DIS: [Proto-Proposal] Bang!
I came up with this idea for a simple officerless subgame: would anyone be
interested in playing it? If not, what modifications would make it
interesting?
{{{
Title: A friendly game
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-author(s):
Enact the following rule with title "Bang!" and the following text:
{
Bangs are a currency.
Vitality is an untracked player Switch with possible values of Alive or
Unalive (default).
Each player SHOULD list eir Vitality and Bang Balance in all eir messages.
Any player CAN publish a report of all Bang Balances and Vitalities. Such a
purported report is self-ratifying, and SHOULD be made as needed.
Each Alive player CAN eliminate another specified player by paying a fee of
1 bang. Eliminating a player makes em Unalive, and grants em 1 bang.
Any Alive player CAN Capture the Flag by announcement, if there are no
other players that are Alive. When a player Captures the Flag, e wins the
game. If a player won the game in this manner 4 days ago, then the match is
reset.
When the match is reset, each player is set to Alive, all bangs are
destroyed, and then each player gains 1 bang.
When 14 days have passed since a player was last eliminated, the match
resets, and then each player that was alive immediately before the match
reset gains 1 bang.
}
Amend Rule 2499 (Welcome Packages) to read in full:
{
A Welcome Package is a set of assets containing:
* 1 Stamp of eir own type
* 1 Bang, if e is Unalive
Any player CAN, by announcement, grant a Welcome Package to any
player if the grantee has neither received one since e last
registered nor in the last 30 days.
}
The match is hereby reset.
}}}
--
snail
DIS: Re: BUS: Change of email [attn. Registrar]
Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-05-22 15:41]: > I change my Agoran email to janet.agora@unspecified.systems -- juan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 1:14 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> Actually, I was asked by ais523 to add to a CfJ a clarification on
> something, a 'sub-Judgement' of a sort.
>
> Would've it been possible for me to, for example, Judge TRUE, but also add
> a sub-Judgement that from here on, we should play according to the
> interpretation that would make it FALSE (that is, that you can only anoint
> once)? Like that, we would avoid the blindside issue, but also end up with
> the newer interpretation established.
That would be a first AFAIK. In disambiguating a specific piece of
rules text, I don't think we've ever done "it meant X up to this
moment but means Y after this". The one exception being whether
something is common knowledge ("this CFJ has discussed the matter to
death so if it wasn't common knowledge before, it sure is now").
Instead we do "it meant X and we are now changing it to Y via changing
the rules text."
I'm not saying it can't be done. It can be a standard practice in
casual board gaming ("we played that way for 2 turns but then someone
googled the errata so let's switch now") but it would be a fairly big
cultural shift which I'm just guessing would be a real hard sell for
any potential Moot voters via a single CFJ?
-G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] Weekly Commune Report
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:23 PM nix via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Events Worth Note > = > Red merged both Dynamite (when 4st placed E3). > > 4st gained 1 accolade for Dynamite. > > Red merged Amber (when ais523 placed F3). > > Nobody gained accolades for Amber (it was size 2 and there were 6 total > investments, gaining 1 accolade would requiring owning 3 investments, > which no one had). > > > Board State > === > > A B C D E F G H I J > +---+ > 0|• • • • • • • • • O|0 > 1|• • • • • • • • O O|1 > 2|• • • • R • • G • •|2 > 3|• • • • R R R • • •|3 > 4|• • R R R • • • • •|4 > 5|• • • • • • • • • •|5 > 6|• • • E • • • • • •|6 > 7|• • • • • • • J J J|7 > 8|• • • • • • • • • •|8 > 9|• • • • • • • • • •|9 > +---+ > A B C D E F G H I J > > • - Empty > E - Emerald > G - Green > J - Jade > O - Olive > R - Red > > Current Holdings > > > 4st > --- > Constructors (L,M,R): E, 2, 3 > Tokens: D, 3, E, 2, 3 > Investments: Green > Accolades: 1 > This is the second time Dynamite has been merged: I should now have 2 accolades? -- 4st Referee Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On 5/22/23 15:14, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Would've it been possible for me to, for example, Judge TRUE, but also add > a sub-Judgement that from here on, we should play according to the > interpretation that would make it FALSE (that is, that you can only anoint > once)? Like that, we would avoid the blindside issue, but also end up with > the newer interpretation established. It's difficult to see how the internal logic of the CFJ would be self-consistent here, and even tho I want a different result I don't really want to do encourage so strongly "results motivated" reasoning. I think what would be best would be awarding ais523 some sort of alternate reward by proposal. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
Actually, I was asked by ais523 to add to a CfJ a clarification on
something, a 'sub-Judgement' of a sort.
