DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Thesis review (@snail, @Janet, @kiako)
NOMINATE FOR associates in nomic art
Overall, it references agoran history, rhymes, seems to keep 10 syllables
per line, and has good timing.
I'm not sure it follows any meter though, especially because of the commas
on the first line seem to indicate a different stress pattern.
I don't really like the nomic world line, huh? feels very out of place.
But those things are minor, and fixing them I don't think would raise the
degree level nor should they prevent a degree.
Also add me to the review board lol
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 1:26 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 7:02 PM Mischief via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 6/29/24 9:15 AM, Mischief via agora-business wrote:
> >
> > > I'll, with this, Magenta Ribbon score a,
> > > Posting to my choice of public fora,
> > > Born that day 'cause Nomic World's no more, huh?
> > > Harken players current and of yore: A-
> > > lexis, Michael, (but, as yet, no Laura),
> > > To observe the relevant decora,
> > > List the ways we simply must adore ya,
> > > Offer praise from here to Bora Bora,
> > > Kudos given without oxymora,
> > > Like a sweater made of fine angora,
> > > Nobler than the princes of Andorra,
> > > As alluring as, to bees, some flora,
> > > Or a swimming shark to eir remora,
> > > And some hopes, as once did find Pandora:
> > > May you dazzle like a bright aurora,
> > > May proposals always reach their quora,
> > > May the crystals fully cleanse your aura,
> > > Gather, raise a glass and your fedora,
> > > As we toast the birthday of Agora.
> >
> > Oh what the hey, there's not really a downside... I submit the above for
> > consideration for an Associate of Nomic Art degree.
> >
> > --
> > Mischief
> > Hat: steampunk hat
> > Vitality: Invulnerable
> > Bang holdings: 1
> >
>
>
> As Herald, I call upon the Agoran public to designate this thesis as
> "UNSUITABLE FOR DEGREE", "REVISE & RESUBMIT", or "NOMINATE FOR [DEGREE]" as
> each person deems fit.
>
> I assign snail, Janet, and kiako to review this thesis. The current thesis
> review board as a reminder (please ask to be removed or added):
>
> {
> nix
> juan
> snail
> Janet
> kiako
> }
>
> Anyone not on the review board is welcome to give feedback as well!
> --
> snail
> (Invulnerable, 1 Bang)
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Victory by Quickdraw
In my defense, I have not read the rules, and snail was the only one who asked. I figured it could not hurt because j don't know how to bang On Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 5:45 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2024-06-27 at 21:34 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business > wrote: > > I stand Alone. > > Now I'm trying to figure out how you could afford to bribe so many > people (particularly along the lines of "are these bribes large, in > which case you might not be able to pay for them, or small, in which > case how did you persuade people to accept them?"). I think it's > possible that there is some sort of win-trading going on (i.e. you > bribed the players by planning to support future wins). > > In any case, this has demonstrated that a 1 Bang = 1 elimination ratio > is probably not enough to handle high levels of trading – possibly > players should start with half a Bang rather than a whole one. (Because > the way you eliminate a player is, in effect, to transfer a Bang to > them, there will always be enough to finish the game unless players > start hoarding.) > > -- > ais523 >
DIS: Geologist apology
Report's gonna be really late. I get back from a trip July 5th ish. Blot me or deputize, but I fully intend to do the report if it isn't done after I get back. Just giving y'all a heads up.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] SLR
Because you can publish anything public to off, but it's discouraged. I once published a mad hatters report and got dinged heavily for that x) On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 3:41 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Then why does it say OFF: at the start of the subject? > > On Sat, 8 June 2024, 8:39 am 4st nomic, <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > No, the report isn't official in any way, that's all that means methinks > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 3:32 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> Wait, 4st! I remember Janet telling me that I couldn't deputise as > >> Rulekeepor because she's on vacation, so there's no requirement for her > to > >> publish the rulesets. Should I CoE..? > >> > >> On Sat, 8 June 2024, 8:14 am 4st nomic via agora-official, < > >> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> > >> > THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET > >> > > >> > These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ > >> > > >> > Date of this ruleset: > >> > > >> > Date of last SLR ratification: 31 Dec 2023 > >> > > >> > Number of rules currently enacted: 133 > >> > > >> > Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2690 > >> > Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 9112 > >> > Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2690 > >> > > >
DIS: Re: OFF: [rulekeepor] SLR, FLR, ACORN are forthcoming...
Note: this failed. The reports therefore aren't official. It's probably fine, better than nothing, and easier when Janet gers back or the next person bc the ruleset repo was updated. On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 3:13 PM 4st nomic via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I temporarily deputize as rulekeepor to publish the SLR, FLR, and ACORN, as > one of these things has expired, so lets just do all of them? idk > > Separate messages, because keep it a little clean, eh? > > -- > 4ˢᵗ > wearing Jester's Cap > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] SLR
No, the report isn't official in any way, that's all that means methinks On Fri, Jun 7, 2024, 3:32 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Wait, 4st! I remember Janet telling me that I couldn't deputise as > Rulekeepor because she's on vacation, so there's no requirement for her to > publish the rulesets. Should I CoE..? > > On Sat, 8 June 2024, 8:14 am 4st nomic via agora-official, < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET > > > > These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ > > > > Date of this ruleset: > > > > Date of last SLR ratification: 31 Dec 2023 > > > > Number of rules currently enacted: 133 > > > > Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2690 > > Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 9112 > > Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2690 > > > > The header of each rule is formatted as Rule /R (Power=P), where > > is the ID number of the rule, R is the revision of the rule, and P > > is the power of the rule. This header is then followed by the title of > > the rule. > > > > > > The Game of Agora > >This section includes a few rules concerning the Nature of the Game > >of Agora. > > > > Rule 101/17 (Power=4) > > The Game of Agora > > > > Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance > > with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of > > these actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be > > won, but the game never ends. > > > > Please treat Agora Right Good Forever. > > > > > > Rule 1698/7 (Power=4) > > Agora Is A Nomic > > > > Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable > > combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes > > to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a > > real-world (UTC) four-week period. > > > > If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause > > Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, > > it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. If > > any other single change or inseparable group of changes to the > > gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause > > Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules > > to the contrary notwithstanding. > > > > > > > > Important Temporary Rules > >This category is a temporary dumping ground for rules that don't > >easily fit in any other category but that hold special relevance for > >the current gamestate. > > > > Rule 2683/2 (Power=0.5) > > The Boulder > > > > The Absurdor is a sortitioned office. > > > > The Boulder's Height is a singleton integer switch defaulting to > > 0, tracked by the Absurdor. > > > > Each player CAN, once a week, by announcement, push the boulder. > > When a player pushes the Boulder, its Height is increased by 1. > > At the beginning of each week, if the boulder was not pushed in > > the previous week, the Boulder's Height is set to 0. The Absurdor > > SHOULD list the largest Height of the Boulder ever reached in eir > > report. > > > > > > > > Players > >This small section provides some rules detailing how joining and > >leaving Agora works. If you're a new player, this is probably the > >most important section to read. > > > > Rule 869/54 (Power=3) > > How to Join and Leave Agora > > > > Any entity (including a group of entities confederated with the > > intent of forming a single person under this Rule) that is or ever > > was able to willingly communicate original ideas is a person. > > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are > > persons. > > > > Questions about personhood are to be resolved equitably, with > > regard for the good-faith of those involved and the customs of > > honorable play. > > > > Citizenship is a secured person switch with values Unregistered > > (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A registered > > person is a Player. To "register" someone is to flip that person's > > Citizenship switch from Unregistered to Registered. > > > > An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or > >
Re: DIS: (Idea) agoran science pt 2
Ok part 2 of pt 2 This one I know has been done but I still like it and so maybe we can illuminate why it went bye bye? What about an office that tracks seals (of approval) or like favors?. They each increase voting power by one on a referenda, but you can only use 1 of players' seal per referenda. You can give like 1 a week or something. Mainly would incentive the use of contracts again I think? Since buying votes seems hard in the current contract scape, this would incentive custom contracts, like the bounty one, or maybe you just want players to give u stamps? I guess it would cheaper stamps Maybe stamps just need to have voting power associated Maybe I just need to be the change I Vanna see in ze would... hmm okie maybe I shouldn't be Agora for now but I'll look back on this fondly On Tue, Jun 4, 2024, 7:54 PM 4st nomic via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > What if there was an office that accepted inquiries, then, a bounty is > assigned to an inquiry based on a social agreement, which, the bounty can > only be granted by fulfilling that agreement? > > EG bounty is "what would valid non-numerical assets look like in Agora?" > It goes to auction: and the prizes are nominated and voted on. Then it's > available for hunting. > > A hunt could look like "hey here's a new thesis" "here's some historical > records" "that's impossible due to these judgements" or anything else. > Then, the time comes to vote on the best answer, which wins the bounty > prize. > > IDK maybe I'm just having more fever dreams lololol. Just trying to get > more interest in this stuff >
DIS: (Idea) agoran science pt 2
What if there was an office that accepted inquiries, then, a bounty is assigned to an inquiry based on a social agreement, which, the bounty can only be granted by fulfilling that agreement? EG bounty is "what would valid non-numerical assets look like in Agora?" It goes to auction: and the prizes are nominated and voted on. Then it's available for hunting. A hunt could look like "hey here's a new thesis" "here's some historical records" "that's impossible due to these judgements" or anything else. Then, the time comes to vote on the best answer, which wins the bounty prize. IDK maybe I'm just having more fever dreams lololol. Just trying to get more interest in this stuff
DIS: Re: BUS: Mick Jagger (@stonemason)
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 7:22 PM Paul McDowell via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I pay a fee of 7 spendies to transfer the minty stone to myself. > > I wield the minty stone, specifying myself. > > — literallyAmbiguous I think this doesn't work because the Minty Stone has a cost of 9 it was transferred via the soul stone to Juniper, and then the week flipped. -- 4ˢᵗ wearing Jester's Cap Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: Geology nonsense
As the Geologist, I object! Stones have nothing to do with the Geologist, I'll have none of it. /j This is the exerpt from the last stonemason's report, from the 26th of May. I believe "the beginning of the week" has since decreased these costs by 1, but also, if a stone was transferred, it gets set back to a cost of 10. (Per 2642). I'm not really tracking what got transferred tho. So... I hope that helps figure out what the costs are! PowerAgora2024-04-01 6 Soul Agora2024-04-21 6 Sabotage Agora2023-10-25 8 MintyAgora2024-04-28 8 Protection Agora2024-04-01 4 RecursionAgora2024-04-01 6 Protection Hot Potato Agora2024-04-28 7 BlankAgora2024-04-01 4 Anti-Equatorial Agora2024-05-05 4 Protection Radiance Agora2024-05-06 8 Loud Agora 7 On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 3:51 AM Finley W. via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > If the cooldown is done, I push the boulder. > > Secondly, may I ask how much the stones are presently worth? > -- apathy (4ˢᵗ) wearing Jester's Cap Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Experimenting with Regulations
Right. However, the proposal gives some rule defined parameters for the operation of crystals, leaving the exact details to regulations. Eg "crystals increase in size when rules are amended or repealed" does not specify precisely how or how much, leaving those details to the regulation. On Sun, May 26, 2024, 5:24 AM Mischief via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/25/24 10:11 PM, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > > In an effort to reduce the ruleset, what if we offload things that only > > affect the officer of a report, or rather, leave the specifics of > mechanics > > to the officer that tracks it? > > Could you explain a little about more how you see this working? I can see > the application when it comes to Stones (shifting their definitions/powers > to regulations and tweaking them there). Aren't crystals pretty much all > identical, though, other than their individual numeric parameters (ID, > size, instability)? > > -- > Mischief > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
sorry Juniper, this was to DIS, make sure you send votes to BUS On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 6:42 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I vote as follows: > > > > > > 9114~ snail 2.0 Grind Stone > > > FOR > > > > > > > > > > 9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone > > > > FOR > > > > > > 9116~ snail, juan...[1] 1.0 A friendly game v2 > > > FOR > > > > > > 9117~ Mischief1.0 Self-Elimination > > > > PRESENT > > > > > > > 9118~ juniper 1.0 Recursion > > > > AGAINST > > > > > > > 9119* Mischief3.0 Say It Once Mk II > > > > FOR > > > > -- > > Janet Cobb > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > -- apathy (4ˢᵗ) wearing Jester's Cap Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Proto: Hats
This is not the first time I've seen this. Clearly let's make this stick
this time peeps!!
On Thu, May 23, 2024, 4:49 PM Mischief via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> Proto-proposal ("Hats" AI=1):
>
> [The idea here is to have a playful mechanism that also serves as a straw
> poll of how players are feeling. Inspired by the self-reporting approach in
> the "Bang!" subgame, a player could include eir current hat in eir
> signature if e wished. The recordkeepor language is meant to 1) avoid
> requiring any work and also 2) avoid problems if someone's first post after
> changing eir hat is to agora-discussion.]
>
> Create a rule titled "Hats" reading:
>
> Hats are a secured player switch defaulting to "none" with the following
> possible values and associated meanings for the player's current focus:
>
>none: no particular focus
>
>armored helm: competing for wins and in sub-games
>
>dunce cap: expressing regret or acknowledging a mistake
>
>floral wreath: resolving conflict
>
>green eyeshade: maintaining accurate records
>
>hard hat: repairing problems in the rules
>
>jaunty beret: exploring creative expression
>
>jester's cap: bringing levity and humor
>
>judicial wig: ruling on CFJs and interpreting the rules
>
>knitted cap: finding loopholes and exploits
>
>plain hat: simplifying the rules
>
>rugged fedora: researching Agoran and Nomic history
>
>sleeping cap: reducing eir participation in Agora
>
>steampunk hat: creating new game mechanics
>
>traditional mortarboard: conducting research and writing theses
>
> A player CAN change eir hat at any time by notifying the recordkeepor for
> eir hat (publicly or privately). Unless otherwise specified by the rules:
> 1) the recordkeepor for a player's hat is the player emself, and 2)
> reporting on hats is OPTIONAL.
>
> Hats do not otherwise limit or restrict a player's actions in any way, and
> every player is ENCOURAGED to participate in all aspects of the game
> regardless of eir current hat.
