DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report: Arrivals and Departures
On 11/9/23 20:39, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > (I'm realizing that tabling an intent to declare apathy is intended to be > funny, not frustrating: you have to wait to feel an emotion? Declaring > apathy is a way to win? How did anyone ever let anyone win this way?) Generally, nobody does let anyone win. Apathy is meant to be an easy scam target for some malicious scams. The only way to win by apathy, usually, is by deregistering other players or locking them out of objecting. If you can do that, you can do some malicious things. So if someone finds such a scam, we'd rather encourage them to give themselves a win and move on, than to do something more malicious. -- nix
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Player/person analysis update
On 11/9/23 21:09, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > These are based on the email used to register according to the registrar's > report. > My plan here is to omit them entirely from the dataset, since they are most > definitely bad data. > If I can find evidence on whether or not they are the same person either > way on any of those players, then I can include them again. Ohhh, there's the missing piece, you're working based off email similarities. Knowing that, I think we can narrow more, and ask the Registrar to work on consolidation. Most of them have the same email, and I would argue are pretty clearly the same person. Some of them have similar emails, and while they look likely to be the same person it's not conclusive from this evidence alone. IMO, consolidate the ones with the same email into 1 person for your analysis, exclude the others. -- nix
DIS: Re: BUS: Player/person analysis update
On 11/9/23 19:16, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > Here are my stats so far: > number of reported players: 382 > number of probably-not-a-person: 59 > number of estimated players, (reduced by probably-the-same-person and > probably-not-a-person): 300 > > I'm reporting things early on in this process to have a successful thesis, > hopefully that strategy works. > I would also like to note that the registrar's report conflict with the > Herald's report: > I couldn't find these three players (so far, maybe I can't find more): > Douglas Hofstadter, General Chaos, Troublemaker At Large > and Ørjan is listed differently. Hofstadter was never a player, he was given an honorary title for his importance to nomic as a concept. I don't know the case of the others. > Following are more explicit details, if you want to check my facts, or want > me to handle some outliers differently: > > Here are a set of registration dates that I explicitly modified from the > registrar's report (so not all the registrations, just the ones that caused > problems): > I didn't verify in the archives, but approximately whether I thought the > data from the report was a reasonable assumption or not: > (These were the ones causing issues with my script.) > Little confused on this part, what did you base your changes on? > Here is the list of players I thought were probably not persons: These are probably mostly correct. > And here is a list of probably the same person (tried to take out the > "probably not a persons") I strongly advise trying to find evidence for this list, I'm pretty sure a couple of them are wrong. Overall, if you're doing this for a thesis I think you should do the diligence of providing evidence for the changes you make. -- nix
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report: Arrivals and Departures
On 11/8/23 22:22, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > if it helps, I think the following groups constitute the same person (not > player): FWIW, some of these are correct. I've been meaning to contact juan privately to note them, so they can be more quietly updated (since some of them may not want attention drawn publicly). Most are wrong, and I think we should use archival evidence when making claims about accuracy. -- nix
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report: Arrivals and Departures
On 11/9/23 13:29, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > FWIW, your name shows up in the FLR 21 times, and while that varies > between things you wrote, cleanings, and co-authorship, it clearly shows > you're having an impact on the rules. I appreciate your presence, even > if I'm often opposed to your specific ideas; I don't intend it as a > judgment of you. Oh I almost forgot to mention Agorant as well, which you worked hard on and is one of the freshest tournament ideas we've had in a while. -- nix
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report: Arrivals and Departures
On 11/8/23 23:01, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > And I'm a bit sensitive about it because I'm considering deregistering > again myself, and I'm just trying to collect evidence! That I apparently > need to prove I'm right. > > I'm also feeling generally othered by the game, like my ideas are extremely > consistently wrong, and I'm undeserving of any agoran rewards in any > fashion despite my efforts to the contrary. FWIW, your name shows up in the FLR 21 times, and while that varies between things you wrote, cleanings, and co-authorship, it clearly shows you're having an impact on the rules. I appreciate your presence, even if I'm often opposed to your specific ideas; I don't intend it as a judgment of you. Aris already pointed out some reasons that experimental ideas don't pass; another one is that an idea that's "experimental" to one player might be "already done" to another, in part or whole; especially in a game with as long of a history as Agora. For the that reason and the ones Aris mentioned, I personally like experimenting with new ideas in Tournaments, or even in new nomics. In Agora I'm usually looking for something that looks very fleshed out already. There's also something to be said for the current lack of active economy and how that suppresses some experiments; when we have an economy and something like contracts, we often have some experiments happening in the contracts. The fact that they can use assets that are valuable elsewhere encourages buy-in, but being in a contract means they only impact the people interested. The early days of Sets had quite a few interesting ideas in contracts, some with more success than others. > > I'd Cantus cygnus if i didn't have a chance at one! Win, after years of > playing. Is that worth it to anyone? Not that Cantus cygnus actually > matters or are taken seriously, the Archives have shown that they're > somewhat of a joke or just for angrying about tech problems. This is a weird quirk of CCs. Some are silly, but some of them are quite serious. A few of them have led to major reforms to address the concerns they bring up. -- nix
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report: Arrivals and Departures
