Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] SLR

[Aris via agora-discussion]

Under the current circumstances, I think it would actually be encouraged.
Not that that disagrees with anything you said, just a clarification.

-Aris

On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 3:43 PM 4st nomic via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> 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: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119

[Aris via agora-discussion]

I think Rule 2509 is relevant here? 'A "number of (items)", where (items)
is a set of discrete entities, is considered to refer to a non-negative
integer, unless otherwise explicitly specified.'

-Aris


On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 12:58 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/1/24 15:20, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> > The minimum is 0 just because of how paying fees work. You can't
> possibly create spendies or anything.
>
>
> Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for
> negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I
> think if the required fee is negative, it's just not possible to do (and
> this is... not a crazy outcome policy-wise?).
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4073 Judged TRUE by Yachay

[Aris via agora-discussion]

Gratuitous:

Game action isn't a defined term; the only rule to use it is rule 101.
Whether something is a game action doesn't matter for any practical
purpose. Even in this case, which involved a claim made under penalty of
faking, the actual truthfulness of the statement is irrelevant, in
accordance with the opinion of the H. Referee. Since the disposition of
this case has no bearing on the game, it can be judged IRRELEVANT. Given
the significant ambiguities involved in trying to divine the meaning of an
undefined term, I respectfully suggest that the honorable judge Yachay
consider this resolution.

-Aris

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 2:07 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> That is a good point, I self-file a motion to reconsider.
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:36 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business
>  wrote:
>
> On 3/19/24 05:12, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > > Public statements are regulated actions, because by Rule 2125, this is
> > > true: "An action is regulated if: the Rules limit its performance"; and
> > the
> > > "publicity" of a message, that is, what messages are "public" or "not",
> > is
> > > limited/controlled by the rules (Rule 478).  Public statements are
> > > statements contained (and necessarily only contained) in public
> messages,
> > > and public messages are enabled and limited by the rules, therefore so
> > are
> > > public statements, making them regulated actions.
> >
> >
> > This seems to ignore the final paragraph of R2125/15:
> >
> > >   The above notwithstanding, sending a message (in general or with
> > >   specific attributes) is never a regulated action; however, the
> > >   rules may be interpreted so as to proscribe sending public
> > >   messages (in general or with specific attributes).
> >
> >
> > There's no separate action of "making the statement". The action snail
> > took is sending the message, which is explicitly not a regulated action.
> >
> > --
> > Janet Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Aris via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 7:57 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 5, 2024, at 3:51 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 15:45 +, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> >> On Mar 5, 2024, at 4:37 AM, Aris via agora-business
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be
> >>> statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is
> >>> different from interpreting it in context.
> >>
> >> Without commenting on the rest of the situation (I haven’t looked into
> >> it), we have precedent that CFJs phrased as questions are fair game; see
> >> CFJ 3505.
> >
> > Well, the precedent of CFJ 3505 also states that CFJ 3505 was never
> > validly judged, although the CFJ record seems to ignore that. (FWIW, I
> > disagree and think that that part of the judgement was given validly,
> > but is wrong.)
> >
> > --
> > ais523
>
> Oh, interesting: I suppose to be a “past judgement” for four-factors
> purposes, something does actually have to be a validly assigned judgment to
> a CFJ.
>
> Although if you’re being *truly* pedantic, the term “judgement” refers only
> to one of the six valid judgements; there’s arguably no four-factors duty
> to consider the surrounding waffle, which has interesting implications for
> the classic “trivially FALSE, but to answer your real question:”
> judgements.
>
> Huh.


But under the game custom factor, we should interpret the judgement factor
more broadly! /lh /gen

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: A Survey On Capitalization

[Aris via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 8:30 PM Kiako via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Hi all! You may have noticed my recent cleanings regarding
> capitalization, as well as my note regarding other inconsistencies.
>
> I recently decided to perform an analysis on the whole ruleset to
> investigate inconsistencies in capitalization, I have discovered more
> than noted, but the lack of standard makes it difficult to decide what
> to do about these.
>
> Thus, I'd like to establish a standard, and the most logical way to do
> this is by survey. It's only about 9 questions, multiple choice, and I
> would greatly appreciate your answers!
>
> https://forms.gle/wAD66gsX4bYSsedj6


Wow. That took an astonishing amount of soul-searching, and I'm still not
sure I agree with my own answers.