>
> --
> Mischief
>
DIS: Re: (@Geologist) Re: BUS: [Geologist] Healing Crystals and You: Speedrun Walkthru Guide
it appears that I just don't want this thing to ratify! Wowie! Thanks for catching that; you should have Crystal 2618 should you need to trade it or anything. On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 8:16 PM ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2024-05-20 at 19:37 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > > =ais523= > > Crystal 2471 - size 1. > > > > ===Events=== > > May 19th Assessor Report (assuming it's correct): > > - ais523, 2618 @ 2 (New!) > > - Murphy, 2478 @ 1 (+1, changes hands) > > CoE: The events section is inconsistent with the main portion of the > report. > > -- > ais523 > -- apathy (4ˢᵗ) Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Blotter (and a history lesson @Mischief)
1 Spendie per ribbon time??! On Mon, May 20, 2024, 7:20 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2024-05-19 at 15:09 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion > wrote: > > 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. > > It was quite a well-constructed series of interlocking puns (starting > with "Notes" = banknotes or musical notes; and if you did something > helpful to Agora you would be noted for it). It is possible that some > of these were fortunate coincidences rather than intentional. A Rest > had a value of -1 Note (originally, you could use a Note to cancel out > a Rest). I am surprised that puns on "ar-Rest-ed" weren't made more > often. > > Incidentally, I vaguely remember that Notes and Ribbons were > descendants of the same system (i.e. originally a Ribbons win was > obtained via getting an ancestor-of-Notes from every possible source, > with the ancestors of Notes having ribbon-style colors rather than > musical pitches), although they had diverged somewhat before I started > playing and no longer matched up to each other. That economy ended up > being temporarily revived semi-recently under the Glitter system (which > was effectively an economic reward for doing something that would give > you a Ribbon). > > -- > ais523 >
DIS: Re: BUS: Bowing to the Inevitable (attn Registrar, Spendor, Collector)
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 1:49 PM Joshua Boehme via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I register as a player > > In the past I went by Elysion, but that nickname feels like it belongs to > another era. This time I'll go by Mischief, and for ease I'll be using > agoran.misch...@gmail.com as my email address instead of this one. > > > I grant myself a welcome package > > I spend 5 Spendies to receive 2 Mischief stamps > I spend 5 Spendies to receive 2 Mischief stamps > > > Bwahahaha. Wait, forget that last part. > FWIW, Welcome back! -- apathy (4ˢᵗ) Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: (Idea) Agoran Science, Education, and Recreation Advancement
Something like "The herald CAN award, with 3 support, a player spendies/patent title/new ribbon. The herald SHOULD only do this for significant involvement in Thesis Drafting, Thesis Review, and/or Tournament Conductation." To incentivize the production of tournaments (to conduct science LIVE), thesis submissions (to advance the science) and review (to improve feedback cycles). The 3 support is to prevent scamming it; presumably, there would be at least 2 but hopefully 3 people reviewing theses or involved in a tournament. I want a better acronym for it than ASERA (All I came up with was ARSE and that is not the right direction however humous), and not sure what the reward should be, but I prefer a Patent Title or a ribbon, as that sticks around a bit and lets new players know without searching that such players are available to do such things, and that such things are encouraged in the first place (degrees are encouraged right now via ribbon, but the other aspects of the degree process are not, similarly, a ribbon used to exist for conducting tourneys and no longer does) -- apathy (4ˢᵗ) Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: No apathy
I'm not trying to do anything meritorious, I'm just trying to be annoying. :D On Wed, May 15, 2024, 3:13 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Since we have a player named "apathy" now, > > I object to each intent to perform an action described in Rule 2465. > > This is tiresome. This "scam" has very little merit. > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:01 AM Jaff via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I object to each intent to declare apathy. > > > > - Jaff > > >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Humiliating Public Reminder for Proposals 9102-9110
I would also like to help humiliate the so named. :P On Mon, May 6, 2024, 8:01 PM Janet Cobb via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > For each of Proposals 9102-9110, I hereby publish a humiliating public > reminder naming the following slackers: > > Gaelan, cuddlybanana, ais523, Aris, Yachay Wayllukuq, kiako, Kate, Goren > Barak, Ben, Jimmy, Liz Wake, Mercury, Maloney, mcdg, LegallyBearded, > Jackrabbit, Jaff, Quadrantal, Juniper, mqyhlkahu, omd. > > Please feel humiliated. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
DIS: Winpalooza
So ais523 has basically won 3 times, paradox, stones, and radiance, pretty much in a row. Just would like to point that out.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
Mostly just throwing fuel on the fire and poking things, for fun :) (That's why I'm not objecting officially.) Firstly, "Ownership" takes precedence (by power) over "Promises", and the actions happen in sequence, so Ownership takes precedence over Promises which attempts to change the owner of the promise. Whether or not the promise is cashed happens later in the sequence - even if the promise itself were to affect a switch or other gamestate when it was cashed, those switches would equally just become "indeterminate", thereby not producing a paradox, as no gamestate becomes undefined, the gamestate instead obtains "indeterminate" values, which are equally valid values that do not produce paradoxes. For example, even with Rice Plans, per "Switches", all the switches would have a definitive value of the last value they had had, or their default value. Agora requires clarity at all steps to function, and indeterminacy can set things in the platonic gamestate backwards, even if you don't notice, relying instead on ratification to operate. Not sure this is anything, but I also just noticed, [R217] "in particular, an absurdity [the paradox] that can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts is false [the promise being taken or cashed] does not constitute proof that it is true." (Also of note: It is up to the Judge and the players what the CFJ outcome should be. This is not a platonic point, rather, it is subjective and open to persuasion and such. Therefore, this case can still be judged Paradoxical, even if no paradoxes are involved. Similarly, a CFJ with a paradox can be judged as not-Paradoxical.) On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:06 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 09:52 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I object. > > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the > > owner is ambiguous. > > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523 > > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction. > > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise > > that is in abeyance. > > This argument assumes that the paradox has already occurred – if there > were no paradox there would be no ambiguity. So this is a self- > defeating line of reasoning: you're saying that the first transfer > causes the promise's ownership to be ambiguous because it would cause a > paradox, then that the second transfer unambiguously fails because the > first transfer moved the promise to the L – or in other words, this > is an argument that says "if there were a paradox, that would cause > there to not be a paradox". > > This doesn't lead to a consistent outcome because it requires a view of > things in which the paradox both does and doesn't occur; it's just as > self-contradictory as the scenarios in which the first transfer fails > and in which the first transfer succeeds. (Or to think about it another > way, Murphy has proved that if there were not a paradox, there would be > a paradox, and you are arguing that if there were a paradox there would > not be a paradox, and thus we have constructed a paradox as to whether > there's a paradox!) > > -- > ais523 > -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:03 AM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 4/30/24 11:52, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> > I object.
> > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
> > owner is ambiguous.
> > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
> > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
> > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise
> > that is in abeyance.
>
> You cannot object to a judgment, but you can either file a Motion to
> Reconsider or call a Moot on these CFJs. Here's the specifics of both:
>
> {
> Rule 911/55 (Power=1.7)
> Motions and Moots
>
> If a judgement has been in effect for less then seven days and has
> not been entered into Moot, then:
>
> - The judge of that CFJ CAN self-file a Motion to Reconsider the
> case by announcement, if e has not already self-filed a Motion
> to Reconsider that CFJ.
> - Any Player CAN group-file a Motion to Reconsider the case with 2
> support, if the CFJ has not had a Motion to Reconsider
> group-filed for it at any time while it has been assigned to its
> current judge.
>
> When a Motion to Reconsider is so filed, the case is rendered open
> again.
>
> If a CFJ has a judgement assigned, a player CAN enter that
> judgement into Moot with N+2 support, where N is the number of
> weeks since that judgement has been assigned, rounded down. When
> this occurs, the CFJ is suspended, and the Arbitor is once
> authorized to initiate the Agoran decision to determine public
> confidence in the judgement, which e SHALL do in a timely fashion.
>
> For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor and the valid
> options are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT. When the decision is
> resolved, the effect depends on the outcome:
>
> - AFFIRM, FAILED QUORUM: The judgement is reassigned to the case,
> and cannot be entered into Moot again.
>
> - REMAND: The case becomes open again.
>
> - REMIT: The case becomes open again, and the current judge is
> recused. The Arbitor SHALL NOT assign em to the case again
> unless no other eligible judges have displayed interest in
> judging.
> }
>
> --
> nix
> Arbitor, Spendor
>
>
Ah, but that requires me becoming a player! Not at this time, trixy trixy
nixy!
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 9:52 AM 4st nomic via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I object. > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the > owner is ambiguous. > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523 > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction. > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise > that is in abeyance. > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 3:39 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Attempted actions (#2 through #5 were all in the same message): > > > >1) ais523 grants Promise Q to the Library. > >2) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN". > >3) ais523 transfers Promise Q to Yachay. > >4) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN". > >5) ais523 cashes Promise Q. > (On the grounds of "Ship of Theseus" problem, wherein, the radiance stone had some qualities changed and the owner thereby became ambiguous, SHOULD have also gone straight into abeyance as the owner was equally ambiguous.) -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJs 4075 and 4076
I object.
Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the
owner is ambiguous.
The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523
can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction.
Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise
that is in abeyance.
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 3:39 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Attempted actions (#2 through #5 were all in the same message):
>
>1) ais523 grants Promise Q to the Library.
>2) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN".
>3) ais523 transfers Promise Q to Yachay.
>4) ais523 takes Promise Q from the Library per R2618 "Any player CAN".
>5) ais523 cashes Promise Q.
>
> Promise Q is irrevocable (so ais523 cannot take it via "The creator of
> a promise CAN"), and would cause ais523 to grant emself a promise
> "Awakening".
>
> CFJ 4075: "Yachay CAN cash Promise Q, either by directly cashing it, or
> by transferring it from the Library to emself and then cashing it."
>
> CFJ 4076: "I CAN cash the promise 'Awakening'."
>
> There is no reason to believe that #1 failed. The question is whether
> the remaining steps succeed in creating a paradox. Possible
> interpretations:
>
>a) #2 succeeds (requires that #5 will succeed),
> then #3 succeeds,
> then #4 fails (the Library no longer owns Promise Q),
> then #5 fails (ais523 no longer owns Promise Q), contradiction.
>
>b) #2 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
> then #3 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q),
> then #4 succeeds (requires that #5 will succeed),
> then #5 succeeds (ais523 owns Promise Q via #4), contradiction.
>
>c) #2 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
> then #3 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q),
> then #4 fails (requires that #5 will fail),
> then #5 fails (ais523 does not own Promise Q).
>
> Either a) or b) leads to judgements of PARADOXICAL, whereas c) leads to
> judgements of FALSE. So now the question is whether this text from Rule
> 217 (Interpreting the Rules) rules out c):
>
>Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
>using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
>can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
>rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
>is true.
>
> I accept the caller's argument that it does, and was intended to do so
> (to block more malicious situations such as "if I don't have a
> dictatorship then a paradox arises").
>
> I judge 4075 PARADOXICAL.
> I judge 4076 PARADOXICAL.
>
> For completeness, here's some research on past successful paradoxes,
> though none of it appears to set an obviously relevant precedent.
>
> Summary of past CFJs judged PARADOXICAL:
>
>* CFJ 3907 ("I pledge to violate this pledge")
>
>* CFJ 3901 (a promise granting and cashing a copy of itself, after
> which Rule 2618 was amended to block such recursion)
>
>* CFJ 3828 (a rule assigning an asset to an ambiguous player, after
> which Rule 2576 was amended to transfer such assets to the L)
>
> Summary of past CFJs judged UNDECIDABLE (and pre-dating the Rule 217
> text above, which was added by Proposal 7584 in August 2013):
>
>* CFJs 3249 and 3334 (self-reference via conditions attached to
> promises)
>
>* CFJ 3240 ("'Ozymandias has won' has the same truth value as this
> statement", where Ozymandias had not won)
>
>* CFJ 3234 ("ehird is capable of evoking the power of UNDEAD", where
> nothing obviously defined that one way or the other)
>
>* CFJs 3212 and 3220 (self-reference regarding the legality of
> claiming the CFJ's statement)
>
>* CFJ 3087 ("The game of Agora, but not any player of it, can..."