Would've it been possible for me to, for example, Judge TRUE, but also add
a sub-Judgement that from here on, we should play according to the
interpretation that would make it FALSE (that is, that you can only anoint
once)? Like that, we would avoid the blindside issue, but also end up with
the newer interpretation established.
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:51 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:44 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but wouldn't certain CfJs be likely to enter into Moot Tennis if we
> > don't take the opinion of the majority as a tiebreaker as Judges? We can
> > keep going back and forth with Moots, because 2+N Support seems fairly
> easy
> > to pull off.
> >
> > How is the Moot Tennis supposed to end?
>
> If a Moot ends up being really close/split, the best thing is to fix
> it by voting on legislation (a proposal) that clarifies it absolutely
> one way or the other. Including possibly by-proposal saying that
> ais523 wins even if the "clarification" goes in the opposite way
> overall. Of course, if the clarification has to be made in an power
> 2+ rule, you could get a situation whether neither side can pass a
> clarification in their direction. So far, we've managed to eke out a
> compromise in the rare rare times that has happened.
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > > CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to
> > > solve
> > > > a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
> > > > (...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
> > > > applying my own personal opinion.
> > > >
> > > > But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my
> reasons
> > > > for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could
> become
> > > > customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in
> > > that
> > > > way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if
> it
> > > > doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for
> delivering
> > > > judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule
> 911
> > > > and Moots exist.
> > >
> > >
> > > If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot
> > > of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is
> > > diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case
> is
> > > the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the
> > > arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can
> > > make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the
> > > majority has motions and moots to deal with it.
> > >
> > > If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Janet Cobb
> > >
> > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> > >
> > >
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:44 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Yes, but wouldn't certain CfJs be likely to enter into Moot Tennis if we
> don't take the opinion of the majority as a tiebreaker as Judges? We can
> keep going back and forth with Moots, because 2+N Support seems fairly easy
> to pull off.
>
> How is the Moot Tennis supposed to end?
If a Moot ends up being really close/split, the best thing is to fix
it by voting on legislation (a proposal) that clarifies it absolutely
one way or the other. Including possibly by-proposal saying that
ais523 wins even if the "clarification" goes in the opposite way
overall. Of course, if the clarification has to be made in an power
2+ rule, you could get a situation whether neither side can pass a
clarification in their direction. So far, we've managed to eke out a
compromise in the rare rare times that has happened.
-G.
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to
> > solve
> > > a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
> > > (...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
> > > applying my own personal opinion.
> > >
> > > But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons
> > > for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become
> > > customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in
> > that
> > > way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it
> > > doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering
> > > judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911
> > > and Moots exist.
> >
> >
> > If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot
> > of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is
> > diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case is
> > the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the
> > arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can
> > make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the
> > majority has motions and moots to deal with it.
> >
> > If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it.
> >
> > --
> > Janet Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >
> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On 5/22/23 15:44, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Yes, but wouldn't certain CfJs be likely to enter into Moot Tennis if we > don't take the opinion of the majority as a tiebreaker as Judges? We can > keep going back and forth with Moots, because 2+N Support seems fairly easy > to pull off. > > How is the Moot Tennis supposed to end? The Arbitor knows what e's doing and doesn't want endless moots either. For moots ending in REMIT, e can pick someone that will end the controversy. If there's still sustained disagreement, the CFJ process has failed to establish consensus and something else (a proposal) is needed. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
Yes, but wouldn't certain CfJs be likely to enter into Moot Tennis if we
don't take the opinion of the majority as a tiebreaker as Judges? We can
keep going back and forth with Moots, because 2+N Support seems fairly easy
to pull off.
How is the Moot Tennis supposed to end?
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to
> solve
> > a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
> > (...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
> > applying my own personal opinion.
> >
> > But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons
> > for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become
> > customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in
> that
> > way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it
> > doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering
> > judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911
> > and Moots exist.
>
>
> If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot
> of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is
> diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case is
> the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the
> arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can
> make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the
> majority has motions and moots to deal with it.
>
> If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: (@4st, G., Surveyor) Re: BUS: [Surveyor] Weekly Commune Report
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg44824.html I granted myself a 2 token via this message prior to making the trade? On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:11 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/15/23 11:52, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > > I accept a trade offer by ais523: I give em a 2 token, I take a G token. > > You did not have a 2 token at this time, no trade happened. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > > -- 4st Referee Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: OFF: [@all] Confirming birthdays
1996, wow On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:10 PM juan via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > I have compiled every player's birthday according to the records. But, > just in case, I'd love for y'all to take a look and tell me if yours > (or elseplayer's) is wrong. Thanks. > > 1996-01-23 Murphy > 2023-02-06 tb148 > 2022-03-14 juan > 2021-03-16 cuddlybanana > 2023-03-16 Yachay > 2008-04-28 ais523 > 2007-05-01 omd > 2009-05-04 G. > 2023-05-16 inalienableWright > 2023-05-18 blob > 2023-05-18 beokirby > 2015-05-27 Gaelan > 2019-06-02 Janet > 2017-06-07 R. Lee > 2022-06-25 4st > 2013-08-14 nix > 2016-09-13 Aspen > 2022-10-19 Aced7 > 2020-11-11 Shy Owl > 2022-11-27 Marb > > -- > juan > Registrar >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to solve
> a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
> (...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
> applying my own personal opinion.
