officer, upon purchasing this > benefit, also expunges X blots from a person. > - "Subgame benefit X", for X Labor Tokens: You gain X Gold, X Men-At-Arms > and X Large Burritos. > - etc We already have two "bonus power" systems, Stones and Dreams. Adding a third entirely parallel system seems duplicative, not to mention having to go through the scaling exercise of how many tokens per each power and keep that up to date with subgames. Could save a lot of effort by leveraging an existing system? For example, if we assume the Dreams are balanced so as to be about equal, a simple solution may be that by paying some N of Labor Tokens, the payer can have the benefits of a second Dream during the following week? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
I do agree with that Officers should be rewarded somehow, but my main issue here is how the democracy is run, not Officer rewards. Maybe we could keep those rewards somehow without any nerfs while limiting or nerfing other things? I've attempted a "Officer salary" proto, anyways. I'm also sorry if I got too negative On Friday, May 19, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 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. >
DIS: Proto - Labor Tokens
I'd love to hear your thoughts and opinions on this proto Proposal text. The Xs are just placeholders. I believe that a big Pro to this is how it should ensure fair payment to officers (with some tinkering with the numbers and values) even if there is no real economy going on, but a Con is how it adds more bureaucracy. /*This intends to standardize officer rewards, as well as give Officers choice in how they want to be recompensated, so that they can be paid in something that they actually value. For example, some Officers may value higher voting strength, but others might just not care as much about that and would prefer something else instead in order to feel rewarded. This also would help ensure that Officers continue being paid even if there is no clear economic scheme for the game, or even some kind of crisis, by giving them the option to take placeholder tokens that can be exchanged for benefits later on. Although there is a limit to how many tokens you can save up to prevent stockpiling problems, problems such as situations where the presence of a stockpile of tokens is leveraged (without spending them) rather than spending the tokens themselves. The Special Privilege thing is intended to recognize that some Officers have special, unique actions that others just don't get to have and that these should be seen as a sort of reward/payment for holding the Office as well (the Gray Ribbon is an obvious one, the Assessor's unique ability to resolve Proposals - which are central to any nomic - is circumstantially extremely powerful, etc)*/ Create a new rule called "Human Resources" at power X with the following content: If an Officer has held eir Office for more than 30 days, that Officer is a Professional. Officers with a Special Privilege are the following: Tailor, Prime Minister, Assessor, Arbitor. Labor Tokens are a fixed asset, tracked by the (ADoP?). Professionals CAN by announcement gain once per month an amount of Labor Tokens equal to the complexity of eir Office times ten, with that amount being affected multiplicatively by the following: - x0.85 if the Office has a Special Privilege - x1.5 if the Officer hasn't committed any Monthly or Weekly Tardiness crimes since they last gained Labor Tokens or became the current holder of their Office. If a certain Labor Token has existed for more than 2 months, any player CAN destroy it by announcement and are ENCOURAGED to. If, for some reason, Officers cannot be reasonably retributed in Labor Tokens, players are ENCOURAGED to propose ways to amend it so that they are. Labor Tokens can be spent by announcement for the following benefits: - "Voting Strength", for 10 Labor Tokens: The Officer gains 1 Voting Strength for the next 30 days. - "Blot Removal", for X Labor Tokens: The Officer, upon purchasing this benefit, also expunges X blots from a person. - "Subgame benefit X", for X Labor Tokens: You gain X Gold, X Men-At-Arms and X Large Burritos. - etc