> while Agora was defined as a player)
>
>* CFJ 2878 (similar to 3212 and 3220)
>
>* CFJ 2650 (separate clauses of Rule 2166 stating "this asset is
> owned by the L" and "this asset can't be transferred", despite
> Rule 2240 which did exist at the time)
>
>* CFJ 2543 (self-reference involving ADoP report including
> report-last-published dates)
>
>* CFJ 2469 (Curry's paradox: "if this statement is true, then ais523
> can win by announcement")
>
>* CFJ 2446 (direct liar paradox)
>
>* CFJ 2423 (ambiguous rule change)
>
>* CFJ 2115 (self-reference regarding the legality of judging it FALSE)
>
>* CFJs 1980 and 1982 (self-reference involving contract definitions)
>
>* CFJs 1883 and 1884 (question as statement, pre-dating the period when
> such CFJs were basically judged as "The answer to is yes")
>
>* CFJ 1787 (similar to 2115)
>
>* CFJ 780 ("X violated Y by Z", where X clearly violated some rule but
> not necessarily Y; these days we would probably ask for more info,
> then judge DISMISS if it wasn't produced promptly enough)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9087-9095
I think crystal poaching is fine: it's competitive teamwork! I've poached Janet for example. Perhaps coauthors need to be rewarded also? On Wed, Apr 17, 2024, 11:01 PM secretsnail9 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > 9094~ snail, R. Lee 1.0 More instability with a hyphen > > PRESENT, but I'm quite peeved - it would have been polite to let me know > > about the error so I could correct it instead of submitting your own > > proposal and getting the crystal benefits therefrom. > > The trouble with this is i'm the promotor, and i'd also like proposals to > be distributed quickly to keep the game moving. So if I pointed out the > error, i'd still have to distribute the proposal anyways, plus then it'd be > another week until the next distribution (unless i did it immediately which > would be rude to the Assessor). > > I'll try and message people on discord first if this situation comes up > again, though, since then there's a chance for a quick fix. And it likely > will since i usually read the proposals deeply only when i distribute them. > Should probably change that too... > -- > snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Deregistration attempts
Deregistering players, fine But insisting on being a player but not doing much is a little confusing to me On Tue, Apr 16, 2024, 6:22 AM juan via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 4st nomic via agora-discussion [2024-04-15 21:57]: > > I'm confused about the reasoning behind doing this...? > > What part of it? > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, 1:17 PM Rose Strong via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I activate myself. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, 4:03 PM juan wrote: > > > > > > > As per rule 2646, for each of the following players, who have been > > > > inactive since 2024-02-12, I intend, without 3 objections, to > deregister > > > > em. > > > > > > > > * cuddlybanana > > > > * blob > > > > * Anneke-Constantine > > > > * Zipzap > > > > * Crystalizedmire > > > > * Goren Barak > > > > > > > > Note that they have been CC'd. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > juan > > > > Registrar > > > > > > > > > -- > juan >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Deregistration attempts
I'm confused about the reasoning behind doing this...? On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, 1:17 PM Rose Strong via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I activate myself. > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, 4:03 PM juan wrote: > > > As per rule 2646, for each of the following players, who have been > > inactive since 2024-02-12, I intend, without 3 objections, to deregister > > em. > > > > * cuddlybanana > > * blob > > * Anneke-Constantine > > * Zipzap > > * Crystalizedmire > > * Goren Barak > > > > Note that they have been CC'd. > > > > -- > > juan > > Registrar > > >
Re: DIS: Recruiting Github Group Owners
Uh I'm not a player currently but it couldn't hurt? fjsweeney On Wed, Apr 10, 2024, 9:13 AM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/9/24 12:27, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > As you might know, we have a Github Group. Some of the officers use it > > to maintain various tools and archives related to the game; essentially > > it's a collaboration tool. > > > > Similar to the discussion of the backup mailing list, I think it'd be > > best to add new "owners" to the group. The group has 3 owners - myself, > > omd, and G. omd and G. are not active players, and I'm only semi-active. > > > > Again, like the mailing list, IMO it is best to have diverse but trusted > > keyholders. To that end, my suggestion is we add 2-3 new owners, who > > have preferably been Agorans for at least a year, and preferably aren't > > already moderators for gio or extremely entrenched officers. If you're > > interested, even if you don't fit all of the criteria, please let me > know! > > > > I have added Janet to the list of owners, pursuant to eir interest on > Discord. Still hoping for one or two more to show interest. > > -- > nix > Arbitor > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Cleaning R2578
I object on secondary grounds that rule 2578 "currencies" does not contain "entities" On Mon, Apr 8, 2024, 3:43 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/8/24 14:52, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > I intend, without object, to clean Rule 2578 by replacing the sole > > instance of "entities" with "entity's". > > > > I object in any case, since I typoed "without objection". > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Cleaning R2578
I object The possessive and the plural are not typos On Mon, Apr 8, 2024, 11:52 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I intend, without object, to clean Rule 2578 by replacing the sole > instance of "entities" with "entity's". > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction
My main issue with this is actually a similar joke, the mad hatters report, resulted in blots, preventing me from any possibility of winning the agorant tourney (which if it resolves in snails favor then I think I would have otherwise won) On Mon, Apr 8, 2024, 8:02 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 8, 2024, at 3:22 PM, juan via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > 4st nomic via agora-discussion [2024-04-05 19:16]: > >> What does take complete control of Agora mean? > >> > >> Is any statement that is simply "not true" sufficient? > >> > >> Overall I find this to be unsavory. > > > > Yeah, rules be rules, but jokes shouldn't be punishable. Could we > > improve things? > > > > -- > > juan > > My view in noting the infraction was one of riffing on the joke - “heh, I > bet that was technically against the rules” - rather than hoping to see > Yachay be punished in any significant way. And I think the choice of one > blot was consistent with this - unless Yachay was planning on winning the > game in the next two weeks, this blot will be trivially expunged without > ever having had a gameplay impact. > > I probably should have been clearer about this intent in my original > message, sorry! > > Gaelan >
DIS: Re: [CFJ] Re: BUS: (@Notary, Arbitor) A Broken Promise
I think it's reasonable for Kate's version of events. After all, how is this that different from any other ship of theseus, just with actions instead of values. On Sun, Apr 7, 2024, 12:33 PM ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 19:18 +0100, Katherina Walshe-Grey via > agora-business wrote: > > On 07/04/2024 13:19, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > > I take Promise Q from the Library (using the "Any player CAN…" > > > mechanism in rule 2618). > > > > > > I transfer Promise Q from myself to Yachay. > > > > > > I take Promise Q from the Library (using the "Any player CAN…" > > > mechanism in rule 2618). > > > > > > I cash Promise Q. > > > > Gratuitous arguments: > > > > I was talking about this IRL with Gaelan earlier and we thought it > > worked, but now I'm working through it in more detail I can see exactly > > one internally consistent sequence of events: > > > > 1. Attempting to take Promise Q fails because ais523 is not going to > > cash it in the same message. > > > > 2. Attempting to transfer Promise Q fails because ais523 does not own it. > > > > 3. Attempting to take Promise Q fails because ais523 is not going to > > cash it in the same message. > > > > 4. Attempting to cash Promise Q fails because ais523 does not own it. > > > > But there's no reason you couldn't say points 3 and 4 about any normally > > taken-and-cashed promise that doesn't involve transferring it to someone > > else! And in that case there is another internally consistent sequence > > of events, i.e., that nothing failed and it worked entirely as intended. > > > > So I wonder if ais523 has hit on the exactly one class of sequences of > > actions to do with the Library that does *not* cause a paradox. > > > > Just for completeness... > > > > I grant the Library a promise with the text "This promise is > > irrevocable. I intend, without objection, to Declare Apathy, specifying > > myself." I take the promise, whose creator is myself, from the Library, > > and cash it. > > > > CFJ: "There exists a tabled immature intent, sponsored by me, to Declare > > Apathy." > > Gratuitous: In the case of your example, although there might be two > consistent readings (and I'm not sure yours even works – the wording > "provided that" seems to contradict it), this is (at best) simply an > ambiguity rather than any sort of paradox, and can be resolved by rule > 217. I think all the rule 217 tests point strongly towards the promise > actually being taken (given that with the other possible reading, the > Library wouldn't work at all, which defies common sense, is counter to > game custom, and is against the best interests of the game – there are > also past judgements about the Tree (e.g. CFJ 3313), the predecessor of > the Library). > > I also don't think the situation is any different in my case, just > because the ambiguity can be resolved in an unintended way to produce a > consistent reading; "an absurdity that can be concluded from the > assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts is false does > not constitute proof that it is true" (R217), and in particular, that > the natural/intended reading of the rule produces a paradox does not > imply that the "the Tree does nothing" reading is any more correct for > my cashing attempts than it is for yours. > > -- > ais523 >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction
What does take complete control of Agora mean? Is any statement that is simply "not true" sufficient? Overall I find this to be unsavory. On Fri, Apr 5, 2024, 1:46 PM ais523 via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2024-04-01 at 21:44 +0100, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote: > > On Apr 1, 2024, at 6:22 PM, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > > Quite a lot has happened in the last couple of hours. I have > > > taken complete control of Agora. > > > > > > Full explanation here: ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGxIE1hr0w4 ) > > > > I note that, in the quoted message, Yachay has violated R2471 by making > > a false statement (“I have taken complete control of Agora”) with intent > > to mislead. > > This statement was clearly falsy (it was not true, and the author of > the statement should have known that it was not true). So the question > is, was it made with intent to mislead? > > I think it probably was not intended to mislead readers as to its truth > value – at least, not for very long. The context of the message is such > that a reasonable player might suspect that the dictatorship did not > actually exist (I know that I was suspicious immediately). > > However, rule 2471 doesn't require an intent to mislead people into > thinking that the statement was true specifically – it just requires an > intent to mislead, with no further qualifiers. In this case, the > message appears to have been made with the intent to mislead readers > into clicking on a particular link, and the specified statement is part > of that. As such, an infraction has been committed. > > I investigate this infraction by Yachay (making a falsy statement, "I > have taken complete control of Agora" with intent to mislead, in > violation of rule 2471). For this infraction, the Class is 2 and the > Base is 0. I specify a penalty of 1 Blot (I can't see a reason to > choose a value other than the middle of the range). > > -- > ais523 > Referee >
Re: DIS: Thesis Reviewers Needed!
If a coding-based nomic spawns in the Agoran Discord Realm, will you be sure to notify list please? :) On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 1:02 PM Kiako via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Hi all! > > I've had a thesis in the works for a while now regarding an > implementation of Nomic in Lua, and am looking for reviewers before > submitting to the official review process. > > While knowledge of Lua is not required, I have not yet had anyone to > review the code itself, and would greatly appreciate someone who could. > > If you're interested, let me know and I will respond privately (via > email or Discord, whichever is preferred.) > > Thanks! > > -- > > kiako > -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo
Huh. You cannot officially require the referee to investigate a non-player
via noting.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024, 12:14 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I create the following proposal:
>
> ---
> Title: yes, yes, I got the memo
> Author: Gaelan
> AI: 1.7
>
> Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> it has one).
> } with {
> A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
> committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
> incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
> it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
> already been investigated.
> }
>
> [Currently, if an infraction is noted after it is investigated,
> the Investigator SHALL but CANNOT investigate it. This would be
> automatically forgiven by 2531, so it’s not an issue in practice,
> but let’s fix it properly.]
> ---
>
> Gaelan
DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Geologist] Weekly Report
CoE: I destroyed the crystals in L On Sat, Mar 23, 2024, 10:58 AM Sarah S. via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I deputise for the vacant office of Geologist and file the below weekly > report. > > All instability switches are 0 except where otherwise noted. Crystal > followed by a number is shorthand for a crystal with identity of that > number > > =Snail= > Total size of crystals: 11 > Snail owns Crystal 2463 with size 2. > Snail owns Crystal 2659 with size 2. > Snail owns Crystal 2451 with size 2. > Snail owns Crystal 2645 with size 2. > Snail owns Crystal 2438 with size 3. > > =Murphy= > Murphy owns Crystal 2642 with size 2. > > =Aris= > Aris owns Crystal 105 with size 3 > > =kiako= > Kiako owns Crystal 2640 with size 2 > > =Janet= > Total size of crystals: 6 > Janet owns Crystal 869, with size 3. > Janet owns Crystal 2201, with size 3. > > =L= > L owns Crystal 2685, with size 1 and instability 2. > L owns Crystal 1607, with size 3. > L owns Crystal 106, with size 3. > > > ===Events=== > March 3: Proposal 9058 adopted, granting Aris Crystal 105 with size 3 > March 11: Proposal 9062 adopted, granting Kiako Crystal 2640 with size 2 > March 15: 4st deregisters, transferring all crystals e owns to Lost and > Found Department > March 18: Proposal 9069 adopted, increasing the size of Crystal 2685 to 2 > and the instability of Crystal 2685 (which was then owned by Lost and Found > Department) to 2. As the Crystal's instability is equal to, not greater > than its size, it remains owned by the L > March 23: Proposal 9071 adopted, granting snail Crystal 2645 with size 2. > March 23: Proposal 9072 adopted, granting snail Crystal 2438 with size 3 >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidering 4069
Ah. Then yes, I'd definitely refile the case.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024, 10:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 3/18/24 01:14, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 3/17/24 22:14, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> What evidence do you have that rule numbers and Id numbers are the same?
> >> Because arguing that this case is false has definitive disastrous
> effects,
> >> so is there another way to judge this case outside of those two options?
> >
> > The earliest FLR in the agora-official archives [0] describes "rule
> > numbers" with numbers that match today's ID numbers.
> >
> >
> > The following proposal [1] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
> > number" in its text:
> >
> >> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
> >>
> >> Proposal 5115 (Democratic, AI=3, Disinterested) by Zefram
> >> restore enforcement of rule number stability
> >>
> >> Amend rule 2141 by replacing the paragraph
> >>
> >> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
> >>
> >> with
> >>
> >> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor. A rule
> >> CANNOT have the same ID number as any other rule. Once
> >> assigned, a rule's ID number cannot be changed.
> >>
> >> [This only applies if P5110 "Regulate ID numbers" generalised the
> >> assignment of ID numbers. The new rule "ID Numbers" says that ID
> >> numbers must be distinct and can't be changed, but that's only at
> >> power=2. For rules, especially with ID numbers being used to
> >> determine precedence, these things should be enforced at power=3. The
> >> detailed procedure for ID number selection and assignment remains
> >> separate in the "ID Numbers" rule.]
> >>
> >> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
> >
> > CFJ 1876 [2] uses "rule number" while the contemporary ruleset [3] uses
> > "ID number". This is not commented upon. See also CFJ 2513.
> >
> >
> > The following proposal (never distributed?) [4] uses "rule number" to
> > describe what the contemporary ruleset [5] calls "ID numbers" (and even
> > uses it to describe the specific ID numbers in question):
> >
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Title: Sudden Death
> >> Author: G.
> >> AI: 1.0
> >> II: 1
> >> Chamber: Green
> >>
> >> [A bonus temporary win condition that only two people should ever
> >> be able to achieve. Start your engines!]
> >>
> >> Create the following rule, Sudden Death.
> >>
> >> The next player who wins the game by Renaissance simultaneously
> >> wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
> >> provided no other player won the game by Renaissance in the
> >> same instant.
> >>
> >> If a player has won the game by Renaissance since the creation
> >> of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
> >> this rule to cause Rule 2199 to repeal itself.
> >>
> >> The next player who wins the game by high score simultaneously
> >> wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
> >> provided no other player won the game by high score in the
> >> same instant.
> >>
> >> If a player has won the game by High Score since the creation
> >> of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by a single announcement,
> >> cause this rule to cause Rules 2179, 2187, 2232, 2233, and 2234
> >> to repeal themselves in order.
> >>
> >> If none of the rules listed by rule number in the text of this
> >> rule exist, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
> >> this rule to repeal itself.