>
> But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons
> for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become
> customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in that
> way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it
> doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering
> judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911
> and Moots exist.
If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot
of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is
diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case is
the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the
arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can
make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the
majority has motions and moots to deal with it.
If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: Moot Intent (Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay)
Yeah, the rules aren't particularly amenable to avoiding blindsides like this. Maybe there's a way to solve that, I'll think about it. On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:13 PM juan via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > nix via agora-business [2023-05-22 14:04]: > > That aside, I overall think you did a good job, and it's a well-reasoned > > judgment. I just don't agree with it, and I think the harm that these > > kinds of moon-logic readings due to Agora aggregates into our > > arbitrarily high learning curve, so I'm still going to try to overturn > it. > > > > I intend, with 2 support, to enter this judgment into moot. > > I support. > > While the judgment is (mostly) sound, it seems to me the favored reading > is so specific to Agora that for it to be upheld would require codifying > in the rules, *even if* it is game custom. Also, since it's not in the > rules, the most applicable way to overturn it is via CFJ. > > -- > juan >
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to solve
a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
(...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
applying my own personal opinion.
But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons
for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become
customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in that
way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it
doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering
judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911
and Moots exist.
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:08 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/21/23 13:35, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > I am personally convinced that this is a reasonable interest that a
> number
> > of people may have, as clearly shown by nix and G. Being myself familiar
> > with board games and their customs being reasonably easy for people check
> > for themselves, I permit this as evidence for the case as well for what
> > would be "in the best interests of the game" and don't believe I require
> > any further investigation into this.
> >
> > So, presented with these two conflicting views, unfortunately Rule 217
> > doesn't establish some kind of priority between the different
> alternatives
> > to the text of the rule. There is no priority between "custom" and "the
> > best interests of the game", leaving me at an apparent impasse with the
> > evidence presented. I cannot simply DIMISS this case either, given this
> > apparent tie, because I believe that there is enough that indicates that
> I
> > nonetheless have to tiebreak and deliver a Judgement regardless as the
> > Judge for this case.
> >
> > In this case, it would be easy to deliver Judgement to if there was an
> > overwhelming majority that wanted this Judgement to be Judged in a
> certain
> > way, because of the mechanic in Rule 911 of Moots and Motions to
> > Reconsider, which seem to reasonably imply that it's ultimately in the
> > choice of popular Agoran opinion which Judgements end up being delivered
> > and which not. However, with just 3 participating voices from the rest of
> > players, it's difficult for me to make a reasonable assumption - plus, I
> > personally believe that ais523 is correct, as it seems to be a more
> > mechanistic and austere reading of that rule without needing to be
> > augmented by fairly specific linguistic presumptions, leaving it at a 2 v
> > 2. I recognize that those are very reasonable presumptions to have, but I
> > don't see them as being sufficiently linguistically dominant; nor do I
> see
> > what seems to be a last-minute change in interpretation to be in the
> "best
> > interests of the game" either, even if the new interpretation would be
> > itself in the "best interests of the game". If it was sufficiently
> > announced, sure. But I don't feel like it's fair to blindside a player
> like
> > that.
> >
> > So,
> >
> > Unable to reach a conclusion by study of Rule 217, (appeal to game
> custom /
> > best interests of the game)
> > Unable to reach a conclusion by study of Rule 911, (appeal to the opinion
> > of the majority)
> > And nonetheless believe that it is my duty deliver judgement regardless,
> >
> > I Judge TRUE, forced to play my last card and merely appeal to my
> personal
> > opinion.
>
>
> The current guidance on this is CFJ 3890
> (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3890).
