DIS: Re: BUS: Registration, and soliloquy
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 3:44 AM Katherina Walshe-Grey wrote: > > And if you'll have me, I would like it to be again. > > -Kate, Orator > Really great to have you back. I have very fond memories of your tenure. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4049 Assigned to snail
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 7:58 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > (Note: I'm not sure how to word the rule better than it currently exists, > so someone else's input would be appreciated for that.) Does changing "(or name of the Infraction if it has one)" to "(and/or the name of the infraction if it has one)" do the trick, to make it clearer that it's either/or?
DIS: Re: BUS: 30 in New Zealand
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 12:27 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/29/23 10:28, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > Happy Birthday, Agora! > > > It is Agora's birthday. Happy birthday, Agora! > > I award myself a magenta ribbon if I do not have one. I’m gonna start finger wagging any conditional actions I notice that ignore this bit of R2518: > The communicator SHOULD explain specific reasons for being uncertain of the outcome when e makes the communication. (Or maybe with that new rule text it’s sometime worth CFJing if ignoring that SHOULD pushes the evaluation to the “unreasonable“ level…)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Sorry!!!!
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:09 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/26/23 12:07, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:27 AM juan via agora-discussion > > wrote: > >> Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-25 03:00]: > >>>> Specifically, at this point in time, it is known that: > >>>> - Rule UNDEFINED CANNOT amend itself, enact, re-enact, or repeal rules. > >>> > >>> Why not just "cause rule changes"? > >>> > >>> In any case, this prohibition is overridden by Rule 105. > >> Not really. R105 provides the only mechanism for rule change, but nowhere > >> does it say that other rules cannot restrict changes in particular > >> circumstances. Isn't it so? > > In fact, R105 does not directly enable any rule changes at all. Its > > first sentence says: > > > >> When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect > > But by itself, R105 does not make or "provide" that any particular > > instrument takes effect. So other rules other than R105 have to > > cause/trigger instruments to change the rules. For Proposals, it's > > R106 that does the job. For other types of rule changes, it's > > generally the enabling rule for that type of change (like R2221 for > > Cleaning). So a rule can prevent itself from taking (certain types > > of) effect like making rule changes. > > > > It's possible to set up a conflict, but it would look like this. > >> Rule 1000 (power 1): This rule CANNOT cause rule changes. > >> Rule 1001 (power 2): A player CAN, by announcement, cause R1000 to change > >> the rules in [particular manner]. > > Rule 1000 on its own would block itself, and Rule 1001 at a higher > > power would overrule that blockage. > > > > -G. > > > I don't necessarily buy that a Rule (of power less than 3.2) can prevent > itself from taking effect under R2141. I think we're having semantic differences on what "taking effect" means. But it occurs to me that there's a deep rules tension between R2141 and R105: R2141: > A rule is a type of instrument that is always taking effect and R105: > When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect The first clause implies "constant effect" and the second clause implies "trigger effect". So when you have this: R2221: > Any player CAN refile a rule without objection, specifying a new > title; the rule is retitled to the specified title by this rule. when that clause is triggered, what exactly is going on with respect to R2141 and R105? If a rule is constantly "taking effect" R2141, how does it attach a "when" to the R105 moment of taking effect for the rule change? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Sorry!!!!
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:27 AM juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-25 03:00]: > > > Specifically, at this point in time, it is known that: > > > - Rule UNDEFINED CANNOT amend itself, enact, re-enact, or repeal rules. > > > > > > Why not just "cause rule changes"? > > > > In any case, this prohibition is overridden by Rule 105. > > Not really. R105 provides the only mechanism for rule change, but nowhere > does it say that other rules cannot restrict changes in particular > circumstances. Isn't it so? In fact, R105 does not directly enable any rule changes at all. Its first sentence says: > When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect But by itself, R105 does not make or "provide" that any particular instrument takes effect. So other rules other than R105 have to cause/trigger instruments to change the rules. For Proposals, it's R106 that does the job. For other types of rule changes, it's generally the enabling rule for that type of change (like R2221 for Cleaning). So a rule can prevent itself from taking (certain types of) effect like making rule changes. It's possible to set up a conflict, but it would look like this. > Rule 1000 (power 1): This rule CANNOT cause rule changes. > Rule 1001 (power 2): A player CAN, by announcement, cause R1000 to change > the rules in [particular manner]. Rule 1000 on its own would block itself, and Rule 1001 at a higher power would overrule that blockage. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Commune Repair
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 9:38 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > > > > On Jun 25, 2023, at 11:20 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > wrote: > > > > I object. I don’t think this fixes the issue that nix is fixed as > > surveyor, has abandoned the tournament, and can’t be replaced? Apologies if > > I missed something on that but. > > I don't think we need a surveryor mechanically, so this is fine. Though we > should probably have one just to make things easier. Someone could just step > up and declare themselves the surveyor, and post the rest of the reports, or > we could split the effort. > > I'll just make it so surveyor can be assumed by announcement (and thus its > responsibilities). Thanks! Looks good to me. I know we don't mechanically need a single person-in-charge, but as a judge I just had to reconstruct rice, and the fact that nothing that happened in rice can ever self-ratify now, makes me very much want to "encourage" someone to make and keep up with authoritative self-ratifying reports, if at all possible. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: (@herald) did I win?
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 9:39 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 6/23/23 12:33, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 9:28 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/23/23 12:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 8:24 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 6/23/23 11:07, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 2:49 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> >>>>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I believe I won the rice game on 12 June - not sure though. Here are
> >>>>>> my notes, wouldn't be at all surprised if I missed something critical.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> 5-22 harvested plan
> >>>>>> Created: snail
> >>>>>> Up: {4st, beokirby, blob, inalienableWright, nix, snail, Yachay},
> >>>>>> Down: {Aspen, ais523, cuddlybanana, G., Janet, juan, Murphy}
> >>>>>> Signatures: snail, Yachay, 4st, beokirby
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After 5-22 harvest
> >>>>>> 4st 1
> >>>>>> beokirby 1
> >>>>>> blob 1
> >>>>>> iWright* 1
> >>>>>> nix 1
> >>>>>> snail 1
> >>>>>> Yachay1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> 5-29 harvested plan
> >>>>>> Created: 2023-05-22 by juan
> >>>>>> Up: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> >>>>>> Down: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
> >>>>>> Signatures: ais523, juan, G., Janet
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After 5-29 harvest
> >>>>>> Aspen 1
> >>>>>> G.1
> >>>>>> Janet 1
> >>>>>> Murphy1
> >>>>>> ais5231
> >>>>>> cuddlybanana 1
> >>>>>> Juan 1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> Note: ais523 had 1 rice at the time of Proposal 8989's alleged adoption
> >>>>>> (just before the 6-05 plans were harvested). So that proposal was
> >>>>>> resolved incorrectly and the victory condition remains 2 rice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Proposal 8988 was adopted, but I'm assuming that plans and signatures
> >>>>>> were continuous as the definitions didn't change over-much, and the
> >>>>>> winning plan below was signed in a way (by announcement/announced
> >>>>>> consent) that works under both rule versions. This, of course, is
> >>>>>> arguable.
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> 6-05 harvested plan
> >>>>>> Created: 2023-06-04 by 4st
> >>>>>> Up: {G.}
> >>>>>> Down: {All active players with 1 or more rice at the time of creation,
> >>>>>> except 4st}
> >>>>>> Signatures: G., 4st
> >>>>>> (note: G is on both up and down lists)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After 6-05 harvest
> >>>>>> G. 1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> 6-12 harvested plan
> >>>>>> Created: 2023-06-05 by Beokirby
> >>>>>> Up: {Beokirby, Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> >>>>>> Down: {}
> >>>>>> Signatures: beokirby, juan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After 6-12 harvest
> >>>>>> Beokirby 1
> >>>>>> Aspen 1
> >>>>>> G.2
> >>>>>> Janet 1
> >>>>>> Murphy1
> >>>>>> ais5231
> >>>>>> cuddlybanana 1
> >>>>>> juan 1
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: (@herald) did I win?
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 9:28 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
>
> On 6/23/23 12:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 8:24 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/23/23 11:07, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 2:49 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> >>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I believe I won the rice game on 12 June - not sure though. Here are
> >>>> my notes, wouldn't be at all surprised if I missed something critical.
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> 5-22 harvested plan
> >>>> Created: snail
> >>>> Up: {4st, beokirby, blob, inalienableWright, nix, snail, Yachay},
> >>>> Down: {Aspen, ais523, cuddlybanana, G., Janet, juan, Murphy}
> >>>> Signatures: snail, Yachay, 4st, beokirby
> >>>>
> >>>> After 5-22 harvest
> >>>> 4st 1
> >>>> beokirby 1
> >>>> blob 1
> >>>> iWright* 1
> >>>> nix 1
> >>>> snail 1
> >>>> Yachay1
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> 5-29 harvested plan
> >>>> Created: 2023-05-22 by juan
> >>>> Up: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> >>>> Down: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
> >>>> Signatures: ais523, juan, G., Janet
> >>>>
> >>>> After 5-29 harvest
> >>>> Aspen 1
> >>>> G.1
> >>>> Janet 1
> >>>> Murphy1
> >>>> ais5231
> >>>> cuddlybanana 1
> >>>> Juan 1
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Note: ais523 had 1 rice at the time of Proposal 8989's alleged adoption
> >>>> (just before the 6-05 plans were harvested). So that proposal was
> >>>> resolved incorrectly and the victory condition remains 2 rice.
> >>>>
> >>>> Proposal 8988 was adopted, but I'm assuming that plans and signatures
> >>>> were continuous as the definitions didn't change over-much, and the
> >>>> winning plan below was signed in a way (by announcement/announced
> >>>> consent) that works under both rule versions. This, of course, is
> >>>> arguable.
> >>>> ---
> >>>> 6-05 harvested plan
> >>>> Created: 2023-06-04 by 4st
> >>>> Up: {G.}
> >>>> Down: {All active players with 1 or more rice at the time of creation,
> >>>> except 4st}
> >>>> Signatures: G., 4st
> >>>> (note: G is on both up and down lists)
> >>>>
> >>>> After 6-05 harvest
> >>>> G. 1
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> 6-12 harvested plan
> >>>> Created: 2023-06-05 by Beokirby
> >>>> Up: {Beokirby, Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> >>>> Down: {}
> >>>> Signatures: beokirby, juan
> >>>>
> >>>> After 6-12 harvest
> >>>> Beokirby 1
> >>>> Aspen 1
> >>>> G.2
> >>>> Janet 1
> >>>> Murphy1
> >>>> ais5231
> >>>> cuddlybanana 1
> >>>> juan 1
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> I did not track after this, due to not knowing if things were reset on
> >>>> 6-12
> >>>>
> >>> "I, THEREFORE, DO ALL THE THINGS!"
> >>>
> >>> Based on my last Ricemastor report, and the resolutions of the CFJs, I
> >>> believe this to be correct as well.