> >>
> >> ---
> > The following proposal [6] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
> > number" in its text:
> >
> >> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
> >>
> >> Proposal 6992 (Democratic, AI=3.0) by Murphy
> >> (coauth: omd)
> >> Fix rule numbers
> >>
> >> Ratify all rule ID num
DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidering 4069
What evidence do you have that rule numbers and Id numbers are the same? Because arguing that this case is false has definitive disastrous effects, so is there another way to judge this case outside of those two options? On Sun, Mar 17, 2024, 6:52 PM Aris via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 5:36 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider in CFJ > > 4069. The arguments require that the "ID number" of a Rule and the "rule > > number" of a Rule are different things, which fails the "game custom" > > and "common sense" tiebreaks and would likely be catastrophic if > > actually applied consistently historically. > > > I support. > > -Aris >
Re: DIS: (@Janet) Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Judgment Reminder @Kate @Janet @Murphy @Gaelan
quotes from discord 1. 1:24 PM]Janet: damn you mobile gmail 2. [1:24 PM]4ˢᵗ: i was wondering about the blank message 3. [1:25 PM]Janet: I assume what's happening is it's only sending as HTML, which is being stripped On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 1:30 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2024-03-16 at 16:23 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > > > Janet, you've just sent two blank messages in a row – has something > gone wrong with your email client? > > -- > ais523 > -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: [draft] CFJ 4069 Judgement
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 9:53 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 3/14/24 17:46, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: > > PLEASE NOTE, unfortunately, no mechanism is actually provided for the > > Rulekeepor to officially assign numbers to rules, and as the Rulekeepor > > must track rule/ID numbers, this means it is a game action and is > REGULATED > > under the 2020 ruleset. This level of regulating of actions did not exist > > in the 2007 ruleset, so "rule number" 105 exists both before and after > > Proposal 4984. > > > Under what ruleset? This definitely isn't true in the latest > published/ratified ruleset. The method is "by public designation": > > > Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and > > former rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor by public > > designation. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > Thank you for this; my mistake. Under the 2020 ruleset. There's a few rulesets to keep track of for this judgement, goodness! -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Judgment Reminder @Kate @Janet @Murphy @Gaelan
typo: 4059 is assigned to murphy, 4069 is assigned to me On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 10:45 AM nix via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The Arbitor's office kindly asks the following judges to either assign a > judgment, recuse, or file for extension for the corresponding CFJ(s) by > the end of today: > > Kate (CFJ 4063 assigned Mar 09, CFJ 4057 assigned Mar 10) > Janet (CFJ 4058 assigned Mar 09) > Murphy (CFJ 4069 assigned Mar 09) > Gaelan (CFJ 4062 assigned Mar 09) > > -- > nix > > -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: [draft] CFJ 4069 Judgement
Additionally, in the FALSE case, the judge has been asked to clarify what should occur: This is an unofficial opinion of what should occur, but: amendments to TRWC105T would be too ambiguous to enact changes. Firstly, a something that is not a rule but was once a rule is untracked and has the rule/ID number 105. Secondly, a rule that has no ID number exists. Unfortunately, this means that references to "Rule 105" would therefore be too ambiguous to be adopted: specifically, a proposal would say "re-enact rule 105" just as much as it would say "amend rule 105" and the intent would refer to two different Rule 105's, one being a non-rule with ID 105 and one being a rule without an ID. This would also mean that the rulesets that also contain the text "An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified" (such as the Jun 2020 ruleset post P8914) would be unable to ratify at all, as TRWC105T would exist in that ruleset. Fortunately, I don't think that is in the scope of this judgement, as ID numbers and Rule numbers appear to be different. On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 2:47 PM 4st nomic via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > READY FOR A (small) ROLLERCOASTER?!?! > > Statement to judge: "There exists a rule 105." > > Short context for this: "Rule number" 105 was repealed and reenacted in > 2007, and in 2020, rules were required to have unique "ID numbers". > > SIGNIFICANTLY, the number assigned to that Rule 105 was not an "ID number", > it was just a "rule number" per Rule 1681/8, "Fantasy Rule Changes", and > the preceding Rule 105 and the succeeding Rule 105. > > HOWEVER, is that it's reasonable to believe that "ID number" and "rule > number" are in fact the same number, as they are used in the same contexts > and for the same reasons. In that case, therefore, ID number 105 had > already had an assignment, and for the new Rule 2141 defined by 8416, this > took away it's number, leaving a hole. Without further evidence that "ID > number" and "rule number" are the same, I will say that they are different. > In particular, evidence would be, say that rules have been re-enacted > across this change in nomenclature. If there indeed exists such evidence, > then we should duly judge this FALSE, as it would be prohibited to assign > it ID number 105. Should this evidence be found, it would affect the > application of proposals specifying "rule 105" since the adoption of > proposal 8416. > > PLEASE NOTE, unfortunately, no mechanism is actually provided for the > Rulekeepor to officially assign numbers to rules, and as the Rulekeepor > must track rule/ID numbers, this means it is a game action and is REGULATED > under the 2020 ruleset. This level of regulating of actions did not exist > in the 2007 ruleset, so "rule number" 105 exists both before and after > Proposal 4984. > > FORTUNATELY, the ruleset has been ratified at some point, which is a > mechanism to assign ID numbers, so it would appear that Rule 105 being > assigned ID number 105 occurred at one of those ratifications, unless of > course it would be impossible for that rule to have ID number 105 due to > evidence that "rule numbers" and "ID numbers" are the same. > > THEREFORE, without further evidence to the contrary, > > Here it be judged TRUE that there exists a rule with ID number 105. > > SHOULD IT BE FOUND the evidence to the contrary, then there is more quantum > bullshit to observe about applications of amendments to Rule ID number 105, > and this case should be judged FALSE. > > *Please note that under the "working" ruleset, new rules DO NOT technically > have ID numbers until ratified, since there is no mechanism to assign ID > numbers otherwise, as ID numbers are regulated under Rule 2125.* > > Proposal that repealed a rule with "rule number" 105: > https://randomnetcat.github.io/agora-historical-proposals/4894.txt > > Proposal that forced "ID numbers" to be unique among all current and > previous rules: > https://agoranomic.org/assessor/proposal/8416.txt > > Ruleset prior to Proposal 4894: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-January/002755.html > > Ruleset Prior to 8914: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-June/013737.html > > -- > 4ˢᵗ > > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator > -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Birthday Announcement
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 2:48 PM juan via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > === > Registrar: juan Birthday Announcement > 2024-03-14 > > === > > Let all who read henceforth know: > >The 14th of March of 2024 > > is > > juan's 2th Agoran Birthday! > > Congratulations! > > > === > > Please do congratulate me. > > -- > juan > Registrar, Absurdor > Congrats on your 2th! Someone should propose the 2th fairy to grant you some $$$! -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: [draft] CFJ 4069 Judgement
READY FOR A (small) ROLLERCOASTER?!?! Statement to judge: "There exists a rule 105." Short context for this: "Rule number" 105 was repealed and reenacted in 2007, and in 2020, rules were required to have unique "ID numbers". SIGNIFICANTLY, the number assigned to that Rule 105 was not an "ID number", it was just a "rule number" per Rule 1681/8, "Fantasy Rule Changes", and the preceding Rule 105 and the succeeding Rule 105. HOWEVER, is that it's reasonable to believe that "ID number" and "rule number" are in fact the same number, as they are used in the same contexts and for the same reasons. In that case, therefore, ID number 105 had already had an assignment, and for the new Rule 2141 defined by 8416, this took away it's number, leaving a hole. Without further evidence that "ID number" and "rule number" are the same, I will say that they are different. In particular, evidence would be, say that rules have been re-enacted across this change in nomenclature. If there indeed exists such evidence, then we should duly judge this FALSE, as it would be prohibited to assign it ID number 105. Should this evidence be found, it would affect the application of proposals specifying "rule 105" since the adoption of proposal 8416. PLEASE NOTE, unfortunately, no mechanism is actually provided for the Rulekeepor to officially assign numbers to rules, and as the Rulekeepor must track rule/ID numbers, this means it is a game action and is REGULATED under the 2020 ruleset. This level of regulating of actions did not exist in the 2007 ruleset, so "rule number" 105 exists both before and after Proposal 4984. FORTUNATELY, the ruleset has been ratified at some point, which is a mechanism to assign ID numbers, so it would appear that Rule 105 being assigned ID number 105 occurred at one of those ratifications, unless of course it would be impossible for that rule to have ID number 105 due to evidence that "rule numbers" and "ID numbers" are the same. THEREFORE, without further evidence to the contrary, Here it be judged TRUE that there exists a rule with ID number 105. SHOULD IT BE FOUND the evidence to the contrary, then there is more quantum bullshit to observe about applications of amendments to Rule ID number 105, and this case should be judged FALSE. *Please note that under the "working" ruleset, new rules DO NOT technically have ID numbers until ratified, since there is no mechanism to assign ID numbers otherwise, as ID numbers are regulated under Rule 2125.* Proposal that repealed a rule with "rule number" 105: https://randomnetcat.github.io/agora-historical-proposals/4894.txt Proposal that forced "ID numbers" to be unique among all current and previous rules: https://agoranomic.org/assessor/proposal/8416.txt Ruleset prior to Proposal 4894: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-January/002755.html Ruleset Prior to 8914: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-June/013737.html -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: Assignment of CFJ 4069 to 4st [Re: BUS: Overly Effective Identity Theft Protection, Or, Is There A Rule 105]
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:53 PM nix via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 3/11/24 17:41, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote: > > CFJ: There exists a rule 105. > > I number this CFJ 4069. I assign CFJ 4069 to 4st. > > -- > nix > > Also, I do plan to still judge this, whether or not I'm deregistered by then, and whether or not it is possible for me to provide a judgement. I will probably provide a draft late tomorrow. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Request for Feedback: What's the Method Anyway?
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 3:49 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > This is related to CFJ 4072, but you don't need to be familiar with all > of the arguments there. > > I just want everyone's reading on one (crucial) element. R105 requires > an "unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for > changing the rule". For rule changes in proposals, what would you say is > "the method", according to the rules? What would be a 1 sentence > "unambiguous and clear specification" of that method? > > -- > nix > > "When a proposal is adopted, it becomes an instrument and takes effect." "The method to implement the rule changes is rule 105." either of those I think. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: (@arbitor, @referee) Re: BUS: A lie
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 11:29 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 3/12/24 03:51, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > > >> On Mar 12, 2024, at 2:46 AM, secretsnail9 via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> > >> I confirm, under penalty of no faking, this message contains a game > action. > >> > >> -- > >> snail > > I note that snail committed the infraction of breaking Rule 2471 (No > Faking) in the above quoted message. > > > Regardless of how the CFJ is judged, snail is guilty. Based on eir > arguments, e believed the statement e made to be paradoxical and thus > "not true". > Arguments TRUE: Under penalty of no faking, it purported to contain a game action. Their CFJ has no such no-faking associated with it. The CFJ is simply not paradoxical, it is instead simply TRUE. Per rule 101: Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be won, but the game never ends. Please treat Agora Right Good Forever. As such, communication is their game action and/or a result of their actions via Fora in order to play the game. I believe there are no results presented in their original message, thus, it is a game action. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Covering bases
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:47 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 14:36 -0600, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 3/5/24 14:24, Rowan Evans via agora-business wrote: > > > After that: If I have granted myself a welcome package 52 times AND > > > not granted Murphy 2.4, then 2.4 times, I grant Murphy a welcome > > > package. > > > > This still fails, you can't do something a fractional amount, so the > > specification of what you're doing is too unclear. > > I guess this is yet another example of the "I say I do, therefore I do" > fallacy, which has plagued Agora for a long time. > > Just saying you perform an action doesn't actually perform it unless > there's a rule that causes that statement to have an effect; when I > make a statement like "I wield the Radiance Stone", the statement > doesn't directly do anything, and the Radiance Stone only gets wielded > because rule 2641 triggers as a consequence of the announcement and > changes the gamestate (due to the definition of "by announcement" in > rule 478). > > For something that isn't rules-defined, like taking an action a > fractional number of times, there's no way to trigger the relevant rule > because there isn't one. > > -- > ais523 > This is why I like the "narrative based" aspect to playing: the narrative will subsequently define what 2.4 times means, if anything. It also prevents Paradoxes, such as Theseus, by resolving them in the same instant, or blatantly leaving them for others to resolve. "This week, my empire, 2.4 times, strikes back. Additionally, half the parts of the death star were replaced and used to build another death star, both thereby being the original. Finally, I went back in time and killed my grandfather before I was born. TAKE THAT, GRANDPA! He's subsequently lost in the space-time continuum, hopefully he doesn't unlock the secrets of the universe in there and come back to haunt me." -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: ranting about potential ruleset issue
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 10:51 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2024-02-19 at 10:43 -0800, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: > > fwiw, I plan to vote AGAINST any attempt to ratify the ruleset as the > > ruleset is currently as if we had been playing "correctly" this whole > time. > > > > As it currently stands, a vote FOR would be a vote to maintain the status > > quo that got the ruleset into its current predicament. > > The status quo is very platonic, and I don't want it to be. However, > that's > > an old debate: > > https://agoranomic.org/Herald/theses/html/-XX-XX-Vanyel.html > > I actually see ratification as a compromise between the pragmatists and > platonists – it's a way to allow both sides to agree on the gamestate. > Generally speaking, ratifications are to the advantage of pragmatists > because, whilst changing nothing from the pragmatic point of view, they > cause the platonic point of view to start agreeing with it. > So a vote FOR a ratification (assuming it's being done correctly) > basically means "sure, I'm happy to accept the gamestate we're > currently playing in". Right, but I'm not happy to accept the gamestate we're currently playing in. > A vote AGAINST only really makes sense if you > think that either something is wrong with the process of ratification, > or with the gamestate being ratified; or if you actively *want* > platonists to disagree with you about what the ruleset is. > Right, I agree with the platonists that the gamestate is wrong and that ratification is wrong, just... definitely not in the same sense of wrong. Wrong as in it feels wrong, whether or not anything is actually wrong. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: ranting about potential ruleset issue
fwiw, I plan to vote AGAINST any attempt to ratify the ruleset as the ruleset is currently as if we had been playing "correctly" this whole time. As it currently stands, a vote FOR would be a vote to maintain the status quo that got the ruleset into its current predicament. The status quo is very platonic, and I don't want it to be. However, that's an old debate: https://agoranomic.org/Herald/theses/html/-XX-XX-Vanyel.html Ultimately, the proper thing to do, then, is to express this opinion in the places where opinion actually matters: in the courts and legislature, which is what I am hereby doing. I encourage anyone who is frustrated with the status quo, who feels like they don't truly understand what is going on with the ruleset ratification, who thinks that "years of playing that can only be truly accepted by a complex investigation and precisely worded ratification" is too difficult and wrong, to thereby reject uploading the status quo. Just... I keep playing nomic pragmatically, trying to play based on the social contract, the relationships and what everyone has to say about it, and basing it on feelings and perceived ethics instead of just logic. A platonic viewpoint rejects those feelings and perceived ethics entirely. I see a platonic viewpoint as a strong argument, but not the last word, because the social contract continues the game, the relationships and people and the debate. A platonic gamestate instead says the game continues as long as the invisible, actual gamestate says it does. It could have ended at any time, and we wouldn't have known, and things could be entirely different, and we'll never have truly known. With a platonic gamestate, all we can do is our best by sifting through history. And there's too much history. For me at least. And too many rules, since I can never seem to read them all, or keep them all in my head, organized, and such. I'd be open to playing a definitively platonic nomic with the gamestate definitive and visible (eg a code-based nomic), but Agora is not code based, so, at least to me, Agora feels pragmatic, in some sense. After this all settles down, if it does end up complexly ratified (which is likely what will happen), I'll probably WRIT of FAGE and come back later at some point. You know me, I can't stay away. This platonic vs pragmatic debate will probably always continue indefinitely, and there will always be proponents to one side or the other, and I want to help the pragmatic side. At least. That's what I think is going on. I have no idea, because things are pretty platonic right now, and it could all be different. I just hope I'm not *entirely* wrong right now, because if I am, what am I even playing??? -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) No Taxation Without Representation
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 9:44 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 2/15/24 12:41, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal:
> > {
> > Title: No Taxation Without Representation
> > Adoption Index: 2.0
> > Author: 4st
> > Co-author(s):
> >
> > [Currently, democratic proposals can pass even if the quorum is much
> lower
> > than the number of active players. This means that democratic proposals
> > have the potential to not represent a representative amount of them.
> > Democratic proposals should not only meet a high adoption index, but
> should
> > also meet that adoption index with representation.]
> >
> > Amend Rule 2606 ("Proposal Classes") by appending "The quorum of a
> > democratic proposal is 2/3 of the active players, rounded down."
> > }
> >
>
> We almost never have 2/3 of active players actually voting on proposals.
> This would almost certainly come close to locking us out of changes to
> Power 3+ rules (but with no ossification risk, since ossification
> assumes all players are acting).
>
> Interestingly, BlogNomic tried something almost identical to this
> recently, then got rid of it because it was causing problems.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
I understand we don't have much data on this... but my theory on that has
to do with new players.
I just think that we have players who don't say or vote much on Bus, but
insist they are active (EG Gaelan, Kate, Aris), and democratic changes
should value the input of players who are saying that those players do in
fact exist.
I do hear what you are saying about new players who seemed to... drop off.
Perhaps I could amend this to address that particular concern?
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 9053-9057 [attn. Arbitor]
Counterarguments/Gratuitous arguments TRUE:
> 1. Does text specify a rule change?
> 2. If so, is it unambiguous what the text of the rule to be enacted is?
> As to 1, the text makes no mention of a "rule", only "enact[ing]"
> something. There is at least one thing other than a rule that can be
> "enacted" in the game: a regulation. I don't see any reason to read in
> the specification that this is a rule when the text doesn't say it.
> As to 2, there are no delimiters or indentation indicating whether both
> of the paragraphs are to be enacted, or only the first one. This also
> seems to make the change ambiguous.
Firstly, an appeal to popularity (Pathos): such a proposal was voted on and
adopted 4 to 1 (not taking account of voting strength.) and such an issue
was only brought up *after* adoption by the player who was against the
proposal. (This is probably a moot point.)
Secondly, an appeal to kindness (Ethos): such a proposal was proposed by a
new player, should we not give them the benefit of the doubt for their
intention? (Also probably a moot point.)
Thirdly, an appeal to logic (where Agora does most of its business):
{{{
Firstly, "any ambiguity" and "unambiguous" should have the same meaning of
"ambiguous", the base word.
Specifically, in rule 217:
"Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to
be void and without effect."
is/should be equivalent to saying it in the positive, something like
"A lack of any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
change to be valid and with effect."
or
"Unambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
valid and with effect."
