DIS: Re: BUS: A Self-Explanatory Proposal
Okay. I'll keep this in mind. However, I should then withdraw this
(later). I'm trying to create a Diplomacy-style second-guessing
scheme, where you want to do things not because the results help you
but because the actual action helps you. Metarule means it's a rule
about rules, and nothing else.
On Mon, 20 May 2024 at 11:43, Janet Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
>
> On 5/19/24 21:37, Matt Smyth via agora-business wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal:
> > {{{
> > Proposal Title: Recursion
> > Adoption Index: 1.0
> > Author: Juniper
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Enact the following rule, with the title 'Metarule 1' and the following
> > text:
> >
> > {
> >
> > If a player creates a proposal that passes but e did not vote for eir
> > own proposal, e obtains 5 spendies.
> >
> > }
> >
> > }}}
> >
> > juniper
>
>
> This doesn't work because it would trigger at the time of the creation,
> but the result isn't knowable at that time. Also, "passes" is not
> defined for proposals. This would need to be "When a referendum is
> resolved as ADOPTED and the author of the associated proposal does not
> have a valid ballot on that referendum resolving to FOR, e gains 5
> spendies."
>
> However, incentivizing votes has resulted in problems before, so I don't
> think this is a good idea policy-wise. What gameplay are you hoping to
> create here?
>
> Finally, can I also ask what is meant by "Metarule 1" here?
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Blotter (and a history lesson @Mischief)
ais523 wrote: particular, if a contract would be given a Rest (the equivalent of a Blot), every member of the contract would be given a Rest instead. the Insulator (equivalent of today's Referee) was required to report the Fugitive status. For those wondering how "Rest" and "Insulator" fit together: the primary currencies at the time were Notes, tracked by the Conductor, whose author evidently had a shameless disregard for mixed metaphors.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bowing to the Inevitable
On 5/15/24 5:48 PM, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: FWIW, Welcome back! Why I declare, apathy, you have manners befitting a true Southern gentlespivak. (Deliberately NttPF, but someone needed to make a joke along these lines eventually) -- Mischief
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals (attn Promotor)
wunst wrote: Am 13.05.24 um 01:00 schrieb ais523 via agora-discussion: On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 15:32 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: Proposal: No apathetic apathy Amend Rule 2465 (Victory by Apathy) by appending this text: A player SHALL NOT announce intent to Declare Apathy and then fail to Declare Apathy before that intent ceases to be ripe; such failure is the Class 5 Infraction of Not Reading the Room. What's the intention behind this one (and why such a high class)? Is the intention to make failed Apathy attempts illegal? > I think the goal is to make it possible to shoot yourself in the foot > with apathy. > > Intended effect (probably?): > > 1. A intents apathy > 2. nobody objects > 3. A has forgotten about intent, does nothing -> infraction > > But the current phrasing would also make unsuccessful attempts illegal > as it says nothing about the intent having no objections More than that, the goal is to discourage the trend of almost all intents to declare apathy having no obvious path to success beyond "lol maybe every single player will inexplicably either fail to notice or fail to object", which is pretty boring IMO. Now if e.g. you actually spot and try to exploit a subtle bug in the tabled-action rules, or try to bribe objectors to bury an "I withdraw my objection" announcement in the middle of a long message (I have received such bribe offers approximately zero times), then that is when apathy is actually interesting. Even if it fails, if a good-faith attempt of this sort was demonstrated, then I would advocate for a reduced NRtR fine.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 12 May 2024
Ah, since Rule 2642 says “transferred”, but not specifying a particular cause. Understood. - Jaff On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 2:08 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/24 13:03, Jaff via agora-official wrote: > > StoneOwnerLast Wielded Stone Cost Immune? > > --- --- -- --- > > PowerAgora2024-04-01 7 > > Soul Agora2024-04-21 7 > > Sabotage Agora2023-10-25 9 > > MintyAgora2024-04-28 9 > > Protection Agora2024-04-01 5 > > RecursionAgora2024-04-01 7 Protection > > Hot Potato Agora2024-04-28 8 > > BlankAgora2024-04-01 5 > > Anti-Equatorial Agora2024-05-05 5 Protection > > Radiance Agora2024-05-06 9 > > Loud Agora 8 > > > This has since self-ratified, but all Stone Costs for stones transferred > to Agora on the stone reset should have gone back to 10. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