> >>> Given that this is in fact correct, I, as Herald, I award G. the patent
> >>> title Champion (again), for "Rice".
> >>> Given that this is in fact correct, and as it has been over a week since e
> >>> won, it is overdue, and thus,
> >>> I deputise as Prime Minister to appoint G to the office of Speaker.
> >>>
> >>> (I would now like to execute a dive order on G., however, there
Re: DIS: Agoran't Draft
To be clear, it's not just about the gamemaster - I'd hate a huge advantage to go to whomever happened to be around on the moment you decided to announce. Fixing it to a set time still advantages some over others due to time zones, but at least with prep/warning people can plan. On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 2:53 PM 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote: > As the person who is planning to run this tournament, I am willing to accept > any special responsibility required or willing to not play, if that would > enable the tourney to proceed smoothly. :) I don't have too much interest in > winning, otherwise I probably would have won by now. > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:00 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 7:41 PM nix via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> > When the Gamemaster is confident this has >> > occurred, e CAN once and SHALL, in a timely manner, "sound the alarm" by >> > announcement. >> >> This game has a strong first mover advantage, it seems to me. Can we >> put everyone on more equal footing with the gamemaster (in terms of >> starting time) with something like: >> >> When the Gamemaster is confident this has occurred, e CAN once and >> SHALL, in a timely manner, "set the alarm" by announcement. The alarm >> is sounded at the beginning of the first day that starts 24 hours or >> more after the alarm is set. > > > > -- > 4ˢᵗ > Deputy (AKA FAKE) Herald > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Agoran't Draft
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 7:41 PM nix via agora-discussion wrote: > When the Gamemaster is confident this has > occurred, e CAN once and SHALL, in a timely manner, "sound the alarm" by > announcement. This game has a strong first mover advantage, it seems to me. Can we put everyone on more equal footing with the gamemaster (in terms of starting time) with something like: When the Gamemaster is confident this has occurred, e CAN once and SHALL, in a timely manner, "set the alarm" by announcement. The alarm is sounded at the beginning of the first day that starts 24 hours or more after the alarm is set.
Re: DIS: (@herald) did I win?
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 3:40 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > Oh, oops, sorry. Reading is hard. > > If you're confidently saying that ais523's conditional vote should have > resolved to AGAINST, I can easily handle that. Thanks for untangling that. > > I do disagree about P8988. I'll call a CFJ in a little bit if nobody > else has. > Yeah, makes sense. CFJs 4032 and 4043 taken together have resolved ais523's conditional vote, but that last step with 8988's adoption hasn't been tested/called. -G.
Re: DIS: (@herald) did I win?
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 3:33 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > To resolve this, if you don't have the energy, I'll deputize to > resolve 8989 myself (I think the resolution is 14 days overdue, of > course up to now that's been due to uncertainty). ooh if this sounded like a threat to steal the office i didn't mean that, sorry - I meant temp deputy and the offer was well-intended.
Re: DIS: (@herald) did I win?
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 3:16 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On 6/20/23 17:48, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I believe I won the rice game on 12 June - not sure though. Here are
> > my notes, wouldn't be at all surprised if I missed something critical.
> >
> > ---
> > 5-22 harvested plan
> > Created: snail
> > Up: {4st, beokirby, blob, inalienableWright, nix, snail, Yachay},
> > Down: {Aspen, ais523, cuddlybanana, G., Janet, juan, Murphy}
> > Signatures: snail, Yachay, 4st, beokirby
> >
> > After 5-22 harvest
> > 4st 1
> > beokirby 1
> > blob 1
> > iWright* 1
> > nix 1
> > snail 1
> > Yachay1
> >
> > ---
> > 5-29 harvested plan
> > Created: 2023-05-22 by juan
> > Up: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> > Down: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
> > Signatures: ais523, juan, G., Janet
> >
> > After 5-29 harvest
> > Aspen 1
> > G.1
> > Janet 1
> > Murphy1
> > ais5231
> > cuddlybanana 1
> > Juan 1
> >
> > ---
> > Note: ais523 had 1 rice at the time of Proposal 8989's alleged adoption
> > (just before the 6-05 plans were harvested). So that proposal was
> > resolved incorrectly and the victory condition remains 2 rice.
> >
> > Proposal 8988 was adopted, but I'm assuming that plans and signatures
> > were continuous as the definitions didn't change over-much, and the
> > winning plan below was signed in a way (by announcement/announced
> > consent) that works under both rule versions. This, of course, is
> > arguable.
> > ---
> > 6-05 harvested plan
> > Created: 2023-06-04 by 4st
> > Up: {G.}
> > Down: {All active players with 1 or more rice at the time of creation,
> > except 4st}
> > Signatures: G., 4st
> > (note: G is on both up and down lists)
> >
> > After 6-05 harvest
> > G. 1
> >
> > ---
> > 6-12 harvested plan
> > Created: 2023-06-05 by Beokirby
> > Up: {Beokirby, Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> > Down: {}
> > Signatures: beokirby, juan
> >
> > After 6-12 harvest
> > Beokirby 1
> > Aspen 1
> > G.2
> > Janet 1
> > Murphy1
> > ais5231
> > cuddlybanana 1
> > juan 1
> > ---
> >
> > I did not track after this, due to not knowing if things were reset on 6-12
>
>
> This doesn't appear to account for the two proposals that might have
> affected this (or maybe they weren't in the relevant time period)?
>
> I have no idea if disarmament passed, and I really don't have the energy
> to untangle how the CFJs affected this myself.
I listed my take on the two proposals in the middle of that text above
(in the appropriate time sequence). Here it is again:
> > Proposal 8988 was adopted, but I'm assuming that plans and signatures
> > were continuous as the definitions didn't change over-much, and the
> > winning plan below was signed in a way (by announcement/announced
> > consent) that works under both rule versions. This, of course, is
> > arguable.
and
> > Note: ais523 had 1 rice at the time of Proposal 8989's alleged adoption
> > (just before the 6-05 plans were harvested). So that proposal was
> > resolved incorrectly and the victory condition remains 2 rice.
If either of these assumptions is incorrect, of course recalculations
would be needed.
To resolve this, if you don't have the energy, I'll deputize to
resolve 8989 myself (I think the resolution is 14 days overdue, of
course up to now that's been due to uncertainty).
-G.
DIS: (@herald) did I win?
I believe I won the rice game on 12 June - not sure though. Here are
my notes, wouldn't be at all surprised if I missed something critical.
---
5-22 harvested plan
Created: snail
Up: {4st, beokirby, blob, inalienableWright, nix, snail, Yachay},
Down: {Aspen, ais523, cuddlybanana, G., Janet, juan, Murphy}
Signatures: snail, Yachay, 4st, beokirby
After 5-22 harvest
4st 1
beokirby 1
blob 1
iWright* 1
nix 1
snail 1
Yachay1
---
5-29 harvested plan
Created: 2023-05-22 by juan
Up: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
Down: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
Signatures: ais523, juan, G., Janet
After 5-29 harvest
Aspen 1
G.1
Janet 1
Murphy1
ais5231
cuddlybanana 1
Juan 1
---
Note: ais523 had 1 rice at the time of Proposal 8989's alleged adoption
(just before the 6-05 plans were harvested). So that proposal was
resolved incorrectly and the victory condition remains 2 rice.
Proposal 8988 was adopted, but I'm assuming that plans and signatures
were continuous as the definitions didn't change over-much, and the
winning plan below was signed in a way (by announcement/announced
consent) that works under both rule versions. This, of course, is
arguable.
---
6-05 harvested plan
Created: 2023-06-04 by 4st
Up: {G.}
Down: {All active players with 1 or more rice at the time of creation,
except 4st}
Signatures: G., 4st
(note: G is on both up and down lists)
After 6-05 harvest
G. 1
---
6-12 harvested plan
Created: 2023-06-05 by Beokirby
Up: {Beokirby, Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
Down: {}
Signatures: beokirby, juan
After 6-12 harvest
Beokirby 1
Aspen 1
G.2
Janet 1
Murphy1
ais5231
cuddlybanana 1
juan 1
---
I did not track after this, due to not knowing if things were reset on 6-12
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 4:21 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > > Oooh, ok, I didn't read the rules, my bad. I also just forgot the case had > been reopened by "I support and I do so" Sorry, I usually try to remind people more explicitly, but also just plain old forgot until you did this latest cfj (at which point the time limit for my recusal was running a little short and I figured the self-interest might get in the way). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 4:07 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 4:01 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 6:38 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) > > > Sun 04 Jun 2023 > > > > > > > > > DEADLINES (details below) > > > --- > > > 4032 4st Motion to reconsiderOVERDUE Sun 04 Jun 2023 03:15:50 > > > > I recuse 4st from CFJ 4032. In addition to this being several days > > overdue (the formal reason for recusal), 4st is now potentially > > self-interested in the outcome. > > > > -G. > > > > It is overdue, however, I have assigned a judgement. The case is simply > open. Thus, I cannot be recused in this manner, I think? > I may recuse myself anyways because yeah I forgot this existed and I don't > want to do this again. Since it is now open, it has no judgement assigned. That's the definition of "open" from R991: > At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or > assigned exactly one judgement that was validly assigned. For the recusal, the Rule 2492 excerpt: > The Arbitor CAN recuse a judge from a case by announcement, if > that judge has violated a time limit for judging the case and has > not judged it in the mean time; You missed the deadline for judging the open case (after the motion to reconsider), and didn't judge in the mean time. -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Ricemastor/Herald] (@Tailor/@Herald/@Prime Ministor) The Cursed Deputy Report
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 3:08 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-official
wrote:
> Created: 2023-05-22 by juan
> Up: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> Down: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
> Signatures: ais523, juan, (G, if G hasn't withdrawn eir signature), Janet,
> (4st, if this plan will not be harvested)
>
> Created: 2023-05-22 by Yachay
> Up: {4st, beokirby, blob, inalienableWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
> Down: {Aspen, ais523, cuddlybanana, G., Janet, juan, Murphy}
> Signatures: Yachay, beokirby, snail, (4st, if this plan will not be
> harvested)
[snip]
> Arguments FOR: G withdrew their consent (CFJ 4034), and 4st's consent
> didn't work or worked on both, so Yachay's plan was earliest and was tied
> for most signatures, and was thus harvested.
CFJ 4034 has been judged, and found that G. *didn't* withdraw eir
signature. So unless it's a paradox, it was Juan's plan that had the
most signatures. So (assuming CFJ 4034 stands) we could have FALSE or
PARADOX, but not TRUE for this cfj.
-G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Ricemastor/Herald] (@Tailor/@Herald/@Prime Ministor) The Cursed Deputy Report
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 3:08 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-official wrote: > RICE HOLDINGS > == > PlayerRice > --- > 4st 2 (+1) Not needing a CoE because it's already been CoE'd, but there's no way you could have 2 today - if you'd gotten to 2, it would have reset everyone to 0. -G.