This reasoning also implies that rule 105 actually has a lower standard to
do rule changes than by announcement actions. By announcement actions per
rule 478 are required to be clear AND unambiguous, whereas rule changes are
void and without effect if there is any ambiguity. In other words, rule
changes are valid and have effect if they are unambiguous. Rule 478 which
defines by announcement actions has an additional "clear and", implying
that there either exists a higher or equivalent standard, which rule 105
either meets or falls short of.
Secondly, although the following arguments are not direct-forward
reasoning, direct-forward reasoning per Rule 217 is only for definitions
and prescriptions defined by the rules. When speaking to ambiguity, this is
not defined or prescribed by the rules. Therefore, these arguments of proof
by contradiction can be taken into account without breaking any rules.
Secondly, the thing to enact is either:
1.
"February 29 is a Holiday known as Radiance Day."
or
2.
"February 29 is a Holiday known as Radiance Day.
At 00:00 UTC on Radiance Day, all players are awarded 10 Radiance."
If Option 1 is the case, regardless of the thing to enact, then there is
hidden latent gamestate associated with time. This seems unreasonable and
generally undesired.
Option 2 does not imply hidden latent gamestate associated with time, and
thereby, seems reasonable.
By this contradiction, option 2 is therefore true.
Secondly, with regard to the kind of thing being enacted, we have two
things that are generally associated with "enact": rules and regulations.
If it were a regulation, then it would not be capable of awarding Radiance.
It would also have a Promulgator, and who that is is probably debateable.
This is contrary to the surface-level intention of the proposal (to create
a holiday and have something happen on that holiday), and thereby, seems
unreasonable.
If it is a rule being enacted, then it would be capable of awarding
Radiance, and the tracker of the thing itself would be the Rulekeepor,
which seems reasonable.
And... If there is any other thing associated with enact, I don't think it
would align with the surface-level intention either.
Therefore, by contradiction, it is a rule with the text
"February 29 is a Holiday known as Radiance Day.
At 00:00 UTC on Radiance Day, all players are awarded 10 Radiance."
}}}
Therefore, by these three methods of persuasion, I make the argument that a
rule was enacted, specifically because the proposal in question was as
clear as any other by announcement action.
Arguments AGAINST:
The method of the rule change was not clearly and unambiguously stated. The
method being "Proposal takes effect".
This would mean a lot of proposals have not enacted rule changes. :)
Quote from Rule 205:
A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
take effect.
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Registrar) Intents to deactivate
I think you have to send a message on a public forum to negate it. Nothing in particular is needed in the message, just has to be on a public fora. On Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 12:34 PM Kiako via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 1/30/2024 5:28 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > I intend, with notice, to make kiako inactive. > > > > None of these players have made any public announcements in the past 30 > > days, to my knowledge (some much longer). > > -- > > snail > > I refuse death (and object, if relevant) > > -- > kiako >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9053-9057
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 6:24 PM Maloney Agora via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I vote FOR 9054, 9055, and 9057. > I vote AGAINST 9053 and 9056. > I think this needs to be sent to agora-business? (yes the default "reply" option changes replies to agora-discussion) -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9053-9057
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 3:03 PM Jimmy via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I vote FOR 9053 > I think this needs to be sent to agora-business? (yes the default "reply" option changes replies to agora-discussion) -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: Intent to register
Yep you did just fine, welcoming is fast and loose; I just recommended players grant themselves welcome packages to have them use various rules from the get go. It didn't have to go to Agora business even :) On Sun, Jan 28, 2024, 3:28 PM Agora amdw42 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Welcome! > I recommend that you grant yourself a welcome package (that's effectively a > stamp of your own type!) > > Also this is my first time welcoming someone so if I’ve done something > wrong someone please let me know! > > — > Ben > > —— > Ben > > From: agora-business on behalf of > Maria Carmela Del Gaudio via agora-business > > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2024 6:24:36 PM > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org > Cc: Maria Carmela Del Gaudio > Subject: BUS: Intent to register > > Hello, > I would like to register, my preferred name is mcdg. > Many thanks. >
Re: DIS: (@Promotor) Spreadsheet votes
The spreadsheet is not actually used by the current Assessor (janet). I think it's appreciated to update it tho. On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, 4:12 PM Mercury via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I notice most players who voted recently haven't recorded eir votes in the > spreadsheet the Promotor has attached - but if we are definitely using the > spreadsheet, may I be added to it? I know at least I'm eligible to vote on > #9052. I think a few others might be missing too, like Ben? > > (should this have been sent to Business?) > -- > Mercury >
DIS: Re: BUS: New Player Registration
Welcome! I recommend that you grant yourself a welcome package (that's effectively a stamp of your own type!) On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, 3:52 PM Maloney Agora via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > My name is Maloney (he/him), and I would like to register to be a player. >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Geologist] shiny stuff
Just poking fun :) my reports were late which is the problem, despite their dependency. Didn't mean to chew you out at all! On Mon, Jan 22, 2024, 9:08 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 1/22/24 12:01, 4st nomic via agora-official wrote: > > Changes: > > NONE - Where are the Assessor Reports? > > > The resolutions aren't even late yet, and I had an extremely busy > weekend. Please cut me some slack. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Election update
> > Prime Minister: Jimmy wins > "Jimmy, I demand to see some reductions in taxes!!! You have 1 week. Then... I will exercise my powers of Motion of No Confidence!!!" -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Dream Keeper, @Absurdor)
I have checked out wow I forgot you are a new player who should nominate emaelf for PM also! Woe On Wed, Jan 10, 2024, 9:02 PM Agora amdw42 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I push the boulder and dream of wealth > > —— > Ben >
DIS: Re: BUS: Registering as player
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 4:26 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Jan 10, 2024, at 6:17 PM, Mercury via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > Sorry for previous empty email, I hope it works this time > > Attempting to register, under the name Mercury. > > I grant Mercury a welcome package. Welcome to Agora! You now have 1 > Mercury stamp. > > For first steps, I recommend envisioning one of the available dreams, and > checking out the ribbons you can earn. > > -- > snail Mercury, you should become a candidate in the Prime Ministor election! Also I guess if juan or Goren are paying attention still, they should consider also. Why do only winners get to be the Prime Ministor?? -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: (draft) Emergent Gameplay?
(Inspired somewhat by
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg43941.html
but trying to tone it down to essentials for emergence of complex gameplay
from simple rules)
{
The Knip is an ordered list of players.
Morpts are a fungible asset.
The Qander is a singleton integer switch, defaulting to 3.
The Jelly Bean is an office that tracks the Knip, Morpts, and the Qander.
- At the beginning of each week, the player who is Qander in the Knip is
granted 1 morpt and removed from the Knip.
- Any player CAN, by announcement, enter the Knip if e is not in it,
becoming the last player in the Knip.
- Once each week, any player CAN floop with notice, reversing the Knip.
}
and then just let players add/remove to it, like,
{
- Players CAN, by announcement, pay 1 morpt for 5 victory tokens.
- Players CAN, by announcement, pay 1 morpt to increase or decrease the
Qander by 1.
}
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Proto: Stamp Specialization v0.9
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:13 AM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> Amend R2642, "Gathering Stones", to read in full: > >> > >> Grab Cost is an integer stone switch with default value 10, tracked > >> by the Stonemason. At the beginning of each week, the Grab Cost of > >> each Stone is decreased by 1, unless it is already 0. > >> > >> A player CAN "grab" a specified, non-immune stone by paying a fee of > >> X Stone Stamps, where X is the Stone's current Grab Cost. When e > >> does so, the specified stone is transferred to em and its Grab Cost > >> is set to 10. > >> > > Because 2642 is a different rule than 2640, 2640 is using the definition > of > > fixed from 2577. I think this means that stones are non-transferrable, > > since it would not be defined in its backing document (2640), and 2577 > has > > higher power than 2642? I think this also applies to weilding stones, > > however, I'm not certain because would R2645 be the backing document, and > > thus, defined methods of transfer? > > I think what you're saying is that you think transferring by grabbing > doesn't work, because R2642 cannot override the definition in R2640 > (because only the backing document can). I'm actually not sure. I can > move things around if necessary, but I'll ask for some clarification first. > > -- > nix > > ah, sorry, I did mention it before. If I'm the only one noticing, then it probably just magically *works* (at least, until someone points it out) Which is like... perfect, so no need to change it. :D -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Maze protocol
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 3:40 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 12/12/23 16:42, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: > > Similarly, creating and destroying a blot in the same message is a little > > "do nothing" thing, which although neat and shows that rules interact, > > again, doesn't further encourage any gameplay or interaction. (some other > > examples I was thinking of was creating and destroying a blot, or a > private > > asset). > > I don't think you can do the blot one (at least, not in that order). You > can only expunge if you haven't received a blot in the previous two weeks. > > -- > nix > > You're right... For some reason I thought it was only "if you hadn't committed any crimes"... -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Maze protocol
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 11:23 AM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 12/11/23 14:53, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> > Comment: 1. is not restrictive, and permits flipping the activity switch
> > for succeeding.
> > Response: This is not the only longstanding switch available in the rules
> > to be flipped, it's not the intended one, so should we explicitly say
> > "other than the Activity switch"? could we say "Warning: The activity
> > switch has repercussions for flipping, we recommend flipping a different
> > switch, but we won't stop you."?
>
> The activity switch isn't the issue. "Citizenship" is a switch.
> Registering *immediately* flips a switch. I would suggest:
>
> "E has, through game actions e has taken, caused a switch (besides
> Citizenship) to flip."
>
> You could also exclude activity, but that's not necessary IMO.
>
> >
> > Comment: 2. is oddly specific.
> > Response: This is somewhat true, but it is also based on longstanding
> rules
> > that haven't been disrupted. There are also more than one mechanism for
> > fulfilling this requirement that is longstanding, and I expected that
> this
> > level of complexity is to be expected of Agoran players. However, would
> it
> > be better to say create an asset and destroy an asset as separate maze
> > items?
>
> What's the example you're thinking of here? I don't know it off the top
> of my head. I guess I can create and destroy a promise, but it's odd
> behavior that serves no purpose. I don't think we should be encouraging
> people to do meaningless actions.
>
> > Comment: 6 prevents players that have any patent titles from receiving
> this
> > one. Suggestion that only champion patent titles exclude players.
> > Response: Does the language "E has not won the game, and does not have
> this
> > patent title." work better?
>
> Winning awards a specific patent title, Champion. So it can be:
>
> "E does not already have the Rookie or Champion titles prior to awarding
> emself this patent title."
>
> --
> nix
>
>
Ok, I see what you mean. Yeah: citizenship should not count, while the
player having identified that it flipped a switch, it doesn't actually
encourage any further game action or participation. And on that vein, I
agree that we should exclude activity as well then.
Similarly, creating and destroying a blot in the same message is a little
"do nothing" thing, which although neat and shows that rules interact,
again, doesn't further encourage any gameplay or interaction. (some other
examples I was thinking of was creating and destroying a blot, or a private
asset).
Your wording for 6 is better.
And finally, I agree that we should just shred regulations altogether to
the extent possible. Altogether, hopefully, since that would simplify the
Rulekeepor's job. Or at the very least, separate it into it's own job,
perhaps tracked by the promulgator. But that's really a different
conversation... for now, we could just workshop this into a rule.
Anyhow, here's a draft rule then (I encourage someone else to submit it
since I'm still on my LIME RIBBON PLS phase.)
{
Title: Tutorial Maze
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author:
Co-author: 4st, nix, murphy
Enact the following rule:
{
Each player CAN, with support, award emself the Patent Title "Rookie" if e
satisfies the following conditions:
- E has, through game actions e has taken, caused a switch, other than eir
Citizenship or Activity switches, to flip.
- E has, through game actions e has taken, created an asset.
- E has, through game actions e has taken, destroyed an asset.
- E has submitted a proposal.
- E has voted.
- E does not already have the Rookie or Champion titles prior to awarding
emself this patent title.
While tabling the awarding, e SHOULD cite all conditions e has fulfilled,
to encourage players to support em.
A player SHOULD attempt to figure these out on eir own by asking
questions, research, and the like, and SHOULD NOT look at the sources cited
of other players' attempts or awards until e has figured it out emself, as
looking is its own punishment. This rule SHOULD help new players understand
the rules better, and SHOULD NOT result in a ridiculously easy patent title.
New players are ENCOURAGED to propose additional conditions after earning
their patent title.
}
}
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: @collector @registrar
Hi Liz, and welcome! I grant Liz a welcome package. Don't spend your one stamp all in one place! (Joking!) You are now able to submit proposals, transfer your stamp, reach for stones, and push the boulder, among other things! Ask all the questions you like, we're s friendly bunch! On Sun, Dec 10, 2023, 8:08 AM Finley W. via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Good evening (or morning depending on whoever's reading.) > > I am looking to join Agora Nomic. > > I would like to be called Liz Wake, or just Liz. > > Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you! :) > > - Liz > > < > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail > > > Virus-free.www.avast.com > < > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >
DIS: Art Critique of "Snapshots" by Snail
I want to preface this that feelings are real, and are complicated.
Sometimes we know things without knowing them, which is why I agree so
whole-heartedly with snail and so desperately want em to earn a degree with
this thesis. That being said, there is a lot of feeling here in this thesis.
Despite eir simple claim to relative contextlessness, and there being no
common thread or theme, there are definitely two to be found: the
distinction between silly and serious, and the distinction between past and
present, with a focus on the past. Most of the messages are from 2008, with
a majority being "silly". What I think this thesis is trying to do is point
out how Agora, at least in the past, was a game, and as it has aged, it has
lost some of that special touch.
Most of the silliness comes from Ivan Hope and ehird in 2008. However, we
can contrast this to the mostly seriousness of omd's message, the serious
but indulging nature of ais523's message, the duality of R.Lee's message,
and the serious but silly undertones of Iammers message. With regard to
chronology of the work, the more serious messages come after the silly ones.
Additionally, this art was made in the current time period: there has been
a relative seriousness and lull since the repeal of sets and boatloads: We
see artifacts of this in the ruleset that taunt the past: For example, The
Fountain and The Parade both exist as monuments of the past, enacted by
dictators/oligarchs during less secure times, wherein those same
dictators/oligarchs maintain the status quo and claim democracy (at least
in my opinion) to keep the monuments standing. I would also like to
particularly note that snail and I were not players at the time these rules
were enacted, and have not otherwise been given the historical context for
those rules.
(Additionally, per my own recent analysis, I estimate Voting Strength is
only used 10% of the time to influence an otherwise democratic decision. It
remains to be seen the culprits of that 10%, but this is beside the point).
Overall, the work is an advocacy for a return to silliness. As a persuasive
work, it naturally omits details that would advocate for seriousness, such
as messages that are purely serious. It may also find such messages
unnecessary, as the social context provided by the current gameplay and
ruleset may be sufficient. Overall, to upgrade this to a Bachelor's degree,
I would like to see messages that contrast with these two themes: both
serious and recent messages, which would really highlight how Agoran
culture has changed.
Finally, a summary of the messages in my own words:
{
Ivan Hope CXXVII
May 18th, 2008
A definitively silly action to point out a serious flaw.
Ivan Hope CXXVII
later May 18th, 2008
A serious and silly action in a silly context.
November 4th, 2008
ehird
A definitively serious contract under the silly terms of the time.
V.J Rada
8 Sep 2017
A serious commentary on how everything is "broken" because of language not
being specific enough in the context of super specific language, which uses
silly language after identifying the problems.