-Aris

> 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Degree Decision - "Snapshots" by snail

[Aris via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:02 PM 4st nomic via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> 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 :)



No big deal! I was just surprised. I'm sorry if my message sounded more
energetic than I intended it to.

-Aris

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Degree Decision - "Snapshots" by snail

[Aris via agora-discussion]

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

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification

[Aris via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 9:18 AM Goren Barak via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 2023-11-20 11:37, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 6:55 AM Goren Barak via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I will now ratify ratify the following document, using Rule 2202
> >> (Ratification Without Objection):
> >>
> >> Effective a immediately, Goren now has 500 radiance.
> >> Their voting strength is now 15.
> >> Their Base Rockiness has also gone up to 100.
> >>
> >> Rule 2202 tells me to make my intentions clear, so my intentions are to
> >> win.
> >>
> >> Neither Rule 2202 nor Rule 1728 specify a period in which you can
> >> object, so that period is over. You can no longer object to this
> >> document. Thank you for your time.
> >>
> >
> > Per R2202, which Goren cited in the above:
> > A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use
> >   Ratification Without Objection to ratify a (prior to ratification)
> >   document containing incorrect or Indeterminate information when a
> >   corrected document could be produced with reasonable effort,
> >   unless the general nature of the document's error and reason for
> >   ratifying it is clearly and plainly described in the announcement
> >   of intent. Such ratification or announcement of intent to ratify
> >   is the Class 8 Infraction of Endorsing Forgery.
> >
> > I note the above infraction committed by Goren. I suggest that the
> Referee
> > investigate and find em guilty of 0 blots, since we are kind to new
> players.
> > If e is found guilty of more blots, I plan to forgive em so e will have
> no
> > blots. :)
> >
> > (Goren, I recommend you keep trying to do things! This, one of the
> highest
> > crimes, could only get you 8 blots maximum! ONLY 8! you need 40 to even
> be
> > exiled as an outlaw! FOUR ZERO! FORTY!)
>
> The intent was clearly described in the announcement, so I hopefully
> wouldn't be guilty. This should be a CFJ because we kind of need to have
> a precedent and clear this up.
>

You didn't describe the "general nature of the document's error", though,
did you? Just the reason for ratifying it. You need both.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report: Arrivals and Departures

[Aris via agora-discussion]

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 9:02 PM 4st nomic via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> And I'm a bit sensitive about it because I'm considering deregistering
> again myself, and I'm just trying to collect evidence! That I apparently
> need to prove I'm right.
>
> I'm also feeling generally othered by the game, like my ideas are extremely
> consistently wrong, and I'm undeserving of any agoran rewards in any
> fashion despite my efforts to the contrary.
>
> I'd Cantus cygnus if i didn't have a chance at one! Win, after years of
> playing. Is that worth it to anyone? Not that Cantus cygnus actually
> matters or are taken seriously, the Archives have shown that they're
> somewhat of a joke or just for angrying about tech problems.
>
> I declare fucking apathy btw


This sounds really rough. I want to try to engage with this on an emotional
level, though it's hard to shift my mind into the right gear at the moment.
I think part of that is my general emotional state, and part of it is Agora
being Agora. Because like, it's tricky, in a game so focused on logic and
rationality, to handle emotions correctly. That tends to lead to emotions
building up to the point where they come out in violent bursts, which isn't
exactly ideal - but it becomes necessary if that's the only way to engage
with emotions in a space. It sounds like you're reaching that point, and
I'm sorry about that.

Cantus Cygnus is not just a mechanism for jokes. It is used for that
purpose, yes, but it's also used as an outlet for venting and for getting
some time away from the game. See, for instance, [1]. I'm by no means
telling you to go that route - no one should have to deregister to get
their concerns taken seriously. I just wanted to respond to your
frustration about that topic.