DIS: (@ais523) Re: (@Assessor) BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8990-9001
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 8:53 AM ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > 9001~ snail 2.0 More Bright Abilities > On this decision, I vote with a conditional vote: FOR if proposal 9000 > was adopted, otherwise AGAINST. I don't think this conditional works as written - ADOPTED is determined by the Assessor's resolution, so won't be determined at the end of the voting period.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4034 Assigned to ais523
On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 5:54 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, 2023-06-04 at 17:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 5:04 PM ais523 via agora-business > > wrote: > > > It's also worth noting that G. explicitly stated in eir message that e > > > consented to the Rice Plan – the subsequent withdrawal was sent in the > > > same message. Although Agora assumes that multiple actions listed in > > > the same message happen one after another, this isn't something that > > > can be true of a player's state of mind, because the entire message is > > > sent at a single point in time; if the player had changed eir mind and > > > no longer consented, e would just not send the email, or edit it before > > > sending. > > > > I disagree with this rather strongly with this statement, given the > > Agoran strong assumption of sequential actions within a message. It's > > perfectly possible for a person to say "I consent to this at this > > stage of the message, then I do some stuff, then I withdraw my consent > > at the end of the message [after stuff is done]." That's really very > > standard practice, and it is possible to have that sort of consent > > process in one's mind when hitting 'send'. > > But a Rice Plan is resolved at the end of the week. There is no purpose > for which consenting to it at some points in a message, and not at > others, would be meaningful. Thanks, this statement helped clarify for me - if you're thinking of consent here as generally irrelevant except at the end of the week (it may be relevant sooner if contract states/conditionals are involved, but that's not true here), so that the "internal state during the message" is irrelevant, my objections to the natural consent section are less. However, does that mean that any cfj (like this one) called before the end of the week should be judged irrelevant? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4034 Assigned to ais523
On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 5:04 PM ais523 via agora-business wrote: > It's also worth noting that G. explicitly stated in eir message that e > consented to the Rice Plan – the subsequent withdrawal was sent in the > same message. Although Agora assumes that multiple actions listed in > the same message happen one after another, this isn't something that > can be true of a player's state of mind, because the entire message is > sent at a single point in time; if the player had changed eir mind and > no longer consented, e would just not send the email, or edit it before > sending. I disagree with this rather strongly with this statement, given the Agoran strong assumption of sequential actions within a message. It's perfectly possible for a person to say "I consent to this at this stage of the message, then I do some stuff, then I withdraw my consent at the end of the message [after stuff is done]." That's really very standard practice, and it is possible to have that sort of consent process in one's mind when hitting 'send'. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [CFJ](@Stonemason, @Herald, @Arbitor) Reaching, Radiance, and Recursion
On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 12:10 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > > > > On Jun 1, 2023, at 4:17 PM, secretsnail9 wrote: > > > > > > I wield the radiance stone. (This increases my radiance by 3.) > > I reach for the Minty stone. > > I wield the recursion stone as the soul stone, specifying the > > anti-equatorial stone. > > I wield the anti-equatorial stone. (This transfers the power stone to me.) > > > > CFJ: I currently own the recursion stone. > > I withdraw this CFJ. Oops. Once it's been assigned a judge, can't be withdrawn unfortunately. An easy lift for Judge Murphy, at least!
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4032 Assigned to 4st
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:40 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > Thus, we reach that third interpretation: we are consenting to that rice > plan obtaining or not obtaining your signature. You consent to the change, > the action that occurs, or you reaffirm consent that inaction is > acceptable: that no change is acceptable. Ok, the more I read this, honestly, the worse it gets. It implies that continual silence equals consent (in direct contradiction with CFJ 4013) and moreover, completely contradicts what "consent" means for contracts (with respect to withdrawal) with no suggestion that such a difference is textual in the Rice rule. If consent is taking to be continuously evaluated like this as some kind of "standing action", what exactly prevents people from withdrawing from "binding" contracts at any time? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) heheheheheheh
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:46 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:46 AM Forest Sweeney > wrote: > > > I withdraw my consent from all rice plans. > > What rules mechanism enabled you to do this? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) heheheheheheh
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 8:13 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > That said, a > new rule that has a "new" sort of toy - like Rice Plans - is a good > potential target, but I'm pretty sure this attempt missed the mark. Followup: Importantly, just recently, in CFJ 4013, I judged that "consent" as a general concept (not just the rules-defined version) is only inferred by positive evidence - the burden of proof is to show that consent was given. So if Rice Plans are taken to work via an unregulated form of consent, any ambiguity still errs on the side of "no consent" (unless the precedent is overturned, of course): Judge G. wrote: > Secondly, consent is an important social concept that shouldn't be > taken lightly. To the extent that Agora is a community as well as a > game, it is in the best interests of Agora that we (as much as the > rules allow) assert the general principle that silence does NOT equal > consent. [...] > Taking the position that silence != consent also means assuming that > uncertainty != consent. In many cases in Agora, we have legislated > away the law of excluded middle - just because something isn't true > doesn't mean it's false, it may be logically indeterminate. However, > in dealing with consent, we should generally avoid such logic and > maintain that a lack of clear consent means NO consent exists, at > least to the extent that the rules allow.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) heheheheheheh
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 2:34 AM Aspen via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 3:52 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business > wrote: > > > > I withdraw my consent from all rice plans. > > If the Reimann hypothesis is true, I consent to all rice plans that will > > not be harvested. > > (I humbly request that I get to call the CFJ upon harvest-time, so that I > > may call a CFJ that results in PARADOXICAL.) > > > > Also, I intend to, without objection, clean rule 591 "Delivering > > Judgements" by replacing "irresovable" with "irresolvable". > > I don't think this works? I mean, first off, there are all the reasons > why trying to make something conditional on the Reimann hypothesis > would just fail. You know, Rule 2518, and the precedents it is based > on, and all of that. But even if that part worked, this isn't > "logically undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other > irresovable logical situation". It's just something we don't know the > answer to, which would be DISMISS. (Incidentally, I'm not entirely > sure all of the past paradox wins have met this standard; though > they've definitely worked platonically in any case.) Any action that works through a person stating their actions (any announcement, etc.) would fail via our various standards of clarity, even the lowest standards like for registration - lots of precedents on that overall. So if a judgement on the above statement follows the precedents at all, it would just be thrown out as "fails to communicate - ambiguous" and whatever judgement that implies. In other words, for communicating any type of action attempt, Wittgenstein beats Plato. For the above statement, it fails both on the "Reimann" thing, and the "conditional relying on future states" thing. Paradoxes have worked when such paradoxes have ended up in rules text itself - if a rule text says "If the Reimann Hypothesis, then...", because the "text of the rules" takes precedence over CFJ standards of clarity, and because we explicitly defined "indeterminate" in the rules as a possible state rather than requiring judges to choose a determinate outcome (Plato reasserts emself!) Obviously most of those paradoxes were accidental confluences of multiple rules, not in-your-face ones like that. More paradoxes happened before we error-trapped indeterminacy for our main toys (assets and switches) in the rules, so if rules state an asset or switch *would* be indeterminate, the judgement on a statement angling for a paradox generally comes out "IRRELEVANT - it's in the L&FD/default state now". Once you take out communication, assets, and switches, the scope for paradox is much more limited. That said, a new rule that has a "new" sort of toy - like Rice Plans - is a good potential target, but I'm pretty sure this attempt missed the mark. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) heheheheheheh
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 2:34 AM Aspen via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 3:52 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business > wrote: > > > > I withdraw my consent from all rice plans. > > If the Reimann hypothesis is true, I consent to all rice plans that will > > not be harvested. > > (I humbly request that I get to call the CFJ upon harvest-time, so that I > > may call a CFJ that results in PARADOXICAL.) > > > > Also, I intend to, without objection, clean rule 591 "Delivering > > Judgements" by replacing "irresovable" with "irresolvable". > > I don't think this works? I mean, first off, there are all the reasons > why trying to make something conditional on the Reimann hypothesis > would just fail. You know, Rule 2518, and the precedents it is based > on, and all of that. But even if that part worked, this isn't > "logically undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other > irresovable logical situation". It's just something we don't know the > answer to, which would be DISMISS. (Incidentally, I'm not entirely > sure all of the past paradox wins have met this standard; though > they've definitely worked platonically in any case.) > > -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4032 Assigned to 4st
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:18 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> On 5/26/23 14:14, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:01 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> >>> Now, it is sufficient to determine whether "that Rice Plan having that
> >>> player's Signature" is an action or not. I'd say that it is a regulated
> >>> action, fitting all three criteria for regulated actions: the rules have
> >>> said how it occurs, whether it succeeds, and it affects gamestate the
> >>> Ricemastor must track.
> >>
> >> Again, it's not an action, it's a property or a state of affairs.
> > I disagree here. The judgement could wordsmith this critical point a
> > bit better, but it's perfectly reasonable within the bounds of the
> > rule text and common sense to say that going from "not having a
> > signature" to "having a signature" is a change (an action) that
> > happens with consent.
> >
> > -G.
>
>
> I agree that a change from not signing to signing is an action.
>
> I disagree that the text can be construed to evaluate "consent" with
> respect to that. The text doesn't suggest that to me at all, and it
> would be continuously evaluating "consent" ("as long as e is
> consenting") for an instantaneous change.
>
Sure, absolutely - I can see either reading, and I'm not sure rn
whether my first-blush intuitive take holds up under scrutiny - not
currently convinced in either direction.
Judge 4st,
I think the above short exchange really narrows the scope of the CFJ
to the critical point of contention - does the specific text support
"granting consent" (by the methods in the Consent rule) as a trigger
for going from "without signature" to "with signature", or not? And
to be clear, we know the opinion of the officer is that e thinks that
it does (and that, as rule author e *intended* it to be true). But
intent in rules-writing doesn't count if the rule text doesn't support
it, except perhaps as a (very low weight) tiebreaker. So it's not a
question of whether the officer recorded it that way (that's a post
hoc fallacy), but whether the officer's opinion is correct.