Ivan Hope CXXVII
May 3rd, 2008
A serious and silly internomic contract dealing also with the player
shenanigans of the time.
ehird
A purposely silly apology that potentially and purposely doesn't fulfill
apology requirements of the time
Jun 7, 2008
& the CFJ on whether the silly apology met the criteria
ais523
Jun 7, 2008
omd
Nov 13, 2011
A serious fix to a serious problem
ehird
Sep 24, 2008
playerhood begins falling apart and going wrong
ehird
Jan 26, 2009
A silly CFJ as a response to a silly fight. A snapshot of a silly drama.
Iammars
Apr 10, 2008
Serious stuff happening despite player shenanigans occurring, with silly
commentary alongside it.
}
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Degree Decision - "Snapshots" by snail
Ah, I misinterpreted the conversation, oops. I apologize, then, this is 100% on me; I was attempting to summarize the unofficial thoughts during the awarding attempt and I made an error. CoE accepted, but I don't know that I can really do much about it other than... this? lol :) On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 12:52 PM Aris via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM 4st nomic via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I've been asked by the current herald to lead the Agoran Consent process > > for eir most recent thesis. > > - I myself deem it worthy of an Associate's of Art of Agora Nomic. > > - juan has abstained from reviewing (due to personal feelings on > academia). > > - Janet has stated that these message with no definitive context are not > > degree worthy, and the context given was that there is no definitive > > context. > > - nix has asked for further context, and overall seems to vibe similar to > > Janet on the matter (vibes similar is only my opinion), although snail > has > > provided context. > > - Aris has stated that e shall recuse emself from reviewing, although e > > overall expresses confusion and a definitive feeling (e stated this in > the > > Discord fora). > > > Really? Could you point me to where? It's conceivable that I said this and > forgot, but I think my statement that I'd recuse from the initial review > step was for your thesis, if you revised it again. > > -Aris > > > > -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Advent of Code
Agora has an unofficial Advent of Code, all are welcome to join nix: If you're not on it go to https://adventofcode.com/2023/leaderboard/private and use code 1035289-1f01749d -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Anarchist] (@Promotor) Anarchy
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 3:42 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 12/1/23 17:15, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > > (See proposal 5794, submitted on October 14th, 2008) > > Uhm excuse me, but I am the anarchist, per R2486. > > -- > nix > > mmm, don't see anywhere that says only 1 anarchist may exist :P -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9035-9039
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:08 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 11/28/23 08:56, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-11-27 11:38]: > >> Consider a referendum on an AI 3 proposal A. Also consider a Rule X, > >> power 2: "If it is greater than 1, The AI of the referendum on proposal > >> A is immediately set to 1." > >> > >> Rule X and Rule 1950 are now both attempting to continuously set the AI > >> of the decision to different values, and this isn't a conflict per se so > >> precedence rules don't apply. So it isn't clear what value should be > >> used, and it might even try to revert to the default. This proposal > >> prevents that by preventing the power 2 rule from setting it to a value > >> such that it has to be automatically corrected. > > Why is it not a conflict? When evaluating the effects of the rules, > > two different rules give two different actions for the same entity. It's > > clearly in conflict, as both actions cannot be done simultaneously. > > > > > > They're not being done simultaneously. The two rules never apply at the > same time, they just infinitely react to each other. > > This is *not* one rule saying "AI is 3" while the other is saying "AI is > 2", which can be resolved using normal precedence rules. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > On a holistic level, I think this is a conflict between rules. On an atomic level, this is a supertask. An infinite amount of untracked switch flips occur in a finite amount of time, that time period is decided by the assessor when attempting to resolve such a decision. A supertask results in an indeterminate value, which is similar to other indeterminate values EG in questions of ownership such as the radiance stone or other ships of theseus. The other supertask is when the promotor has to report the adoption index, and this is also an infinite number of tasks in a finite amount of time: the ending time being when the promotor publishes eir report. I think it can be resolved by CFJ as not a paradox, because it's not a logical paradox, just another normal Agoran question of indeterminancy. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Proto: Stamp Specialization v0.9
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 2:48 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Enact a new rule titled "Stamp Specialization":
>
> Stamp Specialization is a player switch with potential values "None"
> (default), "Any", "Selfsame", "Stone", and "Strength", tracked by
> the Collector.
>
> If e has never done so, or has not done so since the last time a
> player won via tokens, a player CAN flip eir Stamp Specialization
> switch to "Selfsame", "Stone", or "Strength" by announcement.
>
> If a person has not been a player for the last three months, any
> player CAN flip that player's Stamp Specialization switch to "Any"
> by announcement.
>
> To pay a fee of a "X" Stamp, where X is a Stamp Specialization, is
> to pay a fee of a Stamp whose corresponding player's Stamp
> Specialization is either X or "Any".
I think stamp specialty should be secured at power 2, since it affects
voting strength, but I don't see that listed here. i
Also... Stamp specialization switch would need to be tracked on persons,
not players, as players are registered.
Also... if a person is deregistered for 3 months... then they get set to
ANY, then they reregister with super powers.
> Enact a new rule titled "Victory Tokens":
>
> Victory Tokens are an asset. A player CAN pay a Selfsame Stamp, a
> Stone Stamp, and a Strength Stamp to grant emself 1 Victory Token.
>
> If a player has more Victory Tokens than each other player, and the
> Boulder's Height is 50 or more, that player CAN win by announcement.
>
>
Since this gets rid of radiance, this is fine. However, may want to specify
the office that tracks Victory Tokens (presumably the collector?). I think
this would be fine to leave at power=1.
> Enact a new rule titled "Stamps for Strength":
>
> A player CAN pay three Strength Stamps. Eir Voting Strength is
> increased by 2 on all ordinary referenda currently being voted on.
>
As I said to ais523's gems, I think there should be a cap to voting
strength gained from this. Probably a cap of 3? (needs to be Power=2)
Amend R2659, "Stamps", by deleting the following:
>
> Any player CAN, once per week, pay X Stamps, where each specified
> Stamp is a different type, to gain (X^2)-X radiance.
>
> Any player CAN, once per week, pay X Stamps, where each Stamp is
> the same type, to gain (X-1)*2 radiance.
>
> and adding:
>
> At the beginning of the month, X stamps of eir own type are granted
> to each player. When e owns less than 8 Stamps, X is 2. When e owns
> 8 to 15 Stamps, X is 1. When e owns 16 or more Stamps, X is 0.
>
> A player CAN pay three Selfsame Stamps to grant emself 2 Stamps of
> eir own type.
>
>
I think there should be an ability to pay N Selfsame Stamps to change a
player's specialty if they have already chosen one.
> Repeal R2675 ("Dream of Wandering").
>
> Repeal R2656 ("Radiance").
>
> Amend R2640, "Stones" by replacing:
>
> A stone is a unique indestructible liquid asset
>
> with:
>
> A stone is a unique fixed indestructible liquid asset
>
> and deleting:
>
> (ii) The smoothness of the stone, which is a non-negative integer;
>
> Amend R2641, "Wielding Stones" by replacing:
>
> While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it or to transfer
> it by announcement
>
> with:
>
> While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it
>
> Amend R2642, "Gathering Stones", to read in full:
>
> Grab Cost is an integer stone switch with default value 10, tracked
> by the Stonemason. At the beginning of each week, the Grab Cost of
> each Stone is decreased by 1, unless it is already 0.
>
> A player CAN "grab" a specified, non-immune stone by paying a fee of
> X Stone Stamps, where X is the Stone's current Grab Cost. When e
> does so, the specified stone is transferred to em and its Grab Cost
> is set to 10.
>
Because 2642 is a different rule than 2640, 2640 is using the definition of
fixed from 2577. I think this means that stones are non-transferrable,
since it would not be defined in its backing document (2640), and 2577 has
higher power than 2642? I think this also applies to weilding stones,
however, I'm not certain because would R2645 be the backing document, and
thus, defined methods of transfer?
Repeal R2643, "Collecting Stones".
>
> Amend R2645, "The Stones", to read in full:
>
> The following stones are defined, one per paragraph, with the
> following format: Stone Name (Frequency): Description.
>
> - Power Stone (weekly): When this stone is wielded, a specified
> player (defaulting to the wielder if not specified) is Power
> Stoned; Power Stoning is secured. A player's voting strength on
> a referendum on an ordinary proposal is increased by 3 for each
> time that e was Power Stoned during the referendum's voting
> period.
>
> - Soul Stone (weekly): When wielded,
Re: DIS: [Proto] Multiple Dreams
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 7:00 AM 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 6:28 AM Goren Barak via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> Title: Multiple Dreams >> Author: Goren Barak >> Adoption Index: 1 > > Also Adoption index needs to be at least 2, as the rule you are attempting to modify (Dream of Wandering) has power=2. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: [Proto] Multiple Dreams
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 6:28 AM Goren Barak via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Title: Multiple Dreams
> Author: Goren Barak
> Adoption Index: 1
> Coathors:
>
Co-authors (spelling), and also, rude not to include Murphy, snail, and I.
(snail had/remembered the idea, Murphy had specific notes, and I have
provided the following feedback! :P no worries tho just add us :D )
{
> Rewrite Rule 2675 (Dream of Wandering) as such:
>
The arcane incantation is "
Amend Rule 2675 (Dream of Wandering) to read in full:
{
[new text]
}
"
Although, I think it would be more responsible/acceptable to specify
exactly the text you want to replace
"Amend blah by replacing {
[oldtext]
} with {
[newtext]
}"
Dream is a secured active player switch, tracked by the Dream Keeper in
> eir weekly report, with possible values any set of Dreams, each Dream
> having a unique value, or an empty pair of dreams, defaulting to an
> empty pair of dreams. An "X Dreamer" is a player with one of eir Dreams
> set to X.
>
I'm not sure, but the definition of set implies uniqueness on its own. The
part I'm not sure of is whether Agora agrees.
I also think "or an empty set, defaulting to an empty set" would be more
succinct, but I don't think that's strictly required to be changed for this
proposal to pass.
Also "An "X Dreamer" is a player with eir Dream containing X."
> An active player CAN "envision" a set of dreams, specifying any valid
> value for eir Dreams, by announcement. When the rules state that the
> wandering occurs, every active player's Dream is set to the values e
> most recently envisioned. If a player did not envision a dream since the
> last wandering, it is not flipped.
>
"specifying a set of up to two Dreams." I think would be better: it's
pretty well known that it's potentially scammable, if we want to leave the
scam "open" we should at least make it inaccessible, although everyone WILL
be looking for a way to exploit it, it's not a big deal I don't think since
it's not exploitable right now.
(If anyone puts up a fight to this I strongly suggest that you provide new
wording to accommodate your vision.)
"every active player's Dream is set to the value e most recently
envisioned" a Dream can only contain a single value, and that single value
is a set of values.
Not sure of the repercussion of the wording you have, and I think others
would point out the same regardless...
Also... wrt shenanigans (setting my dream to my dream)... what is the
difference between Dream and Dreams? maybe a bug, maybe not; if you have
any idea how to fix it it would be welcome, but I don't think anyone is
worried about its existence currently.
Finally... I know I SAID to remove Wandering, but it's referenced in
Revolution, so we either change revolution or let it be. I think letting it
be is probably fine anyway.
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: [proto] Unforceability
I think it would be better to just explicitly list the options? I think informal agreements shouldn't be included as part of that list. "unless the provision merely requires em to abide by a contract, promise, or pledge to which e has consented." On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 1:04 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 11/20/23 18:43, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 11/20/23 12:04, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > >> A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby > >> designates that a player NEED NOT comply with any provision of any Rule > >> that requires or forbids em from performing or refraining from > >> performing that action, unless the provision merely requires em to abide > >> by an agreement to which e has consented. > > Aren't the rules themselves "an agreement to which e has consented"? > > > > "an agreement to which e has consented (other than the Rules themselves)"? > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: (drafts) LIME RIBBON LIME RIBBON
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 12:36 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 11/21/23 15:31, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> > {
> > Title: Thanks Registrar!
> > Adoption Index: 1.0
> > Author:
> > Co-author: 4st
> >
> > Award juan the patent titles "Six Months Long Service" and "Nine Months
> > Long Service".
> > }
>
>
> Petition the Herald to do this instead?
>
The herald can award long service with 2 agoran consent. By proposal, it's
easier to give the patent title.
Maybe make the proposal democratic I guess.
One more:
{
Title: Exile hole
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author:
Co-author: 4st
Amend Rule 2556 ("Penalties") by appending:
{
A player exiled in this way CANNOT register or re-register for 1 day.
}
[Murphy pointed out this has been exploited before.]
}
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: (drafts) LIME RIBBON LIME RIBBON
(c'mon I worked hard to find all these! There's 5, and I only need 3 to
pass to get a lil limey wimey!)
{
Title: Public Emergency
Adoption Index: 3.1
Author:
Co-author: 4st
Amend Rule 2614 ("Eclipse Light") by replacing
{
An emergency message is one whose subject line contains the text
"[Emergency]".
} with {
An emergency message is a public message whose subject line contains the
text
"[Emergency]".
}
}
{
Title: Agorant Finding
Adoption index: 2
Author:
Co-author: 4st, snail
Amend Rule 2667 ("Succumbing to Time") to read, in full:
{
A player CAN Succumb by announcement.
When a player Succumbs the first time in a month, each of eir deadlines
to perform an Officer's duty or judge a Call for Judgement is extended
by 1 day if it would otherwise expire within the next week.
}
Change the power of Rule 2667 ("Succumbing to Time") to 2.
Amend Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time") by appending the text:
{
Deadlines are secured at the power of the rule that defines them, or
the power of this rule, whichever is lower.
}
}
{
Title: Fix Useless Rule
Adoption Index: 2.0
Author:
Co-author: 4st
Change the power of Rule 2463 ("Motion of No Confidence") to 2.
[Offices are secured, so you can't actually remove the PM in this way.]
}
{
Title: Yes, you CAN impeach the tailor
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author:
Co-author: 4st
Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") by changing:
{
The Tailor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Ribbons.
} to read {
The Tailor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Ribbons.
The Tailor is secured at power 2.
}
{
Title: Thanks Registrar!
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author:
Co-author: 4st
Award juan the patent titles "Six Months Long Service" and "Nine Months
Long Service".
}
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: [draft] (specifically @ Herald) Maze
>From my recent in progress data analysis thesis, the y-intercept was
about -0.64 awards. I hope that this little "tutorial" can help with that,
and also help with "me new, what do" syndrome:
{
Herald Administrative Regulation MAZE
A player CAN award emself the Patent Title "Rookie", if that player
satisfies the following conditions:
1. E has flipped a switch twice.
2. E has created and destroyed an asset.
3. E has a ribbon.
4. E has no Patent Titles prior to awarding themself this patent title.
5. E has tabled an intent.
6. E has voted.
7. E, in the awarding message, cites all conditions they have fulfilled
other than this one.
}
Thoughts, additions? Should 1 & 2 have the additional requirement of being
"in a single message, E..."?
Should the Patent title come under a different name?
Murphy is thinking we should bring back ephemeral patent titles, so this
patent title goes away after some condition is met?