In general, I'd say that Agora tends towards extreme traditionalism. Major
experiments are comparatively rare. People like things done "the right
way". Interesting ideas are voted down simply because they might break
something, or because people don't want change. At any given time, there
are usually some people who are particularly stalwart about keeping things
the way they are (which I think is mostly me and Janet at the moment), some
people who are a little more open to potential changes, and some who are
still skeptical but less vigorous about it, and some, like you, who are
very experimental and eager about bringing in new ideas. Generally - in
part because of cultural factors, in part because of things like the power
structure making it hard to amend high powered rules - the traditionalists
tend to have a substantial advantage.

I worry that I'm making this about me, and also that this might not be
helpful, but I thought I'd also give you a pointer to my own Cantus Cygnus
[2]. It's another venty one, and it also goes a bit into some of the
emotional drivers behind my own traditionalism in Agora - and about how I'm
not sure if it's a good thing or not. It might help understand the "other
side" a bit more? Though of course, I would never claim to speak for anyone
other than myself, and a vent isn't necessarily going to be a complete
explanation of even my own motivations.

There's probably more to say - I can think of some things about what
happened with the thesis, for instance. But I've gotta go right now. I just
wanted to say something, because in my experience posting something like
this and not having anyone reply sucks.

I wish you well. Best of luck with the win attempt!


[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28723.html
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg42549.html

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Mad Hatter] Quasi-yearly report [attn. Referee]

[Aris via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 2:35 AM juan via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-11-08 17:27]:
> > Neither of those holdings is relevant here. You made a series of false
> > statements which are falsy (many of them are nonsense and thus obviously
> > false, so you knew or should have known they were false; the others you
> > likely at least believed to be false), and you made them explicitly
> > under penalty of No Faking. That is sufficient to violate the Rule.
>
> Objection: nonsense statements cannot be false. They are nonsense. Don't
> bring your own particular metaphysics to a public discussion.


I think Janet was incorrect in saying that the nonsense statements were
false. But the quoted paragraph works if you replace every instance of
"false" with "untrue" - if nonsense statements aren't false, they certainly
aren't true either, and the rule specifically uses the phrasing "not true"
rather than "false" when defining falsy.

-Aris

>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Registrar election

[Aris via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 5:13 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business
 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 4, 2021, at 5:05 PM, Aspen via agora-business 
> >  wrote:
> >
> > I call an election for Registrar.
>
> I become a candidate for Registrar.
>
> Election speech: I'm terrible at holding on to offices long-term, but
> I'm not half bad at handling them every once in a while as the need
> comes up. (What this means in practice: I'll handle registrar for as
> long as I can, but history shows I usually tend to lose interest and
> fall behind after a month or two.)
>
> Gaelan

Public notice for the next Registrar: all of the Registrar's reports
are in the repository set up by my predecessor [1]. It contains a
script to generate the index. Currently reports are hand generated,
but I would strongly suggest automating them, because the format of
the Registrar's report makes it really easy to make errors if you're
doing it by hand.

[1] https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Registrar

-Aspen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: @Treasuror focus grant

[Aris via agora-discussion]

Thanks!

-Aris

On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 5:37 PM Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> Here, aris
>
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021, 12:54 PM Rebecca Lee  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 12:33 PM Rebecca Lee via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> It's a new month! My focus is  now legislation. I claim a legislative
> >> card.
> >> I pay 2 legislative cards and combine them into 4 pendants.
> >>
> >> --
> >> From R. Lee
> >>
> >
> > I assume that failed (you get 3 pendants, not 4, from 2 cards). I pay 2
> > legislative cards to gain 3 pendants.
> > --
> > From R. Lee
> >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