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4032 Assigned to 4st
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:01 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > Now, it is sufficient to determine whether "that Rice Plan having that > > player's Signature" is an action or not. I'd say that it is a regulated > > action, fitting all three criteria for regulated actions: the rules have > > said how it occurs, whether it succeeds, and it affects gamestate the > > Ricemastor must track. > > > Again, it's not an action, it's a property or a state of affairs. I disagree here. The judgement could wordsmith this critical point a bit better, but it's perfectly reasonable within the bounds of the rule text and common sense to say that going from "not having a signature" to "having a signature" is a change (an action) that happens with consent. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@blob) Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:33 AM juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion [2023-05-25 07:11]: > > The currently guiding precedent is in CFJ 1361: "a nickname is a name > > that a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em > > out in the full range of Agoran contexts." The key here is "full > > range of Agoran contexts". If there is ambiguity, the "true" nickname > > is what disambiguates, so it needs to be unique (annotating it does > > not make it unique, unless the annotation is always included). > > > > Now you might say "for ephemeral reports, I'm using the nickname of > > the nickname" which people have done plenty (for example shortening > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus to PSS because the full name doesn't > > fit in columns). However when that happens, it is incumbent on the > > *ephemeral* report's publisher to include the footnote "PSS refers to > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus". Anything else is basically > > inaccurate, in a Platonic sense - and Agora cares about the platonic > > sense, not "yeah we know from context in the moment". And it matters > > for self-ratification, because it's the *ephemeral* reports that > > self-ratify generally, so they are the ones that need to indicate what > > is self-ratifying clearly, in a way that distinguishes each player in > > their FULL range of Agoran contexts. > > > > I am not *at all* convinced that someone won't accidentally ratify > > something from now-blob as belonging to Blob or vice versa. > > The fact that there is such a CFJ changes things, indeed. But just > because it defines what a nickname is. As for the platonism: I'm not > really convinced that report is platonically wrong! Honestly, I'm not > even sure what that term means. But anyway, the fact is that names are, > in general, not unique. Reference, as a semantical-philosophical concept, > depends on context. What defines what is the authority when it comes to > resolving the name “blob”? > > I'm really asking. Apologies: I brought up this CFJ and others when this first came up but that feels like a long time ago now! https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg55701.html And I really have no idea on the answer. Anecdotally, I can think of a handful (maybe 3-4) times that a new player initially picked a previously-used nickname, and all of those cases were resolved in a day or so by suggesting the new person alter their name, which they did without any controversy I believe. So the issue never lasted long enough to hit self-ratification or other weekly deadlines. Someone may have CoEd a report out of caution (which is what I was intending my CoE to be - an excess of caution really and to give a legal impetus to resolve it one way or the other) but in the past, the duplicate name was resolved quickly enough to be included in the CoE revision without any problem. I have been around long enough to see some really odd things get ratified, and some other odd things get rejected from ratification, so I tend to be proactive at that sort of CoE. Maybe there's a good chance nothing "odd" would occur but really no idea what a judge would say. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ - About Rice
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 12:17 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > I'm kind of surprised that this kind of CfJ hasn't been raised yet. > > I CfJ: "There are some persons right now who have more than 0 Rice" To avoid an INSUFFICIENT judgement, can you add some context or reasons you believe this to be true or false? I also have not been following this one.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Keeping up with the Agorans
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 8:02 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > It's legal, it's just generally bad form. In this case, I'm not even sure it's bad form. Since radiance can only be danced up to the highest player's score, it adds an almost Winsome-like dynamic, where if someone gets ahead, shortly after everyone can catch up, so to win it's better to do it all in one burst rather than incrementally increasing score in small steps which everyone can then equalize (like the buildup of Winsomes worked sometimes). An unintentional strategy, but it's *almost* interesting enough to inspire gameplay in the meantime - and with some adjustments could have really interesting interactions e.g. with revolution. Now, we may prefer to repeal it all instead of trying to weave this in better, but in the meantime (to me at least) it doesn't feel like past situations of "everyone who knows this trick can win so let's all get 100s of wins", which would be considered bad form. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@blob) Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 6:43 AM juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > nix via agora-discussion [2023-05-24 18:19]: > > On 5/24/23 18:17, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> If emails are different and there is no note mentioning they > > >> are the same person, they are not. > > > Oh also this is entirely false on the registrar monthly. I am on there > > > in multiple places with entirely different, non-overlapping names and > > > email addresses. > > > > Oh, I see the notes you have at the end. So this is true in that sense. > > I don't like the idea that you have to infer it from complete silence > > tho, seems very confusing. > > I get it. And I agree. I intended to add notes to the monthly. But, > as we discussed on Discord, I think it is a matter of scope: reports > are about certain people, their scope. The Registrar's weekly is about > players, whether the monthly is about people that have been players at > any point in time. In the first scope, there's only one blob at a time, > but in the second there's two! So, in that context, disambiguition is > necessary and adviseable. In the first, it seems rude (to me). The currently guiding precedent is in CFJ 1361: "a nickname is a name that a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in the full range of Agoran contexts." The key here is "full range of Agoran contexts". If there is ambiguity, the "true" nickname is what disambiguates, so it needs to be unique (annotating it does not make it unique, unless the annotation is always included). Now you might say "for ephemeral reports, I'm using the nickname of the nickname" which people have done plenty (for example shortening Publius Scribonius Scholasticus to PSS because the full name doesn't fit in columns). However when that happens, it is incumbent on the *ephemeral* report's publisher to include the footnote "PSS refers to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus". Anything else is basically inaccurate, in a Platonic sense - and Agora cares about the platonic sense, not "yeah we know from context in the moment". And it matters for self-ratification, because it's the *ephemeral* reports that self-ratify generally, so they are the ones that need to indicate what is self-ratifying clearly, in a way that distinguishes each player in their FULL range of Agoran contexts. I am not *at all* convinced that someone won't accidentally ratify something from now-blob as belonging to Blob or vice versa. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 1:14 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> Actually, I was asked by ais523 to add to a CfJ a clarification on
> something, a 'sub-Judgement' of a sort.
>
> Would've it been possible for me to, for example, Judge TRUE, but also add
> a sub-Judgement that from here on, we should play according to the
> interpretation that would make it FALSE (that is, that you can only anoint
> once)? Like that, we would avoid the blindside issue, but also end up with
> the newer interpretation established.
That would be a first AFAIK. In disambiguating a specific piece of
rules text, I don't think we've ever done "it meant X up to this
moment but means Y after this". The one exception being whether
something is common knowledge ("this CFJ has discussed the matter to
death so if it wasn't common knowledge before, it sure is now").
Instead we do "it meant X and we are now changing it to Y via changing
the rules text."
I'm not saying it can't be done. It can be a standard practice in
casual board gaming ("we played that way for 2 turns but then someone
googled the errata so let's switch now") but it would be a fairly big
cultural shift which I'm just guessing would be a real hard sell for
any potential Moot voters via a single CFJ?
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:44 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Yes, but wouldn't certain CfJs be likely to enter into Moot Tennis if we
> don't take the opinion of the majority as a tiebreaker as Judges? We can
> keep going back and forth with Moots, because 2+N Support seems fairly easy
> to pull off.
>
> How is the Moot Tennis supposed to end?
If a Moot ends up being really close/split, the best thing is to fix
it by voting on legislation (a proposal) that clarifies it absolutely
one way or the other. Including possibly by-proposal saying that
ais523 wins even if the "clarification" goes in the opposite way
overall. Of course, if the clarification has to be made in an power
2+ rule, you could get a situation whether neither side can pass a
clarification in their direction. So far, we've managed to eke out a
compromise in the rare rare times that has happened.
-G.
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to
> > solve
> > > a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
> > > (...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
> > > applying my own personal opinion.
> > >
> > > But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons
> > > for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become
> > > customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in
> > that
> > > way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it
> > > doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering
> > > judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911
> > > and Moots exist.
> >
> >
> > If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot
> > of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is
> > diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case is
> > the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the
> > arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can
> > make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the
> > majority has motions and moots to deal with it.
> >
> > If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it.
> >
> > --
> > Janet Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >
> >
DIS: Re: OFF: [@all] Confirming birthdays
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:10 PM juan via agora-official wrote: > 2009-05-04 G. Goethe is my former nickname so it's actually 2001-02-04 for me: > v Goethe 2001-02-04 2003-03-24 Thanks much for checking. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4029 Assigned to Murphy
> Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals, Power=3) states that adopted proposals > "take effect", and: > >Except insofar as the actions performed by a proposal happen one >after another, rather than simultaneously, a proposal's effect is >instantaneous. A proposal can neither delay nor extend its own >effect. Once a proposal finishes taking effect, its power is set >to 0. > I missed something crucial that is actually pretty interesting (this is a historical note not a prelude to appeal). The "pronouncement" of the proposal that defined invisibilitating in July 2003 actually had a legal framework: the Legislative Order. The pronouncement created a Legislative Order. Of course, since our formal complex system of Orders and counter-Orders doesn't exist, I'd assume the Order on "Invisibilitating" now has a concrete point of destruction, when the Orders system was repealed. But in any case, for historical slice of the rules (and/or future CFJ value) here was the governing rule at the time: Rule 1891/0 (Power=1) Legislative Orders (a) A Proposal may contain one or more Orders. (b) The effect of adopting a Proposal which contains Orders is to execute those Orders. Such Orders are known as Legislative Orders, are deemed to have been executed by that Proposal, and are deemed to have been executed as of the date of the proclamation of the Proposal's adoption. (c) Legislative Orders may not be stayed, vacated, or amended except: (1) by a subsequent Legislative Order; (2) by a Judicial Order issued only after a judicial finding that the Proposal containing the Legislative Order was not adopted, was barred from taking effect, or was invalid; or (3) by the Clerk of the Courts, but only for the purpose of staying such an Order during the pendency of a dispute which might reasonably lead to a judicial finding of the sort mentioned in subdivision (c)(2) of this Rule.
Re: DIS: (Proto) Raybots
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 1:01 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sat, 2023-05-20 at 23:43 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > Actually, in general persons ceasing to exist is likely to cause > > problems, and the current ruleset is careful to avoid it (R869/51's "is > > or ever was"; you remain an Agoran person after you die). > > > > I'm not sure there's a good solution here. Having disabled Raybots just > > sit around doing nothing isn't ideal. Auditing the whole ruleset for > > issues caused by this is probably good to do anyway but error-prone (and > > future proposals are reasonably likely to introduce new problems). > > We've had artificial persons in the past, and they ceased to exist with > no real issues. That predated Promises, which probably need a fix to > cease to exist when their creator does. When you say "no real issues", IIRC we had to think really carefully about things like rights, and repeal parts of R101 guaranteeing rights to persons before we "destroyed" artificial persons, then put it back. Someone might make a slight case that "Persons" are the core of the game in the current R101 (though that's really a stretch) and interestingly, reading the rule on Banning, we could probably Ban artificial persons - a "runaway bot" should something like that ever exist seems to meet some of the banning criteria of "the person's actions have been deemed harmful to Agora". While I haven't been following the Raybots proposal, I think the main issues were learned from zombies - there's lots of things (like having your bot support your own tabled action announcement) that need to be strictly off-limits for bots in general - the zombie nerf list from a couple years back is worth a cross reference if that hasn't been done already. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 10:35 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > I Judge TRUE, forced to play my last card and merely appeal to my personal > opinion. I think this is just fine, and a nice overall first judgement and discussion of the issues. When we were discussing this on Discord, it was a limited audience and I don't think anyone spoke up for the "it actually reads that way on a natural reading", it was mainly nix and I agreeing that boardgame rules generally read the *other* way. For these sorts of uncertain R217 readings that *could* be read both ways reasonably, and where the dominant reading isn't pegged to some very specific past judgement but a more hazy 'game custom', a completely fresh "it reads that way to me, in my opinion" is a perfectly sound and solid basis for deciding. And if the players are really split (which they probably aren't), it would head for Moot whichever way you went, and you definitely provided sufficient arguments opposite the Caller's arguments for a Moot to chew on. -G.