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Proto: A new economy
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 8:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > * Democracy Gem (Assessor): As part of eir weekly duties, the Assessor > SHALL, and CAN by announcement, award 3 Change Gems to each player who > voted FOR on at least half the referenda that were resolved that week; > and SHALL NOT resolve referenda for the rest of the week after doing > so. > Despite others' dislike of this, I like this in particular. However, I will note that this is easily blocked by NO-OP proposals. I think we would want to amend the rules to somehow limit the number of proposals an author can have in the proposal pool, so that an author can only have one in the pool at a time. > * Trade Gem (Collector): Trade Participation is an untracked negative > boolean player switch. When a player pays a Stamp of another player's > type to perform an action defined in the rule "Stamps", eir Trade > Participation becomes True. As part of eir weekly duties, the Collector > SHALL, and CAN by announcement, grant each player whose Trade > Participation is True 3 Trade Gems; such a grant causes the player's > Trade Participation to become False. > I like this also in particular: this encourages the existing economy to do a thing. > * Vision Gem (Dream Keeper): As part of eir weekly duties, the Dream > Keepor SHALL, and CAN by announcement, award 5 Vision Gems to each > Mining Dreamer. [With rule 2675 amended to add the new Dream.] > I think this is great: right now the dreams are focused on 3 teams: power, wealth, and gardens. This would increase the spread. * Triumph Gem (Herald): Whenever a player wins the game, the Herald CAN > once by announcement, and SHALL within one month, grant em 25 Triumph > Gems. Whenever a player gains a Patent Title other than Champion, the > Herald CAN once by announcement, and SHALL within one month, grant em > 10 Triumph Gems. > I think this is lovely! Triumph gems would be scarce, but make winning more meaningful, and also encourage it a bit: if there's no triumph gems in the economy, you'll have to generate some somehow! > * Conspire Gem (Notary): As part of eir monthly duties, the Notary > SHALL, and CAN by announcement, grant 35 Conspire Gems to each Group > which has, or is tied for, the most, second-most or third-most parties. > [With the rules amended to define a Group, which is a special case of a > contract, designed so that each player can only be part of one Group at > a time.] > This sounds... difficult to implement, but still good. > * Idea Gem (Promotor): Proposal Participation is an untracked negative > boolean player switch. Whenever the Promotor distributes a proposal, > the Proposal Participation of its author and coauthors becomes True. At > the end of each week, the Proposal Participation of all players becomes > False. When a player's Proposal Participation becomes true, the > Promotor CAN once by announcement, and SHALL before it becomes false, > grant 3 Idea Gems to that player. > With the Democracy gem, I think that this is pretty cool, to encourage other players to interact meaningfully with core Agoran Gameplay. With the "only 1 proposal in the pool per author" at a time amendment (suggested above), I think this will mean some players will convince others (or maybe enable via contract) to propose on eir behalf. * Clean Gem (Referee); As part of eir weekly duties, the Referee SHALL, > and CAN by announcement, grant 2 Clean Gems to each player who does not > have Blots. > I don't know that we need free gems for being "clean". The activity gem already handles regular participation awards. I think maybe it would be better for the opposite: to get free gems for being "dirty", like a medium amount of blots (maybe 3 blots or more) causes you get get dirty gems instead? because people can just get dirty by creating blots on themselves. If we want "clean" vs "dirty" maybe that'd be worthwhile? like grant some activity gems for "clean" players, because those are basic participation? but i don't think "clean" is necessary. > * Activity Gem (Registrar): As part of eir weekly duties, the Registrar > SHALL, and CAN by announcement, grant 2 Activity Gems to each active > player. [Perhaps Welcome Packages should contain lots of these, and > smaller amounts of the other types of gem.] > I like the idea presented: give new players something to play with that they can get back. However, I can see this being scammed by some players deregistering, putting their gems into a contract or so, waiting a month, and re-registering to get another welcome package, depending on how much of a difference it is... * Change Gem (Rulekeepor): Whenever a proposal (other than a > disinterested proposal) takes effect and enacts, repeals, or changes a > substantive aspect of at least one rule, the Rulekeepor CAN once by > announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, grant 4 Change Gems to its > author. ["Disinterested" originally undefined but we can add it
Re: DIS: [proto] Unforceability
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 3:43 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 11/20/23 12:04, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby > > designates that a player NEED NOT comply with any provision of any Rule > > that requires or forbids em from performing or refraining from > > performing that action, unless the provision merely requires em to abide > > by an agreement to which e has consented. > > Aren't the rules themselves "an agreement to which e has consented"? > > -- > nix > > Oh was it that obvious? I was keeping that one to myself! :) -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: [proto] Unforceability
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:05 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> To address some of the holes that befell Agoran't:
>
> {
>
> Add (somewhere? enact a new rule? at power 2 or 3?):
>
> {
>
> A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby
> designates that a player NEED NOT comply with any provision of any Rule
> that requires or forbids em from performing or refraining from
> performing that action, unless the provision merely requires em to abide
> by an agreement to which e has consented.
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the following actions are
> unforceable:
>
> * Tabling an intent
>
> * Becoming or ceasing to be a supporter or objector to an intent.
>
> * Initiating, voting on, or resolving an Agoran decision.
>
> * Submitting or distributing a proposal.
>
> }
>
> }
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
There are cases when we want to restrict the amount of proposals submitted,
aren't there? EG in sets I thought there was a mechanism, and it was well
liked?
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: [CFJ] (@arbitor) Re: BUS: Agoran't roles summary
Any player CAN judge this CFJ without 3 objections, given that our Arbitor
is missing.
Also... given the complexity of Agorant, and this CFJ, a well reasoned and
explained judgement would probably be deserving of at least a J.N. Degree.
(at least... in my opinion).
Just to incentivize people!
On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 3:09 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 11:44 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Alright, just to ensure this gets to list, here were the secrets for
> > Agoran't:
> >
> > Letter -> role list:
> >
> > A. Protector Protector Destroyer Subtracter Destroyer Protector
> > Metawinner Adder Protector Destroyer Subtracter Metawinner Destroyer
> Adder
> > B. Destroyer Protector Metawinner Metawinner Protector Protector
> > Subtracter Destroyer Destroyer Destroyer Adder Protector Adder Subtracter
> > C. Protector Adder Subtracter Protector Protector Destroyer Protector
> > Adder Metawinner Metawinner Subtracter Destroyer Destroyer Destroyer
> > D. Metawinner Protector Protector Adder Subtracter Metawinner Destroyer
> > Destroyer Destroyer Subtracter Destroyer Adder Protector Protector
> > E. Protector Adder Adder Destroyer Protector Metawinner Destroyer
> > Metawinner Destroyer Destroyer Subtracter Protector Protector Subtracter
> > F. Metawinner Metawinner Adder Destroyer Adder Destroyer Subtracter
> > Protector Protector Destroyer Subtracter Protector Destroyer Protector
> > G. Protector Destroyer Subtracter Subtracter Metawinner Adder Protector
> > Adder Metawinner Protector Destroyer Destroyer Protector Destroyer
> >
> >
> > Letter -> role index (1-based):
> >
> > A. 1
> > B. 1
> > C. 2
> > D. 5
> > E. 1
> > F. 1
> > G. 2
> >
> >
> > Letter -> person:
> >
> > A. Kate @ kate dot agora at katherina dot rocks
> > B. Kiako @ its dot kiako at gmail dot com
> > C. secretsnail @ secretsnail9 at gmail dot com
> > D. Murphy @ murphy dot agora at gmail dot com
> > E. Janet @ janet dot agora at unspecified dot systems
> > F. 4st @ 4st dot nomic at gmail dot com
> > G. Yachay @ yachaywayllukuq at gmail dot com
> >
> >
> > This gives the following letter -> role map:
> >
> > A. Protector
> > B. Destroyer
> > C. Adder
> > D. Subtractor
> > E. Protector
> > F. Metawinner
> > G. Destroyer
> >
> >
> > And thus the following player -> role map:
> >
> > Kate: Protector
> > kiako: Destroyer
> > secretsnail: Adder
> > Murphy: Subtractor
> > Janet: Protector
> > 4st: Metawinner
> > Yachay: Destroyer
> >
>
> I award Kate the Patent Title of Champion.
> I award kiako the Patent Title of Champion.
> I award snail the Patent Title of Champion.
> I award Murphy the Patent Title of Champion.
> I award Janet the Patent Title of Champion.
> I award Yachay the Patent Title of Champion.
>
> Note: some of the above awards fail.
>
> CFJ: As a result of the 2023 Agoran't Birthday Tournament, Kate and Janet
> won the game.
>
> Arguments:
>
> There's a lot of things to consider for this CFJ, but the obvious one is
> whether festivity was ratified to be 5 due to an obfuscated tailor's
> festivity announcement.
> If it was, Kate and Janet's power 3 dictatorship proposal likely passed and
> did things, which should still be looked into, but probably makes them win.
> If not, snail's dictatorship likely passed instead, and should similarly be
> looked into, but additionally any methods for changing the rules at that
> state need to be examined.
>
> CFJ: As a result of the 2023 Agoran't Birthday Tournament, snail won the
> game.
>
> CFJ: As a result of the 2023 Agoran't Birthday Tournament, Murphy won the
> game.
>
> Arguments: Knowing which dictatorship passed is needed to exactly get the
> rule count when the tournament ended, and the enactment of multiple rules
> with the same attributes also needs to be considered.
>
>
> Specific arguments for festivity never being 5 in Agoran't:
>
> From Rule 2480 (Festivals):
>
> In addition, while Festivity is
> non-zero, the Tailor SHALL announce its value each week; a public
> document purporting to be such an announcement is self-ratifying.
>
> The text of the rules says a public document must purport to be "such an
> announcement" to be self-ratifying.
>
> Kate sent an ADoP report with the following hidden message:
>
> {{
>
> UPCOMING ELECTIONS[1]
>
> Office Days Until Last Election
>
> Absurdor 00 Days (never)
> Assessor 00 Days (never)
> Buttonmastor 00 Days (never)
> Collector 00 Days (never)
> Dream Keeper 00 Days (never)
> Herald 00 Days (never)
> Prime Minister 00 Days (never)
> Promotor 00 Days (never)
> Referee 00 Days (never)
> Registrar 00 Days (never)
> Rulekeepor 00 Days (never)
> Stonemason 00 Days (never)
>
> [1] Anyone can start an election (with 2 support and also becoming a
> candidate) 90 days after the
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Something completely obvious
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 3:02 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 11/20/23 16:17, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > > Hi new players who haven't won yet! > > > > This probably won't work, but: > > > > I intend to, without objection, declare apathy, specifying myself, juan, > > zipzap, Goren, crystalizedmire, cuddlybanana, Anneke-Constantine, and > > kiako. > > I may regret pointing this out but: Considering the number of players on > this list you'd have better luck doing this by proposal. > > -- > nix > > Thanks for pointing that out! I recommend anyone on this list other than myself submit such a proposal. :P -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: [proto] Unforceability
IMO: add to this list "sending a public message"
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:05 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> To address some of the holes that befell Agoran't:
>
> {
>
> Add (somewhere? enact a new rule? at power 2 or 3?):
>
> {
>
> A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby
> designates that a player NEED NOT comply with any provision of any Rule
> that requires or forbids em from performing or refraining from
> performing that action, unless the provision merely requires em to abide
> by an agreement to which e has consented.
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the following actions are
> unforceable:
>
> * Tabling an intent
>
> * Becoming or ceasing to be a supporter or objector to an intent.
>
> * Initiating, voting on, or resolving an Agoran decision.
>
> * Submitting or distributing a proposal.
>
> }
>
> }
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Proto: A new economy
Fwiw I don't mind incentivizing change nor more blots. If what it takes to win becomes being a super goodie two shoes so be it On Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 9:29 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 11/18/23 11:49, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > * Democracy Gem (Assessor): As part of eir weekly duties, the Assessor > > SHALL, and CAN by announcement, award 3 Change Gems to each player who > > voted FOR on at least half the referenda that were resolved that week; > > and SHALL NOT resolve referenda for the rest of the week after doing > > so. > > > I'll have more thoughts later, but for now: > > I don't see why this specifically is something that we want to incentivize. > > > > * Clean Gem (Referee); As part of eir weekly duties, the Referee SHALL, > > and CAN by announcement, grant 2 Clean Gems to each player who does not > > have Blots. > > Similarly, I don't think it's a good to incentivize pointing out minor > crimes. That's caused issues in the past. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
DIS: Re: (@Assessor, Stonemason) Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] State-sanctioned celebrations (for real)
I change my vote on that referendum to AGAINST.
I vote AGAINST that referendum.
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023, 3:39 AM ais523 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-11-16 at 22:02 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > [Oops we forgot to get Royal Assent last time.]
> >
> > I issue a Cabinet Order of Manifesto, distributing the proposal in the
> > Proposal Pool with title "Celebration!" that I most recently submitted,
> > removing it from the Proposal Pool and initiating a referendum on it.
> > For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum is 3,
> > the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and
> > AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes).
> >
> > For this proposal, the class is Democratic. Other attributes of the
> > proposal are as follows:
> >
> > Title: Celebration!
> > Author: Janet
> > Coauthors:
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> >
> > {
> >
> > Enact a new Rule with power 3, title "Dictatorship", and text as follows:
> > {
> > Janet, acting as emself, CAN proclaim by announcement, specifying a
> > published document as being the Decree. When e does so, the Decree's
> > power is set to the power of this rule, then it takes effect, then its
> > power is set to 0.
> >
> > When a Decree takes effect, the Decree applies the changes
> > that it specifies in its text, except as prohibited by other
> > rules. Unless otherwise specified by the text, the effects are
> > applied in the order they appear in the text. Clearly marked
> > comments are ignored. If the Decree cannot make some changes it
> > specifies, that does not preclude the other changes from taking
> > place.
> >
> > A document CANNOT become a Decree except as specified in this Rule. A
> > Decree CANNOT take effect except as specified in this Rule.
> > }
> >
> > }
>
> For each referendum initiated today, I vote AGAINST on that referendum.
> (If Janet has a way to force this through, I'd like to see it:
> sometimes a forcethrough attempt ends up passing just on natural votes,
> which is really boring compared to seeing a scam in action, and thus
> it's a lot more interesting to vote AGAINST rather than FOR when this
> sort of thing happens.)
>
> Not coincidentally, I reach for the Sabotage Stone.
>
> --
> ais523
>
DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] State-sanctioned celebrations (for real)
I vote FOR also. (Not sure why we're doing this but let's go for it!) On Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 7:21 PM nix via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 11/16/23 21:10, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > >>> On the above decision I vote FOR. > >>> > >> *sigh* > >> > >> On the above-initiated I vote FOR. (Probably this fails since I already > >> did so but I continue to be paranoid.) > >> > > *sigh* *sigh* > > > > On the above-initiated *decision* I vote FOR. (Probably this fails as > > before.) > > Just in case I can and it helps, I vote FOR on Janet's behalf. > > -- > nix > >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9027-9030
CoE:
Rules as items v5 is the proposal with me as the author. That was to be
withdrawn, and replaced with rules as items v6.
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023, 4:13 AM secretsnail9 via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Dear CoEs relevant to the Promotor: everything should be fixed as of this
> report/revision:
>
> PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW
>
> Important note: Proposal 9024 was never distributed, as it never existed.
>
> If you vote on a proposal, please edit this spreadsheet with your votes:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F39OHtBlZlQ8XVccqKCFtP-DPuHz4wPnujxbxkCN3LI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
> and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote
> collector
> is the Assessor, the quorum is 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the
> valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> conditional votes).