[Aris via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 8:53 PM Trigon via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On 03/07/2021 03:45, Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 1:30 PM OatmealSurprise via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I (Mask) hereby propose the following:
> >> """
> >> Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
> >> On successful repeal of a rule, the player who proposed the repeal gains 2
> >> Pendants.
> >> """
> >
> >
> >   A proposal needs to specify what it's doing, like creating a new rule,
> > amending an existing rule etc. So this proposal should say "create a new
> > rule called 'Reduce Reuse Recycle' with the following text". Also, any new
> > rule should have a power (a number between 1 and 4 that determines whether
> > it overrules other rules). This rule could probably be power 1. Also,
> > proposals should have a title and an adoption index (they don't have to,
> > but all of them tend to). Adoption index is a complicated concept, but
> > basically it's 1 if you're doing anything at power 1, 2 if you're doing
> > anything at power 2, and 3 for anything at power 3. Power is that weird
> > number that appears in brackets after each rule's title. A rule that does
> > things at a higher power needs more votes.
>
> These are all good points about procedure. As for the content, I have
> some criticisms.
>
> Imagine, for instance, a proposal which reads as follows:
>
> "Enact a rule with parameters [...]. Repeal that rule. Enact another
> rule. Repeal that rule."

I agree with your comments in general, but I should point out that a
proposal can already create an arbitrary number of pendants, making
the infinite pendants problem a bit moot.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

[Aris via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 8:46 PM Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 1:30 PM OatmealSurprise via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I (Mask) hereby propose the following:
> > """
> > Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
> > On successful repeal of a rule, the player who proposed the repeal gains 2
> > Pendants.
> > """
>
>
>  A proposal needs to specify what it's doing, like creating a new rule,
> amending an existing rule etc. So this proposal should say "create a new
> rule called 'Reduce Reuse Recycle' with the following text". Also, any new
> rule should have a power (a number between 1 and 4 that determines whether
> it overrules other rules). This rule could probably be power 1. Also,
> proposals should have a title and an adoption index (they don't have to,
> but all of them tend to). Adoption index is a complicated concept, but
> basically it's 1 if you're doing anything at power 1, 2 if you're doing
> anything at power 2, and 3 for anything at power 3. Power is that weird
> number that appears in brackets after each rule's title. A rule that does
> things at a higher power needs more votes.
>
> So essentially, a properly formatted version of this proposal would look
> like this
>
> "Title: Let's Repeal Stuff (or whatever other title)
> AI: 1
> Text: Create a new power-1 rule called "Reduce Reuse Recycle" with the text
> "On successful repeal of a rule, the player who proposed the repeal gains 2
> Pendants".
>
>
> Obviously you don't have to use that exact formatting, just give  that
> information.

I generally agree with R. Lee's procedural comments. A few additions to those:

The "Text:" marker shouldn't go on the same line as the start of the
text. You can either just leave the marker out, or if you really want
it to be there, add a newline after it. It's in the proposal style
guide, which may be worth reading: it lives in the ACORN.

When you're submitting proposals for discussion purposes, you
shouldn't submit an actual proposal. Instead, either post it on the
Discord server or to agora-discussion. It's alright to retract
proposals after they've been submitted if you need to, but it's not
good to submit until you think the proposal has a fair chance of being
ready.

Now, onto some substantive comments:

To balance this, it would need to be 1 pendant. I think it would need
to be 1 pendant per proposal, too. Maybe a pendant for each proposal
that repeals more rules than it creates?

I don't know if I'd vote FOR it with that change, but it could be
interesting as a way of incentivising ruleset simplification. I'd have
to reflect on whether I think ruleset simplification is a good thing.
I certainly wouldn't like us to start, say, repealing all the asset
rules, or something. For that reason, I think I might vote AGAINST or
PRESENT even with the changes.

Also, it might be worth adding this to the list in Rule 2496. That way
we could make it the responsibility of either the Assessor or the
Rulekeepor to do. Jason would need to comment on which one would be
appropriate.

I know this is a lot of negative feedback, but don't be disheartened.
It's very rare for a player's first substantive proposal to pass. It
can take a while to see what sorts of changes people favor and get up
to speed.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] 2021 Birthday Tournament: Survivor

[Aris via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 12:43 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On Jul 2, 2021, at 11:21 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > I become a contestant.
>
> As do I.
>
> Gaelan


I enter the contest.

-Aris