Re: DIS: Proto - Labor Tokens
Here's a go at incorporating all these thoughts: = Proto: Human Resources v0.02 AI: 2 Retitle Rule 2632 (Complexity) to "Office Worth". Amend Rule 2632 to read in full: Complexity is a natural office switch reflecting how complex it is to fulfill the duties of its office. It has a default of 10 and a maximum value of 40. Perkiness is a natural office switch reflecting the degree of game advantage an officer might legally realize through discretionary choices made during the exercise of eir office. It has a default of 0 and a maximum value of 40. The Worth of an office is its Complexity minus its Perkiness, with a minimum of 0. The ADoP tracks Complexity and Perkiness, and CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip the Complexity or Perkiness (or both simultaneously) of an office to specified possible values. [I translated the current 0-3 range to 0-40 instead of 0-30, because if we go with weekly rewards like setting dreams, the maximum could be scaled to earning that ability 4 weeks of the month with a 40 Unit payout] BE IT RESOLVED: The complexity of each office is hereby set to 10 times the complexity of that office as defined immediately before this proposal took effect. BE IT RESOLVED: The ADoP is hereby PETITIONED to lead a discussion on appropriate values for Perkiness for each office, and to then set perkinessess as able via the tabled action process and as guided by the discussion. Enact the following Rule, Wages. Labor Tokens are a fixed currency tracked by the ADoP, with ownership entirely restricted to Players. Each time a player performs an Act of Labor, the [officer or self- service?] associated with the condition CAN once by announcement, and SHALL in an officially timely fashion, grant the associated number of labor tokens to the player. Below is a list of Acts of Labor, their associated office, and number of labor tokens: * Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that publication was the first report published for that office in the relevant time period (week or month respectively) to fulfill an official weekly or monthly duty: 1 labor token times the worth of the office (ADoP). * Resolving a referendum, provided that no other referendum had been resolved earlier in that Agoran week: 1 labor token times the worth of the office of Assessor (ADoP). * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time limit to do so, unless at the time of judgement the case was open due to self-filing a motion to reconsider it: 4 labor tokens (Arbitor). [The language above is from when we rewarded tasks via Coins, which is reasonably well tested in terms of equating relative effort of different tasks. In terms of absolute amounts there's bound to be a bunch of tweaking/discussion before the next draft...] Enact a Rule, Daydreams, with Power=2 and the following text: A player CAN daydream, specifying a dream, for a fee of 10 labor tokens. If exactly one wandering has occurred since a player last daydreamed, that player is subject to the effects of having eir dream set to eir last specified daydream, in addition to being subject to any effects of eir current dream. [that "subject to the effects of ... in addition to any effects" is hopefully clear in intent, though may need some technical wordsmithing either here or on a per-dream basis in order to function.] [On purpose, this doesn't stack - one bonus daydream per wandering is the max buy.] [Needs to be power=2 because it enables a voting strength bonus.] [Just noticed the "If exactly one wandering has occurred" has a bit of a bug if a player daydreams on two successive weeks - noting that for later.] TODO: add Labor Token Decay to one of the above rule texts. =
Re: Very Proto Economy (Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization_
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:07 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > - I like the Focuses idea. > - I think you'd really just want to use your Stamps to win rather than > anything else. Maybe instead you can only Focus on something if you have > the right Stamp or combination of Stamps in your possession? For example, > something like: Voting Focus [Requirement: Ownership of 3 or more different > Stamps], Justice Focus [Requirement: Ownership of a Stamp type that only up > to 2 other players have]; etc > > On Friday, May 19, 2023, nix via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/19/23 11:50, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > > >> I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps > >> system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in > >> particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen, > >> and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against > >> repealing it without a replacement. > >> > > I do somewhat regret the *full* repeal we did, tho it was an interesting > > experiment (that got my a Silver Quill). I've been trying to be more hands > > off with economic writing because I want to see other ideas (and I've > > written two of the recent ones), but I have had some ideas floating around > > that would at least incorporate Stamps. The idea is basically: > > > > * replace dreams with focuses, and have 3 or 4 focuses. Something like > > Voting, Proposing, etc. > > > > * each stamp type inherits a focus from the person it's minted by, with > > stamps belonging to non-players being wildcards for focus > > > > * players automatically get stamps of eir type, maybe at a rate similar > > wealth dream (2 when there's less than 8 total of your type, 1 when there's > > less than 16 total, 0 otherwise) > > > > * cash stamps in sets, where each stamp in the set is of the same class > > (or wildcard) to get the associated bonus. Cash voting stamps and get a > > voting power increase, cash proposing stamps and get the ability to pend X > > proposals. Scale it to large payouts for larger cashing sets, and also > > larger payouts for the number of *different* stamps used. I like the idea of making Proposing a focus (or in a simple modification, make it a Dream with a similar level of pending-ability to the expunging dream). But I'll admit I'm a bit burned out on "mix and match set trading" as an economic basis (fine with it as a pure subgame like the current stamps). I'm leaning more towards the 'labor tokens' idea of personal but non-tradable specialization (e.g. everyone gets one focus/dream, and doing labors can give you the limited ability to have a second focus/dream at the same time). -G.
Re: DIS: Proto - Labor Tokens
I like the overall idea! Some comments: On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 4:24 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > Labor Tokens are a fixed asset, tracked by the (ADoP?). I could see either fixed or liquid working here, though on first read I agree with you on fixed, as it limits how transactional this could be. OTOH, in the bigger picture using labor as the basis of a trading economy makes a lot of sense too. > Professionals CAN Maybe include judges as professionals - a reward for judging of some kind? > by announcement gain once per month an amount of Labor Tokens equal to the > complexity of eir Office times ten, with that amount being affected Should a person get tokens if they hold an office very briefly? One way we did it before was like a salary: "If a player held an office for 16+ days in the previous month, and was not found guilty of any unforgivable crimes associated with eir office during that month, e CAN gain..." Another option we used before was "N Labor tokens per report published". > multiplicatively by the following: > - x0.85 if the Office has a Special Privilege Rather than scaling by privilege, maybe combine the concepts under complexity? (turn "complexity" into "wage" and make it equal to complexity minus privilege level). Overall this "privilege" idea is a bit uncertain for me - what looks like a perk from the outside (e.g. Assessor's duties) is not really a useful thing that often. But if we use the idea, the privileges definitely aren't equal so making it binary seems pretty coarse. If we go with the "wage" of using (complexity - privilege), the level of privilege for each office could be subject to consensus discussion, like complexity was/is, or (complexity - privilege) could be just discussed as a whole. > - x1.5 if the Officer hasn't committed any Monthly or Weekly Tardiness > crimes since they last gained Labor Tokens or became the current holder of > their Office. The tardiness part should probably not be platonic, the ADoP/other players shouldn't need to look for unnoticed crimes? Alternatively, if the reward level is scaled by number of reports/making reports, this takes care of itself without being entangled with the justice system. > If a certain Labor Token has existed for more than 2 months, any player CAN > destroy it by announcement and are ENCOURAGED to. This means Labor Tokens aren't fungible and the recordkeepor would have to track every one separately - and the user would have to remember to specify "spend the older tokens not the newer ones". Seems like more complication than it's worth? Though I wholly agree we don't want endless accumulation of these things - maybe some kind of quarterly reduction, taxes, or forced handsize reduction like: "if a player has more than N tokens, any player CAN spend them on that player's behalf with Notice, and the ADoP is ENCOURAGED to do so" or something. > If, for some reason, Officers cannot be reasonably retributed in Labor > Tokens, players are ENCOURAGED to propose ways to amend it so that they are. We've often talked about awarding people for one-off jobs (example: anyone could offer a major contribution to the website). Maybe a pool of tokens that could be awarded by some kind of Tabled Action for specific labors (this might be an add-on expansion for a later proposal). > Labor Tokens can be spent by announcement for the following benefits: > - "Voting Strength", for 10 Labor Tokens: The Officer gains 1 Voting > Strength for the next 30 days. > - "Blot Removal", for X Labor Tokens: The Officer, upon purchasing this > benefit, also expunges X blots from a person. > - "Subgame benefit X", for X Labor Tokens: You gain X Gold, X Men-At-Arms > and X Large Burritos. > - etc We already have two "bonus power" systems, Stones and Dreams. Adding a third entirely parallel system seems duplicative, not to mention having to go through the scaling exercise of how many tokens per each power and keep that up to date with subgames. Could save a lot of effort by leveraging an existing system? For example, if we assume the Dreams are balanced so as to be about equal, a simple solution may be that by paying some N of Labor Tokens, the payer can have the benefits of a second Dream during the following week? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Consent
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:49 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:46 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 5/19/23 16:40, Forest Sweeney wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 5/19/23 16:16, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> > > > I consent to all rice plans that have my player in the Rice Up
> > > list and do
> > > > not have my player in the Rice Down list. I also consent to all
> > > rice plans
> > > > that have no players in the Rice Up list and I am not in the
> > > Rice Down list.
> > > >
> > > > (Consent is different than intent, so this is forward looking,
> > > so I have
> > > > now played the rice game for as long as I am active.)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't think this can provide consent for rice plans that do not
> > > yet exist.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Janet Cobb
> > >
> > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd argue that I fit criteria 4 of Rule 2519 ("Consent"):
> > > "4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
> > > take place or assented to it taking place."
> > > --
> > > 4st
> > > Referee
> > > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
> >
> >
> > Actually, let's take a step back.
> >
> > The text of the rule "The Rice Game", as enacted:
> >
> > > The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and
> > > Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active
> > > player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so yet in
> > > the current week. Rice Plans can have Signatures, and each Signature must
> > > be of an active player. A Rice Plan has an active player's Signature as
> > > long as that player is consenting to it. An active player can destroy a
> > > Rice Plan that e has created by announcement.
> > >
> > > A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs:
> > > - If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that Rice Plan
> > > is Harvested.
> > > - If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, the one
> > > that was created earliest is Harvested.
> > > - In all other cases, nothing happens.
> > > And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends.
> > >
> > > Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having no
> > > repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these lists is its
> > > Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list. When a Rice Plan is
> > > Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice Up list, if that player is
> > > active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each player listed in its Rice Down list,
> > > if e has at least 1 Rice then e lose 1 Rice.
> > >
> > > If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2 Rice
> > and
> > > more Rice than any other player, then that player wins the game, and all
> > > Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in this manner three times,
> > > this rule repeals itself.
> >
> >
> > Consent at Power 3 is defined only for actions. What "action" is consent
> > being evaluated for? Certainly not the creation of the rice plan itself.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Rule 2519/2 (Power=3)
> > > Consent
> > >
> > > A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if,
> > > at the time the action took place:
> > >
> > > 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the
> > > action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement;
> > > 2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and
> > > unambiguously indicates eir consent;
> > > 3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or
> > > 4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
> > > take place or assented to it taking place.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Janet Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >
>
> So, if there is no action, then consent just takes on the regular
> meaning Thus, you can consent to rice plans non-publicly, which
> seems... troublesome
> Maybe, hopefully, the "regular meaning" is just the meaning presented in
> the rules.