On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 9:02 PM 4st nomic via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > And I'm a bit sensitive about it because I'm considering deregistering > again myself, and I'm just trying to collect evidence! That I apparently > need to prove I'm right. > > I'm also feeling generally othered by the game, like my ideas are extremely > consistently wrong, and I'm undeserving of any agoran rewards in any > fashion despite my efforts to the contrary. > > I'd Cantus cygnus if i didn't have a chance at one! Win, after years of > playing. Is that worth it to anyone? Not that Cantus cygnus actually > matters or are taken seriously, the Archives have shown that they're > somewhat of a joke or just for angrying about tech problems. > > I declare fucking apathy btw This sounds really rough. I want to try to engage with this on an emotional level, though it's hard to shift my mind into the right gear at the moment. I think part of that is my general emotional state, and part of it is Agora being Agora. Because like, it's tricky, in a game so focused on logic and rationality, to handle emotions correctly. That tends to lead to emotions building up to the point where they come out in violent bursts, which isn't exactly ideal - but it becomes necessary if that's the only way to engage with emotions in a space. It sounds like you're reaching that point, and I'm sorry about that. Cantus Cygnus is not just a mechanism for jokes. It is used for that purpose, yes, but it's also used as an outlet for venting and for getting some time away from the game. See, for instance, [1]. I'm by no means telling you to go that route - no one should have to deregister to get their concerns taken seriously. I just wanted to respond to your frustration about that topic. In general, I'd say that Agora tends towards extreme traditionalism. Major experiments are comparatively rare. People like things done "the right way". Interesting ideas are voted down simply because they might break something, or because people don't want change. At any given time, there are usually some people who are particularly stalwart about keeping things the way they are (which I think is mostly me and Janet at the moment), some people who are a little more open to potential changes, and some who are still skeptical but less vigorous about it, and some, like you, who are very experimental and eager about bringing in new ideas. Generally - in part because of cultural factors, in part because of things like the power structure making it hard to amend high powered rules - the traditionalists tend to have a substantial advantage. I worry that I'm making this about me, and also that this might not be helpful, but I thought I'd also give you a pointer to my own Cantus Cygnus [2]. It's another venty one, and it also goes a bit into some of the emotional drivers behind my own traditionalism in Agora - and about how I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not. It might help understand the "other side" a bit more? Though of course, I would never claim to speak for anyone other than myself, and a vent isn't necessarily going to be a complete explanation of even my own motivations. There's probably more to say - I can think of some things about what happened with the thesis, for instance. But I've gotta go right now. I just wanted to say something, because in my experience posting something like this and not having anyone reply sucks. I wish you well. Best of luck with the win attempt! [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28723.html [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg42549.html -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report: Arrivals and Departures
On Wed, 2023-11-08 at 20:22 -0800, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > if it helps, I think the following groups constitute the same person > (not player): Several of these (most of these?) are wrong – they are mixing up natural persons and legal constructs. For example, the AFO was an artificial person who multiple players could cause to act by announcement. The exact membership changed over time; I know at one point I was able to send messages as the AFO. Saying that, e.g., Murphy and the AFO are the same person makes about much sense as saynig that I and the AFO are the same person. Agora currently doesn't (as far as I know) have players who aren't natural persons, but it was very common in the past and is responsible for a lot of the apparently duplicated email addresses. Through most (but not all) of Agora's history, there was a rule that at least two natural persons had to be involved with each of the artificial persons, so most of the artificial persons had multiple natural persons controlling them. (There are some exceptions, dating from rulesets that allowed single-person control of an artifical person, e.g. Slave Golems.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Mad Hatter] Quasi-yearly report [attn. Referee]
On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 2:35 AM juan via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-11-08 17:27]: > > Neither of those holdings is relevant here. You made a series of false > > statements which are falsy (many of them are nonsense and thus obviously > > false, so you knew or should have known they were false; the others you > > likely at least believed to be false), and you made them explicitly > > under penalty of No Faking. That is sufficient to violate the Rule. > > Objection: nonsense statements cannot be false. They are nonsense. Don't > bring your own particular metaphysics to a public discussion. I think Janet was incorrect in saying that the nonsense statements were false. But the quoted paragraph works if you replace every instance of "false" with "untrue" - if nonsense statements aren't false, they certainly aren't true either, and the rule specifically uses the phrasing "not true" rather than "false" when defining falsy. -Aris >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report: Arrivals and Departures
4st nomic via agora-business [2023-11-08 21:01]: > And I'm a bit sensitive about it because I'm considering deregistering > again myself, and I'm just trying to collect evidence! That I apparently > need to prove I'm right. > > I'm also feeling generally othered by the game, like my ideas are extremely > consistently wrong, and I'm undeserving of any agoran rewards in any > fashion despite my efforts to the contrary. > > I'd Cantus cygnus if i didn't have a chance at one! Win, after years of > playing. Is that worth it to anyone? Not that Cantus cygnus actually > matters or are taken seriously, the Archives have shown that they're > somewhat of a joke or just for angrying about tech problems. > > I declare fucking apathy btw Just if it matters somehow, I really love your ideas. They are very amusing, if not always completely polished. Some of them would perhaps kinda break things, and considering how Serious™ Agora is, that'd maybe not be so good. What I would *really* like is for us to be able to create “sandboxes” cheaply in order to test out ideas. Unfortunately, there's also the issue of getting people to playtest, but that's not a technical issue, so I have no idea how to solve it. Just to be specific: * Rules as items: I love the meta * SCP: I love the theming * Hats: I love the meme * Magic: just awesome If you are tired, I get it. And maybe I'm too quiet about the things I like. But, anyway, just know that I appreciate you! -- juan
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Mad Hatter] Quasi-yearly report [attn. Referee]
Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-11-08 17:27]: > Neither of those holdings is relevant here. You made a series of false > statements which are falsy (many of them are nonsense and thus obviously > false, so you knew or should have known they were false; the others you > likely at least believed to be false), and you made them explicitly > under penalty of No Faking. That is sufficient to violate the Rule. Objection: nonsense statements cannot be false. They are nonsense. Don't bring your own particular metaphysics to a public discussion. -- juan