>
>
> ID Author(s) AITitle
> ---
> 9027* Kate, snail 3.0 De-Escalating the Hole
> 9028~ Janet 2.0 Fairness in Crime Act
> 9029~ snail, Zipzap 2.0 Sharing takes Care
> 9030~ 4st 1.0 (n/a)
>
>
>
>
> The proposal pool contains the following proposals:
>
> ID Author(s) AITitle
> ---
>
>
>
>
> Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
> ~ : Ordinary proposal.
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
> the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
> the information shown above shall control.
>
>
> //
> ID: 9027
> Title: De-Escalating the Hole
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Kate
> Co-authors: snail
>
> Amend Rule 869 by replacing the following text:
>
> An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
> prevented by the rules) register
>
> with:
>
> An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
> prevented by Rules of power 3 or greater) register
>
> //
> ID: 9028
> Title: Fairness in Crime Act
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Janet
> Co-authors:
>
>
>
> Amend Rule 2478 ("Justice") by, as a single amendment:
>
> {
>
> Replacing "Within 14 days of an infraction being committed," with
> "Within 14 days of an infraction being committed, or if the infraction
> has been noted in the past 60 days,".
>
> Then, replacing "any other player in the last 7 days" with "any other
> player in the last 14 days".
>
> }
>
> [Harmonize the time limits to investigate and to note, and ensure a
> noted infraction can always be investigated beyond the time limit to do
> so (allowing deputization).]
>
>
> Amend Rule 2531 ("Defendant's Rights") by, as a single amendment:
>
> {
>
> Appending a semicolon to the list item numbered (1), if it does not
> already end in a semicolon.
>
> Then, deleting the trailing " or" from the list item numbered (4).
>
> Then, appending " or" to the list item numbered (5).
>
> Then, appending the following to the first list: { (6) any available
> non-null punishment would be blatantly and obviously unsuited to the
> conduct which constitutes the infraction or to the person who committed
> the infraction. }
>
> Then, appending the following to the rule:
>
> {
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any attempt to investigate an
> infraction which would result in the creation of blots is INEFFECTIVE if:
>
> (1) it does not include the specific reason for the fine; or
>
> (2) it would result in a punishment that is blatantly and obviously
> unsuited to the conduct which constitutes the infraction or to the
> person who committed the infraction.
>
> }
>
> }
>
> [Restore the old "blatantly and obviously unsuited" standard to protect
> defendants.]
>
> //
> ID: 9029
> Title: Sharing takes Care
> Adoption Index: 2.0
> Author: snail
> Co-author(s): Zipzap
>
>
> //comment: Changes "points" to "Radiance"
>
> Amend Rule 2675 (Dream of Wandering) to read, in full:
>
> {
>
> The Dream Keeper is an office; its holder is responsible for
> keeping track of the dreams of all active players.
>
> Dream is a secured active player switch, tracked by the Dream
> Keeper in eir weekly report, with possible values any Dream,
> defaulting to Wandering. An "X Dreamer" is a player with eir Dream
> switch set to X.
>
> An active player CAN "envision" eir own Dream, specifying any
> valid value for eir Dream, by announcement. When the rules state
> that the wandering occurs, every active player's Dream is set to
> the value e most recently envisioned. If a player did not
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4051 Assigned to snail
I support all intents below. On Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 9:27 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 11/13/23 00:26, nix via agora-business wrote: > > On 10/20/23 16:42, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > >> I self-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 4051, and judge it FALSE. I > thought > >> 67 was the "dream didn't work" number. > > I intend with 5 support to enter this CFJ 4051 into a moot. I intend > > with 6 support to enter CFJ 4051 into a moot (in case enough time passes > > to invalidate the previous). > > > > The conclusion of 4051 *seems* to contradict the conclusions of CFJs > > 4018, 3831, and 3838. The former found a specific scenario where > > radiance and points were equal (a scenario that notably benefited the > > judge that ruled otherwise here), and the latter have found that > > synonyms, from common usage or agoran usage, generally work. > > > > I think a judgment needs to explain why this situation is different than > > the others where synonyms have worked, or else find TRUE. > > > > *sigh* > > I support the above intent for "with 5 support". > > I support the above intent for "with 6 support". > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemaso >
DIS: Re: (@Stonemason) BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 12 Nov 2023
I reach for the anti-equatorial stone. On Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 11:28 AM ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2023-11-12 at 14:21 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT) > > > > StoneMossiness OwnerLast Wielded Immune? > > --- - --- --- > > Power1 Agora2023-10-25Agora > > Soul 1 Agora2023-04-23Agora > > Sabotage 1 Agora2023-10-25Agora > > Minty1 Agora2023-10-31Agora > > Protection 1 Agora2023-10-01Agora > > Recursion1 Janet2023-11-01 > > Hot Potato 1 Agora2023-11-04Agora > > Blank1 Agora2023-05-28Agora > > Anti-Equatorial 1 Agora2023-11-01Agora > > Radiance 1 Agora2023-10-31Agora > > I reach for the Radiance Stone. > > -- > ais523 >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9020-9026
I vote FOR on all Agoran (not agorant ) referenda. On Mon, Nov 6, 2023, 7:42 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I vote as follows: > > 9020~ 4st, ...[1] 1.0 Free Black Ribbons > > AGAINST > > > > 9021~ 4st, ...[1] 1.0 Free Points > > AGAINST > > > > 9022~ 4st, ...[1] 1.0 Free Pebbles > > AGAINST > > > > 9023~ 4st, ...[1] 1.0 Free Stamps > > AGAINST > > > > 9024~ Janet 1.7 Investigation time limits > > I believe no such decision exists; however, if it does, I vote FOR > > > > 9025~ Yachay 2.0 Stone Repeal > > AGAINST > > > > 9026~ Janet, Kate 1.5 It's a bit dark in here > > FOR > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Submission - Stone Repeal
I think the proper way to repeal anything is to tweak and break it so subtly it's finally scammed, then you repeal it. That seems to be the way things go. Or at least the fun way. Maybe we just need new stones, after all! On Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 7:52 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I retract the Proposal named "Stone Repeal" and I submit the following > Proposal: > > Name: Stone Repeal > AI: 2 > Author: Yachay > Co-authors: None > > Repeal Rules 2640, 2641, 2642, 2643, 2644, and 2645 in ascending numerical > order by ID > > // Comment: This November, this rule will have existed for three years. > Tragically, I haven't seen or experienced any interesting gameplay from it. > I believe it's time to move on. > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 2:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 10/31/23 05:19, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > > I submit the following Proposal: > > > > > > Name: Stone Repeal > > > AI: 2 > > > Author: Yachay > > > Co-authors: None > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2640, 2641, 2642, 2643, 2644, 2645 > > > > > > /* Comment: This November, this rule will have existed for three years. > > > Tragically, I haven't seen or experienced any interesting gameplay from > > it. > > > I believe it's time to move on. > > > > > > It's the only gameplay we have right now. > > > > Also, these proposals usually include "in order" or "in ascending > > numerical order by ID" to avoid the rule changes accidentally being > > simultaneous. > > > > -- > > Janet Cobb > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > > >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9011-9019
CoE: the proposal pool lacks my proposals submitted October 9th.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 4:58 AM secretsnail9 via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW
>
> If you vote on a proposal, please edit this spreadsheet with your votes:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F39OHtBlZlQ8XVccqKCFtP-DPuHz4wPnujxbxkCN3LI/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
> and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote
> collector
> is the Assessor, the quorum is 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the
> valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> conditional votes).
>
>
> ID Author(s) AITitle
> ---
> 9011~ Zipzap 2.0 Sharing Dreams in the Modern Era
> 9012~ Janet 2.0 Official security
> 9013~ 4st 1.0 Cool numbers
> 9014~ kiako, Janet1.0 Back from Extinction
> 9015~ kiako 1.0 Beaming Towards Victory
> 9016~ kiako, Janet1.0 Alluring Gambits
> 9017~ kiako, Murphy 1.0 Over 9000 Lumens!
> 9018~ kiako 1.0 Rocky Refraction
> 9019* Janet, nix, Kate3.0 Forum restoration
>
>
>
>
> The proposal pool contains the following proposals:
>
> ID Author(s) AITitle
> ---
>
>
>
>
> Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
> ~ : Ordinary proposal.
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
> the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
> the information shown above shall control.
>
>
> //
> ID: 9011
> Title: Sharing Dreams in the Modern Era
> Adoption Index: 2.0
> Author: Zipzap
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Rule 2675's current text concerning the Sharing Dream
>
> > Sharing: Immediately after a wandering, each Sharing Dreamer has eir
> points increased by X / Y...
>
> is amended to
>
> > Sharing: Immediately after a wandering, each Sharing Dreamer has eir
> radiance increased by X / Y...
>
> //
> ID: 9012
> Title: Official security
> Adoption Index: 2.0
> Author: Janet
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Amend Rule 1006 ("Offices") by replacing the sentence
>
> {
>
> Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the ADoP, with possible
> values of any person or "vacant" (default).
>
> }
>
> with the following sentences:
>
> {
>
> Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the ADoP, with possible
> values of any person or "vacant" (default). Each instance of the
> Officeholder switch is secured at the power of the Rule defining the
> associated office (or the power of this Rule, if the defining Rule's
> power is higher).
>
> }
>
>
> Amend Rule 2632 ("Complexity") by replacing "Complexity is an office
> switch" with "Complexity is a secured office switch".
>
> //
> ID: 9013
> Title: Cool numbers
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author(s):
>
> (this goes to show that numbers are trivially entities: see CFJ 4050)
> Create a new rule entitled "Cool Numbers" with power=1
> and the following text:
> {
> Coolness is a number switch with a value of any number.
> }
> Flip 4's coolness to 4.
>
> //
> ID: 9014
> Title: Back from Extinction
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: kiako
> Co-author(s): Janet
>
>
> Enact a rule with title "Laserwort", Power 1, and the text:
>
> {{
>
>Laserwort (syn. laser, silphium) is a currency with ownership wholly
> restricted to players and Agora and is tracked by the Florist. If any
> amount of laserwort is owned by the Lost and Found Department or would
> otherwise be in abeyance, it is transferred to Agora instead.
>
>The stock is defined as ten times the number of players.
>
>If the amount of laserwort that exists is ever greater than the
> stock, then an amount owned by Agora equal to the difference is
> destroyed (or as many as possible, if less). If the amount of laserwort
> that exists is ever less than the stock, than an amount equal to the
> difference is created in the possession of Agora.
>
> }}
>
> Amend Rule 2499 ("Welcome Packages") to include the following asset(s):
>- 5 laserwort
>
> Grant to each player 5 laserwort.
>
> //
> ID: 9015
> Title: Beaming Towards Victory
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: kiako
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> If a rule named "Laserwort" exists, then enact a rule with the title
> "Antitrust Laws", Power 1 and the text:
>
> {{
>
>Any player CAN, once per week, pay laserwort equal
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Prime Ministor) Murder of a God - A Paradox Lost
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 2:13 PM juan via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 4st nomic via agora-business [2023-10-11 10:28]: > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 6:00 AM juan via agora-business > > > I nominate this thesis for a Magisteriate of Nomic Art and I would > > > nominate it for an Associate in Nomic History if it existed. > > > > > > -- > > > juan > > > > > > > WHEREIN, it has been 7 days since resubmission, and the assigned > reviewers > > have not given any response whatsoever: whether it be feedback, > requesting > > more time to review, or that they will not review it for any reason. > > What? You literally quoted my reponse. But I can withdraw my nomination > if you so wish. > > -- > juan > Lol I misspoke: all but a single assigned reviewer has* is what I meant -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: OFF: [Webmastor] Monthly Report
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:35 AM 4st nomic via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I unofficially temporarily deputise as webmaster to publish the following > report, since it's been awhile since we had one of these. (I just copied > the one from April (yes, it's been that long)) > I would grant myself a ribbon for deputising, but I already have that one. > Uh, sorry about the bloody eyes. Good thing I didn't even officially temporarily deputise to publish that report. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report
some nitpicking, because I CAN! There's nothing to CoE on the report tho, so it's excellent enough for all intents and purposes otherwise. On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 1:24 PM juan via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Convetions: > * Player: Latest player name. > small thing: Conventions is spelled wrong > Legend for symbols: > a Activity > What is "a Activity" for? I don't see any a's on the table. -- > juan > Registrar, Buttonmastor, Absurdor > Heck, while I'm here... the buttonmastor was repealed! :P -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Thaumaturgy
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 12:45 PM juan via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 4st nomic via agora-business [2023-10-09 10:44]:
> > On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 7:27 PM 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I submit the following proposal:
> > > {
> > > Title: Wizards Wage War (v1.1)
> > > Adoption Index: 2.0
> > > Author: 4st
> > >
> >
> > I withdraw this proposal. There exists at least one way to go from 0.01
> > power to infinite power using it.
>
> Just so you know, I'm loving this idea.
>
> --
> juan
> Wannabe mage
>
I also don't want to have to track it so I encourage anyone to propose it
on my behalf!
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [@Absurdor] Pushin
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 4:18 PM Kiako via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > Firstly, nowhere does it say the switch is flipped, instead it says
> > that it's simply increased. A switch isn't an integer, so one
> > assumption that we operate on is that the value of the switch is
> > increased. (I thought we generally rejected this sort of thing though,
> > because it didn't use the precise magic words)
> >
> > --
> > 4st
>
> We do have this in the rules, though.
>
> Rule 2509 ("Agoran Numbers")
>
> {
>
> If the rules describe mathematical operations to be used in flipping an
> instance of a numerical switch, the operations are interpreted as having
> common-sense mathematical application to determine that instance's
> resulting value. For example, "increasing a switch instance by M" is
> equivalent to "flipping a switch instance from its current value N to
> the value N+M".
>
> }
>
> --
> kiako
>
Oops, well, ok, just the second thing then. :D
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [@Absurdor] Pushin
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:49 PM juan via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 4st nomic via agora-business [2023-10-04 13:17]: > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 1:22 PM juan via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I push the boulder. > > > > > > -- > > > juan > > > > > > > CFJ: ais523 now owns 2 4st stamps. > > > > Arguments PARADOX: > > Per the temperature paradox: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_paradox > > > > A. The boulder's height was 1. > > B. The boulders height was increased by 1. > > C. 1 was increased by 1. > > That is stupid. Not your wonderful idea of throwing paradoxes at us! But > the paradox itself, I'm afraid, is stupid. > > It comes from the flawed premise that the intended formalization is > adequate. It's not. I don't think I need to get into why, do I? > > Also, what has that to do with stamps? > > -- > juan > I agree that it's stupid, but Agoran english can be stupid sometimes. Firstly, nowhere does it say the switch is flipped, instead it says that it's simply increased. A switch isn't an integer, so one assumption that we operate on is that the value of the switch is increased. (I thought we generally rejected this sort of thing though, because it didn't use the precise magic words) Secondly, we operate on the assumption that the value of the switch is independent from all other values, even when the value is a rules defined entity. OR we assume that Agoran Numbers are not Rule Defined entities, just rule defined somethings??? Like, if we had hats, and they had colors, and a player switch named "the witch", what would "the witch's hat is coloured blue" do? Would the player specified by the witch now have a blue hat? would a copy of a player get their hat colored blue? Or, if we said "1 is now 2", does that apply to all 1's, or just that one 1? This paradox gets at both of those stupid Agoran-English things, I think. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