Alternate argument: If "consent" in that context has the meaning
presented in the rules, then the rules regulate whether it's
successful, then it's regulated, and you CANNOT do it outside of the
R2519 mechanism, which is the only place that describes how it
succeeds or fails.
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Consent
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:40 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I'd argue that I fit criteria 4 of Rule 2519 ("Consent"):
> "4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
> take place or assented to it taking place."
There's quite a few precedents in different contexts that future
actions aren't well-defined things, so "the action" in question is
inherently uncertain if it is a "future not-yet-existing" thing, if
those precedents apply to this situation.
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:47 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > So, only someone who already is in power and a beneficiary of the system > should be entitled to propose change things? Er, I never said you couldn't propose. I was giving you feedback on how I felt about voting for it. It's a generally interesting point you raise, in that we've (over the years) frequently discussed about not being too entrenched, and giving new players the ability to jump right in without huge handicaps. That said, we are a small community, that takes some service to maintain via officers, and it makes sense to give longer-serving players at least something of a boost - it's not fair to their genuine effort over months to achieve a certain position (become "already in power"), to say a brand-new player jumps in with equal footing. Also, in particular, rule changes often impact officers' jobs, so it seems quite reasonable to give them a bit more say in changes that could include their office duties. And the thing with my "accusation" is - you've already done it once, to be fair. We'd been playing with proposal-based radiance awards for about a year, which were seen as fairly minor rewards for encouraging the writing of good proposals. But within a short time of joining the game, your own voting patterns - making something uncomfortably "political" that was never intended or played that way - became onerous enough that you basically crashed the system (brought us to the point of repealing it, rather than deal with your voting patterns). In doing so, the collateral damage included removing radiance awards for Judges, so Judges no longer get a little bonus for judging. I honestly thought that was a bit thoughtless. This is exactly what I want to avoid again, so I'm quite skeptical about arguments to repeal something that gives bonuses or reward-for-labor (especially longstanding 'service' offices where people aren't just running their own subgame for less than a week :) ) when there's no concrete proposal of anything to compensate. But enough negativity there (sorry) - I don't mean for this to express any actual metagame annoyance, just thoughts about power tradeoffs and design, and I very much look forward to seeing if nix's ideas might work. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8972-8979
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:41 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/19/23 12:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote > >> 8978* Janet 3.0 Authorized initiation > > FOR, although it doesn't actually solve the issue that brought this > > up, as it doesn't ratify a *proposal's* existence when the decision is > > to adopt a proposal (the equivalent of R2034(4) but on the promotor's > > side). > > > > I think that's part of the "validity" of the initiation? That's really unclear to me. Take a contrived but technically possible counterexample. The Promotor published a notice that says "Decision X is hereby initiated" but doesn't include *anything* about "the matter to be decided" as per R683(3). Then nobody CoEs, so it ratifies as being "valid". But what's "the matter to be decided" been ratified to be? My guess is that an attempt to ratify "valid" when there's no "matter" would introduce an internal conflict with R683(3) and the ratification would fail. But if that's true when there's no "matter", it would be equally true when there's an "invalid matter" (an alleged proposal that isn't a proposal). Ratifying the "validity" does not necessarily cascade to ratify the proposal's existence, but may instead just fail. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 09:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora- > > discussion wrote: > > > With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your > > > Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall > > > needing > > > a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem. > > > > So offer that as a package? In my experience, when things are taken > > away with the promise of new things to be added later, those things > > stay taken away, and the new things never arrive. > > I sometimes feel like half my arguing at Agora is dedicated to trying > to persuade people not to repeal the economy. > > It rarely works, and the consequence is that most of the time we don't > have a functional economy. (Having a history of the economy being > repealed is *also* a problem because it makes it harder to get a new > economy off the ground – why invest if you think that everything is > likely going to end up repealed again in the future?) Define "works"? tbh, I mostly prefer the periods with no/very limited economies, because I like the various different subgames on their own, and whenever we have a "full" economy, then subgame wins become far too transactional and full of contracts/meta-subgame deals to be very playable as a standalone competition. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-05-19 at 09:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora- > > discussion wrote: > > > With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your > > > Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall > > > needing > > > a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem. > > > > So offer that as a package? In my experience, when things are taken > > away with the promise of new things to be added later, those things > > stay taken away, and the new things never arrive. > > I sometimes feel like half my arguing at Agora is dedicated to trying > to persuade people not to repeal the economy. > > It rarely works, and the consequence is that most of the time we don't > have a functional economy. (Having a history of the economy being > repealed is *also* a problem because it makes it harder to get a new > economy off the ground – why invest if you think that everything is > likely going to end up repealed again in the future?) > > I'd much rather take the route of trying to get the Radiance/Stamps > system functional again, than of trying to repeal it. (Stamps in > particular are one of the most powerful "new player perks" we've seen, > and I suspect that that's a good thing.) I'd especially be against > repealing it without a replacement. > > (Incidentally, IIRC many of the "officer perks" that Yachay is talking > about elsethread were intentionally added a few years ago, during a > time when there was no functional economy, as an attempt to give the > officers some sort of reward – because there was nothing economic to > reward them with, we needed to use some sort of more direct reward > instead. Some of them are still around nowadays, like the Gray Ribbon.) > > -- > ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:43 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > I don't intend to design an economy, because I don't think I'm competent > enough to do so. I'll try to contribute where I can, though. > Ah, the typical take-away power with a promise, but an unfulfilled one. No worries. Power grabs are fine with me, but let's not cloak it as some kind of "I'm doing this altruistically to solve a bigger design problem." -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 9:26 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > With radiance and Stamps seemingly on their way out, I believe that your > Officer salary problem is part of a larger problem of Agora overall needing > a proper economy again, not a voting strength problem. So offer that as a package? In my experience, when things are taken away with the promise of new things to be added later, those things stay taken away, and the new things never arrive. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Promotor) Proposal Submission - Democratization
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5:51 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > > > Let's give everyone a more equal chance to be relevant. > > So right now, Officers' only reward is increased voting strength (I believe), and the game is growing with lots of new players so officers' work is getting harder. And of course, an influx of new players *already* dilutes that strength. What do you have in mind to compensate for their time & effort if you nerf their only benefit? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:29 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > Or perhaps this is just a case of "the ais523 who has been following > Agora for over 15 years spots things that the ais523 who had been there > for only one year didn't". Lol, I meant to add myself that the rules underlying may have been different at each point (I was thinking R1586 specifically, but definitely R217). And arguing against your past judicial self is a fine Agoran tradition, no real shade intended. > So we may just have to leave the precedent there. That's why past precedents are an "augmenting "not "definitive" factor (amongst other factors) in the current R217, of course...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by > > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder > > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also > > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a > > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 > > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and > > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not > > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal > > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I > > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. > > Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something > along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not > an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago > at this point). > > That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't > think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted" > is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules. > (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms > in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to > define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and > after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.) It was CFJ 2585, and you (Judge ais523) found the exact opposite of what you just said above. In https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2585, Judge ais523 wrote: > However, by the implicit mention in CFJ 1881, > and the explicit precedent of CFJ 1534 (that in a rule of historical > significance such as 104 or 2029, terms used in the rule have the > meaning they had when the rule was created), not to mention rule 1586, I > can only conclude that "marvy" in rule 2029 has the meaning it did when > the Fountain was created. Recently, Judge 4st found, in CFJ 3989, that there just wasn't sufficient evidence to find anyone guilty of this, explicitly refuting CFJ 2585 (unfortunately the evidence/context was left out of this case record): https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3989. In refuting CFJ 2585, Judge 4st also specifically refuted CFJ 1534, which dealt with continuity of the "First Speaker" term, which you cited/upheld in CFJ 2585: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1534 Those 4 cases form the complete set of relevant cases that turn up search the CFJ github for Marvy/Marvies (1881, 2585, 2589 and 3989) plus CFJ 1534 for the more general finding that concerned old terms of art like "First Speaker": -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Clean rule 2675
There's actually two criteria to think about here. One is the
criteria for intent announcements (R1728). but the other is the
criteria for rule change specifications in R105, specifically:
> 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.
While it means "the full text of the rule change" (not the full rule)
the 'but edited to replace' thing below is a person saying that they
are publishing the rule change text, but not actually publishing it.
One longstanding Agoran phrase is called "the fallacy of I Say I Did,
Therefore I Did" (abbreviated ISIDTID, or sometimes just "ISID"). The
concept is that saying "I publish the thing above except with this
edit" is not *actually* publishing that combined thing, but rather
merely *saying* you are publishing the combined thing, which doesn't
meet the criteria in R105 (most likely - I'm guessing at what the CFJ
outcome would be).
-G.
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:52 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> I don't think that "re-submission" or "editting" intents are a thing but
> the language seems to refer to just one single possible outcome, even if
> its not worded precisely.
>
> I want this to be good enough to work, but I'm not sure if CfJs are on my
> side on this.