>
> Also, judges generally don't explicitly appeal to what the majority
> wants for matters of law (though that would be reasonable for things
> like communication standards which are more squishy), and Rule 911 does
> not direct judges to. Rule 217 is the primary authority on ruleset
> interpretation.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
DIS: Re: OFF: [@all] Confirming birthdays
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:10 PM juan via agora-official wrote: > 2009-05-04 G. Goethe is my former nickname so it's actually 2001-02-04 for me: > v Goethe 2001-02-04 2003-03-24 Thanks much for checking. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Commune Actions - 21 May 2023 [attn. Surveyor]
On 5/21/23 00:58, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I place a tile at D5, merging Emerald into Red. Fails as you do not have a 5. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] Weekly Commune Report
On 5/15/23 23:00, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I believe I should have more tokens and investment than this? > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2023-May/051351.html True, but you failed to grant from your middle constructor (it's set to 4, you said 5). -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
DIS: Re: (@4st, G., Surveyor) Re: BUS: [Surveyor] Weekly Commune Report
On 5/15/23 11:52, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > I accept a trade offer by ais523: I give em a 2 token, I take a G token. You did not have a 2 token at this time, no trade happened. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [@Surveyor] Please report…
nix via agora-discussion [2023-05-22 13:46]: > On 5/22/23 13:45, juan via agora-business wrote: > > I petition the Surveyor to publish eir weekly report. > > I respond: I'm not even kind of late, this is my normal day to publish > my reports and I've only missed one before. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > Ok. Sorry. I had a different impression, but clearly I was wrong! And thanks for your service. -- juan
DIS: Re: BUS: [@Surveyor] Please report…
On 5/22/23 13:45, juan via agora-business wrote: > I petition the Surveyor to publish eir weekly report. I respond: I'm not even kind of late, this is my normal day to publish my reports and I've only missed one before. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Rice rewrite
On 5/22/23 14:33, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-05-21 01:28]: >> Changes: >> - Generally cleaned up wording >> - Handle rice at Lost and Found >> - Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case >> where a person is in both the up and down sets) >> - Use "CAN" for enabling >> - Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than >> "consent" >> - Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures >> - Removed Fancy Caps > I like the consent! It's fun to be able to use, e.g., contracts without > them being referenced in the rule. Possibly, other forms of consent > could work. This is an experiment in interactionless gameplay, do note. The consent standard lacks any clarity requirement for contracts other than "unambiguously". This is not sufficient when an officer has to be able to evaluate every possible condition. Similarly, "reasonably clear" is too vague for an officer potentially having to evaluate players * rice plans conditions. Promises would work with the new by announcement action (and it isn't clear that it's possible for the execution of a promise to give consent now, so this is a strict improvement from that perspective), and note that they aren't mentioned in the new text. I see no virtue in not mentioning contracts in the rule if they're a part of intended gameplay. > > I should note as well: the rules mention consent elsewhere than > just R2519, and not only in reference to actions. For example, R869, > incidentally another Power 3.0 rule: > >> The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement > without that person's willful consent. (R869, ¶6) > > Could we understand a Rice Plan as an agreement? > In this case the consent can be evaluated with respect to the action of "becoming bound to the agreement". Note that the clause is not enabling at all, and Rice Plans clearly aren't agreements anyway. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Rice rewrite
Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-05-21 01:28]: > Changes: > - Generally cleaned up wording > - Handle rice at Lost and Found > - Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case > where a person is in both the up and down sets) > - Use "CAN" for enabling > - Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than > "consent" > - Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures > - Removed Fancy Caps I like the consent! It's fun to be able to use, e.g., contracts without them being referenced in the rule. Possibly, other forms of consent could work. This is an experiment in interactionless gameplay, do note. I should note as well: the rules mention consent elsewhere than just R2519, and not only in reference to actions. For example, R869, incidentally another Power 3.0 rule: > The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful consent. (R869, ¶6) Could we understand a Rice Plan as an agreement? -- juan
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Rice disarmament
I think the main time-consuming activity in the Rice Game would be
navigating its particularly challenging endgame (how do you get that last
Rice? diplomacy? scam?), rather than grinding for large amounts of Rice.
Even if we do end up going with this, and you end up getting 4 Rice, that
last fifth Rice (or sixth/seventh/etc, if needed) seems like it's going to
be a lot harder to obtain than the previous 4 combined.
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 7:38 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Rice disarmament
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" by replacing "at least 2 rice"
> with "at least 5 rice".
>
> [Ensure each round takes at least a month. This works under both the
> original rule and the rewrite.]
>
> }
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
Re: DIS: Proto - Labor Tokens
I was actually thinking of "Daydreams" as well, before settling on Labor Tokens and trying to keep it in its isolated bubble (a design philosophy which might just be pointless, I'm realizing). I think it's fine, nothing in particular really stands out to me that needs to be fixed. Perhaps the guarantee that I had in the original that players are ENCOURAGED to ensure payment and such? It's not essential, but it would help ensure that Labor gets paid regardless of scams or being blindsided by our poor wording in some way or what have you. On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 8:27 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 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. > > = >