>
> On Thursday, May 18, 2023, beokirby agora via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I re-submit my intent but edited to be replacing " ore " with " or "
> >
> > -Beokirby
> >
> > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/18/23 14:36, beokirby agora via agora-business wrote:
> > > > I intend to clean Rule 2675 ("Dream of Wandering") by replacing "ore"
> > > with
> > > > "or"
> > > >
> > > > -Beokirby
> > >
> > >
> > > I object. There are multiple instances of "ore" in that text (some part
> > > of other words), and not all of them should be replaced.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Janet Cobb
> > >
> > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> > >
> > >
> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:22 AM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 11:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > hehe we can still fool old players sometimes - "intend" has a > > "specific meaning" for registration as well as for other contexts, so > > beokirby registered exactly as per the rules: > > > > > An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or > > > prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that > > > indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e > > > intends to become a player at that time. > > It's still worth warning the new players, though, because "intend" > wording works for registration, and (for a different reason) for the > first step in taking a tabled action, but doesn't work for anything > else. > > IIRC the reason it works for registration is partly that new players > kept getting it wrong, and partly because we wanted to change the > registration rules to have an entire new set of "did my registration > work?" CFJs. That change was ages ago now, though, so I might be > misremembering the details. CFJ 1263 (about my first registration, lol) was the genesis of this. The rules at the time required a player to "request registration" - Caller Blob felt that a statement of "I register" wasn't a request, and requests should be required for it to work, as it "should inculcate some humility into new Players". Judge Steve disagreed, and felt that "it is a bad idea to be too nit-picky about the precise forms of words used to effect game actions. This is especially true where new Players are concerned." The result of that CFJ initially to accept "I register" as a successful "request" to register, followed by a removal of the 'request' language from the rule and the gradual softening of the strictness of that requirement over time, as a few more accidental registration failures happened. Of course, as it got squishier/more flexible, it led to registration attempts purposefully pushing the envelope (as Agorans do) on just how flexible one could express registration intent. So it didn't really decrease the "X is a player" CFJs - though it made them harder to trigger accidentally by newbies, you had to work at it to have a controversial registration. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1263 -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora
There's a bit of a discussion on Discord right now, that "intend" (or synonyms like "plan") have an implication of "doing in future, not now" in many contexts, which adds to the confusion for registration - and has specifically called out in the past in terms of "consent now" versus "consent later". A verb like "desire" as in "desires to become a player at that time" might work better as it better indicates "wants to/consents to right now". -G. On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:33 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > Hm. We should probably use different words for registration "intents" and > tabled "intents". > > In fact, I think it could be good to keyword things in the ruleset, sort of > like how MTG and plenty of other games do it, like; [Lifesteal] or [Flash]. > I believe we already have something like it in "Mother, May I?", but > perhaps it could be productive to expand it to the ruleset's terms in > general. Like that, it's much more obvious that it's some agora-specific > language for a certain mechanic and it doesn't mean what it reads on the > tin. > > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 8:22 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 11:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > hehe we can still fool old players sometimes - "intend" has a > > > "specific meaning" for registration as well as for other contexts, so > > > beokirby registered exactly as per the rules: > > > > > > > An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or > > > > prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that > > > > indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e > > > > intends to become a player at that time. > > > > It's still worth warning the new players, though, because "intend" > > wording works for registration, and (for a different reason) for the > > first step in taking a tabled action, but doesn't work for anything > > else. > > > > IIRC the reason it works for registration is partly that new players > > kept getting it wrong, and partly because we wanted to change the > > registration rules to have an entire new set of "did my registration > > work?" CFJs. That change was ages ago now, though, so I might be > > misremembering the details. > > > > -- > > ais523 > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Collector, Dream keeper) Intent to Register to Agora
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 11:09 AM nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/18/23 13:06, beokirby agora via agora-business wrote: > > I intend to register as a player of Agora. > > My name is beokirby. > > > > I will then grant myself a welcome package and envision a dream of gardens > Welcome beokirby! Keep in mind that phrases like "I intend" actually > have a specific meaning in Agora. If you want to do something, it's > usually best to just say "I do this" so instead of "I intend to > register" you can just say "I register." hehe we can still fool old players sometimes - "intend" has a "specific meaning" for registration as well as for other contexts, so beokirby registered exactly as per the rules: > An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or > prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that > indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e > intends to become a player at that time. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 4:44 AM juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-05-17 23:21]: > > On 5/17/23 20:13, nix via agora-business wrote: > > > On 5/17/23 19:10, Christian Arguinzoni via agora-business wrote: > > >> I would like to register for the nomic game Agora. My preferred name is > > >> blob. Thank you! > > > Welcome! I grant blob a Welcome Package. This is interesting because > > > this might be the first time we have a new player with the same name as > > > a previous player. I'm not sure how best to handle it in historical > > > documents. Curious what people think? > > > > > > > For more ephemeral reports, I don't think there's a problem. My concerns > > are the ruleset and the Registrar's monthly, where I would strongly > > object to using the same name to refer to distinct persons. > > I think this is kind of rude… People are free to choose their own names, > at least in Agora, and I believe its an important principle. Players are not wholly "free to choose their own" Agoran nicknames. It comes down to ambiguity in reports - Officers need to note the person in some way that passes a CFJ/COE test of unambiguity, which means have something unique for every different person. Outside of the reports (like for by announcement actions) if a shortened version of a nickname (a nickname nickname?) is the same as a former player, the chance of ambiguity is low, so that might be useable. A key finding on nicknames: CFJ 1361 finding by Judge Steve: "a nickname is a name that a Player chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in the full range of Agoran contexts. " Note that the "free choice" is qualified by the need to "pick em out in the full range of Agoran contexts". The Scroll, in particular, is a living document, and the original Blob has several entries - it would be equally rude to the original Blob to change eir name notation in the Scroll and other historical documents, to disambiguate em from an entirely new player. So we need to balance that, hopefully in a friendly way. I'll also note that the original Blob turned up for Agora's 20th anniversary (and earned an Agora XX badge), and there's a slight change with the 30th coming up... Of course, the easiest way to come to consensus (and the nicest, least rude solution) is to go by what the person wants. But in the case where it produces a confusing nickname, we can ask (very nicely) the new player to choose something that's unambiguous[0]. There's been several of those sorts of conversations with new players over the years, and in all cases so far the new player has voluntarily modified their nickname. But if e fails to do that, each officer would need to come to their own conclusion which could get a little messy. A couple other CFJs where free nickname-choosing was "blocked": CFJ 1703, judge root: In spite of CFJ 1361, comex's attempt to change eir nickname to "Murphy" failed (Murphy was a current player, not a former player), because it did not allow for reliable disambiguation. CFJ 3467, judge G.: when a player selected 天火狐 as eir nickname, it was reasonable/official to use the transliteration Tenhigitsune as the name in report (note that during deliberations, the transliteration was made with the player's consent). For a while, officers varied in whether they used 天火狐 or Tenhigitsune, and it was generally considered that either worked. [0] For a while, we actually had some tighter rules on it, including "a player SHALL NOT choose a confusing nickname" and "a player SHALL sign every public message with eir nickname". This being Agora, this was seen as thoughtcrime and caused a lot of CFJs as people purposefully played the Bendyboot Crumpetpatch game of seeing how far they could twist their nicknames without criming. And of course, for new players saying "you just committed a crime because you didn't know about a player with your nickname ten years ago" was ... not really welcoming. Fun times! Citations: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1361 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1703 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3467 -G.
Re: DIS: Re: (@Collector, Herald) BUS: The Never-Ending Dance
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 4:34 PM nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/17/23 18:27, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > > The intent only exists if it worked...? > > True. But still, even if it succeeded, I would not personally support a > badge. > I'm not sure conditional announcements of intent (as opposed to announcements of intents with conditionals) meet the tabled intent clarity standard (can see arguments in both directions). -G.
Re: DIS: [proto] Judicial overhaul
On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 12:46 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/14/23 15:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 3:10 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > > wrote: > >> Hm. If we're trying to go the other way and make it as quick as possible, > >> we could have the Arbitor's weekly report include a randomly selected > >> "Dredd" Judge for that week (with some Dredds on the bench if the current > >> Dredd themselves is being accused) that can simultaneously once a crime is > >> noted: post a proper investigation, assign judgement and penalize > >> immediately; with a window for appeals open afterwards that is able to undo > >> whatever penalty was initially applied. > >> > >> It's probably not the best solution, but it would cut it down from 5 weeks > >> to 1 week + 1 to possibly appeal. > > Suggestion that is a minimal modification from current system: Instead > > of the odd "no Investigator's duties exist unless the crime happened" > > method, simply state that the investigator must (in timely fashion) > > make a self-ratifying statement as to whether there was a crime or not > > (and create blots/other punishment if there was a crime). Also, > > further clarify that if the investigator gives eir reasons for the > > findings in good faith (suggested theme: the Investigator has a week > > to Assemble the Suspects in the Drawing Room), it's basically a "best > > guess" and e can't be punished if e's wrong. Then, any doubters > > (including the Referee) can just use CoEs, and the procedure follows > > the regular "create or refer to a CFJ to resolve the matter" process. > > > > -G. > > > Mechanically I think it'd be better to only ratify statements when blots > are created (and even then, ratify that the blots were effectively > created rather than a statement about the underlying crime)? Not sure I > see the point in ratifying that no crime occurred (and that might have > unwanted effects). Makes sense. Also, since you explained that part of the purpose of your proto was for cases that might go outside the rules-recommended penalty range, maybe using some form of the full Criminal Court would work in place of where "indictments" used to be? (that could be a proposal independent of this particular fix). Whatever the failings of the old criminal courts, it seems better than the "vote on indictments" method for big things.
Re: DIS: [proto] Judicial overhaul
On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 3:10 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > Hm. If we're trying to go the other way and make it as quick as possible, > we could have the Arbitor's weekly report include a randomly selected > "Dredd" Judge for that week (with some Dredds on the bench if the current > Dredd themselves is being accused) that can simultaneously once a crime is > noted: post a proper investigation, assign judgement and penalize > immediately; with a window for appeals open afterwards that is able to undo > whatever penalty was initially applied. > > It's probably not the best solution, but it would cut it down from 5 weeks > to 1 week + 1 to possibly appeal. Suggestion that is a minimal modification from current system: Instead of the odd "no Investigator's duties exist unless the crime happened" method, simply state that the investigator must (in timely fashion) make a self-ratifying statement as to whether there was a crime or not (and create blots/other punishment if there was a crime). Also, further clarify that if the investigator gives eir reasons for the findings in good faith (suggested theme: the Investigator has a week to Assemble the Suspects in the Drawing Room), it's basically a "best guess" and e can't be punished if e's wrong. Then, any doubters (including the Referee) can just use CoEs, and the procedure follows the regular "create or refer to a CFJ to resolve the matter" process. -G.
Re: DIS: [proto] Judicial overhaul
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 2:59 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > A proto to revive the criminal court, revive the appellate court (but > only for criminal cases), and fix investigators' obligations with > respect to alleged infractions: So, for a full criminal trial resulting in Blots, in this draft I count 5 "timely fashion" delays: 1 for Referee to respond to a Note with a CFJ, 1 for Arbitor to assign the CFJ, 1 for judgement time, 1 (fixed full week) for the judgement to be in effect to allow for appeals, and 1 for the Arbitor to execute the penalty. Did I get that right? And that's before any appeals, extensions, motions - wow. If this were a real world life-changing criminal matter, absolutely - the wheels of justice should grind slowly. But is that what we want here? As a defendant, I might take a plea deal and ask the referee for "guilty via investigation" no matter what I thought, just so I could pay off the fine and not have it suddenly appear weeks later. The timeline can probably be condensed a bit, but more generally, I was not a huge fan of the earlier Criminal Court (I was not Arbitor until after it was repealed, so this is an "as a general player at the time" opinion, at least as much as possible from this distance). It tended to drag out resolution through a cumbersome criminal trial, which tended to exacerbate/prolong tensions long after most people had stopped caring and wanted to move on. It might be fun to roleplay a criminal trial on occasion, but that was outweighed by the fact that it generally left people at odds with each other (genuinely bristling at each other) longer than need be. Even if the referee is a first filter as in this draft, such that most cases don't go to trial, it's an awful lot of rules complication/length for something that happens relatively rarely? I think I'd want to have a better discussion of what we are actually trying to achieve by criminal penalties that involve full trials (if the achievement is "it's fun to try some criminal procedure in our game" that's fine, but it's worthy of getting on the same page about). In particular, one lack of the current system in my mind is no effective way to prevent immediate "cheating to win" - but this draft exacerbates that issue, as a defendant has a much longer time window without blots to win while the trial is unfolding. I absolutely think, following the recent discussion, that we need to let the investigator "pause" an investigation to defer to CFJ, or otherwise procedurally make the pieces work more smoothly. And it would be nice to bring Apologies back, for when the sentencing is finished. And better address "illegal" wins. But the current CFJ (inquiry case) model feels like it gets to the bottom of the controversy fairly quickly; at least, it did for the instances of the past week that have been resolved, with the only real issue being the investigator's weird timing issues. Does some version of a full trial and appeals system get us there in a better way, do you think? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8972-8979
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 10:17 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > Also why is radiance at power 1.5 in the first place? > Was a minor design choice: because (in drafting points) I thought the win condition itself (100+ points) should be a trifle more protected than the award conditions. -G.
DIS: Re: (@Arbitor) BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4026 Assigned to ais523
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 4:34 PM ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > Amend R478 by deleting the following text: > > > > Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of > > any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall > > be prohibited from participating in the Fora > [snip] > > The resulting rule change broke a long-standing protection that > prevented the rules accidentally making it ILLEGAL to participate in > gameplay generally (see CFJ 1738). This has a chilling effect on > various forms of participation in Agora as a whole: this CFJ is asking > me to interpret the rules, but if I discover that the statement of the > CFJ is TRUE, that in turn means that I SHALL NOT give that verdict. Just a point here, that Judge Janet brought up in eir CFJ 4025 judgement. Per CFJ 3403, the "Freedom of Speech" clause was about whole-forum banning, not individual speech acts. So it was never protective of making particular types of formal speech illegal. For example, No Faking functioned just fine (and was usable for penalties) even with the "Freedom of Speech" clause in place. CFJ 1738 dealt with a special case where a rules confluence effectively made *all* types of speech illegal for certain players, so wholly blocked public forum participation for those players. CFJ 3403 (just cited by Janet in eir CFJ 4025 judgement), which I wasn't aware of when I called this case, actually answers the question I meant to ask. Specifically that the "SHALL NOT interpret" refers to regulated acts of interpretation such as judgement delivery. To this end, I agree that the overall situation is "chilling" in that you're correct about your judgement being penalizable. and that should be fixed along lines that you propose. But CFJ 3403 clearly states this is not true to the Freedom of Speech clause at all (or the "chilling effect" of removing that lofty but ultimately limited protection from the ruleset). Excerpt from Judge Tiger's judgement: > In summary: when Rule 2125 talks about "interpreting the rules", it is > not the same "interpret" as in "well, I think this rules means X" when > spoken in a casual discussion. Rather, interpreting the rules, being > limited by that very clause, is a regulated action. It does not > prohibit anyone's ability to participate in the Fora, and there is no > conflict between the named paragraphs of Rules 2125 and 478. Apologies for not finding CFJ 3403 in the first place! -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE
Oh sure - no worries if that’s the only thing - I was giving my logic so it didn’t come across as arbitrary, but didn’t mean to imply it was anything but my best (conjectural) guess at this time. On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:51 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Easy, you could state that you're basing yourself off mere conjecture and > that's the best you can do for now rather than using using language that > states your position as a matter of fact. > > On Friday, May 12, 2023, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > > > I'd like to mention that I don't feel like you're exercising the > "highest > > > reasonably possible standard of care" if your basis for if the crime > has > > > been committed or not is that it doesn't match the arcana, unless you > > prove > > > first that the arcana has survived and still has legal effect to this > > day. > > > Or at least, give it a shot to convince people about it, because it > seems > > > clear to me that the arcana's survival and legal power is just > > speculation > > > at the moment. > > > > I can still perform the investigation if a crime exists, so I'm not > > closing out any arguments whatsoever. This "care" only matters if I > > don't get a CFJ answer in time, and the CFJ finds "crime" after the > > "Favoritism" deadline passes a week from now. > > > > So a question to you: if an investigator, with good and honest intent > > doesn't believe that a crime has been committed, and the 1-week > > Favoritism deadline for the investigation is approaching with the CFJ > > unresolved, how exactly do you think I (or anyone) should exert care > > in that circumstance, to avoid the charge of Favoritism? What > > can/should any investigator do to follow their belief with integrity > > while at the same time not committing a crime of late investigation? > > > > This is not a question unique to this crime - it applies to any > > alleged infraction where the investigator has a reasonably legit > > reason to believe "no crime" but there's still some controversy over > > it and a cfj is raised. I believe that (within the 1-week deadline) > > the investigator stating eir belief (and arguments for that belief) > > provides evidence of a level of care, and that it's unavoidable to do > > otherwise due to eir conscience. Otherwise they'd have to act against > > their belief and conscience in a criminal matter *just in case* it was > > a crime, which isn't a reasonable request. How (in your opinion) > > should the investigator go about it, when the investigation might only > > exist (in essence) retroactively and a CFJ answer is late in coming? > > > > -G. > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > I'd like to mention that I don't feel like you're exercising the "highest > reasonably possible standard of care" if your basis for if the crime has > been committed or not is that it doesn't match the arcana, unless you prove > first that the arcana has survived and still has legal effect to this day. > Or at least, give it a shot to convince people about it, because it seems > clear to me that the arcana's survival and legal power is just speculation > at the moment. I can still perform the investigation if a crime exists, so I'm not closing out any arguments whatsoever. This "care" only matters if I don't get a CFJ answer in time, and the CFJ finds "crime" after the "Favoritism" deadline passes a week from now. So a question to you: if an investigator, with good and honest intent doesn't believe that a crime has been committed, and the 1-week Favoritism deadline for the investigation is approaching with the CFJ unresolved, how exactly do you think I (or anyone) should exert care in that circumstance, to avoid the charge of Favoritism? What can/should any investigator do to follow their belief with integrity while at the same time not committing a crime of late investigation? This is not a question unique to this crime - it applies to any alleged infraction where the investigator has a reasonably legit reason to believe "no crime" but there's still some controversy over it and a cfj is raised. I believe that (within the 1-week deadline) the investigator stating eir belief (and arguments for that belief) provides evidence of a level of care, and that it's unavoidable to do otherwise due to eir conscience. Otherwise they'd have to act against their belief and conscience in a criminal matter *just in case* it was a crime, which isn't a reasonable request. How (in your opinion) should the investigator go about it, when the investigation might only exist (in essence) retroactively and a CFJ answer is late in coming? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 8:03 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Having such an unwieldy amount of arcana puts a lot of power in being able > to give out 'hedonistic' Judgements; ones that are heavily based on "well > this is best for the game"/"this makes it playable"/etc, especially ones > that have to be that way because of ambiguity. Because we don't know for > sure everything that has even happened until now, and even then, we're > likely to have more disagreements the more arcana that we have to consider > in order to compute the current gamestate. > > It's probably not so bad then, because the longer back you go, the harder > it is to be sure of it, and the easier it seems that a hedonistic Judgement > will just overwrite it. Arcana *generally* doesn't have that strong an impact - an old CFJ can always be revisited, even if cited, and new CFJs have often said "that old one doesn't apply". And believe me, current judges are *very* ready to overturn or just ignore precedent that's somewhat old, that happens regularly. The reason this one is relevant is because voters, in the modern time, last week, voted FOR this Rules text, and so it's become current rules text. As I said, I can't speak for other voters' reasoning - no deals were made etc. - but there's all sorts of ways to go wrong in the rules by voting for unwise text, whether than unwise text is drawn from an ancient source or entirely new. Knowing about the old CFJs gives a *minor* advantage, in that when something comes up that's happened before, I can say "hey - here's a ready-to-go argument for the situation I don't need to re-argue first principles". But it still has to persuade the current judge (and any potential appealers) all over again. People do feel a "weight of history" a bit, in the sense of saying that this is a long-running game and it would be a shame to destroy it on a whim of a single judgement, but that applies to entirely new arguments/issues just as much as "old" ones. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 5:00 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones > which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now > supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. > Just on this note, I wanted to say that this was all me, not an "old person conspiracy", so I apologize it felt that way - I didn't reveal the text outside putting the reference in the proposal and referring to it indirectly, and was intending to reveal it right after the voting regardless, so people (old and new) were drawing their own conclusions during the voting. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st
One other thing that's totally unspoken in the rules but exists in the common-law of CFJs is that it's acceptable to find "to the preponderance of evidence" for factual questions. This used to be codified - but we repealed that codification for whatever reason. But it was still established enough in the CFJs that when repealed that people kept using that standard. Here's the last version of the codification (repealed in 2007, though it may have moved elsewhere and been repealed later): Rule 1575/6 (Power=1) Standards of Proof Unless otherwise specified, all Judgements shall be consistent with the preponderance of the evidence. A defendant may not be assessed punitive damages for Rules Violations any worse than a formal apology, unless a Judge finds that evidence for the violation is beyond a reasonable doubt. The published Report of an Officer constitutes prima facie evidence of the truth of those matters reported therein which that Officer is required by law to report. This presumption may be set aside only by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 1:05 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the mechanism > is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to > define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more possible > senses or ways". > > I'll attempt to prove this based on the flaws of our perception (although I > could keep bringing up more and more and I'd only need *one* to qualify): > We can only perceive the game through our subjective perception, as Janet's > announcement easily outlines. There might be things that we don't know > about. > > Since we don't ever know (and can't ever know) if we're entirely right > about if the gamepieces, including the ruleset, are what we think they are; > because we're not omniscient or something, there's always some doubt that > the game could mean something else. Therefore enabling that the game is > "capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways" > because of that permanent uncertainty that we can't get rid of. > > The entire game *might* be some other way, but we just don't know for sure > if it is or not, making the entire game ambiguous to us to some degree. > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:28 PM nix via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/10/23 14:26, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > > "Any at all full stop" ambiguity is a whole lot of ambiguity, is my > > point. > > > It's incredibly easy for anything to gain any iota of ambiguity. But, > > yes, > > > I believe that we don't interpret it that way, rather, the ambiguity > > needs > > > to be "reasonable", but then the discussion becomes what*is* reasonable > > > ambiguity? It's subjective and it depends on what the group deciding it > > > (Agora itself) feels like it should be. > > I'm still going to (politely) push back on this. It seems like your base > > assumption is everything is ambiguous, and we would need to prove it's > > not. I'm saying the opposite. if nobody provides an alternative reading, > > there's no reason to believe the rule change is ambiguous. I am applying > > the standard strictly, and expecting a burden of proof that it has been > > violated instead of just assuming it has been. > > > > -- > > nix > > Prime Minister, Herald > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:43 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > If I were to interpret the ruleset as strictly as I would like to, I > believe that no rule change whatsoever has happened since the clause "Any > ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be > void and without effect." was added to the game. > > I feel like the game culture specific to Agora is playing a large role in > preventing that clause from pseudo-ossifying the game from not being able > to make changes in a practical way unless we write hyper-eloquent yet at > the same time, hyper-pedantic Proposals. If not straight up ossifying it. One issue is that we've got a tug-of-war between approaching the rules as a practical legal document that allows for some measure of common-sense intent (which might interpret "any ambiguity" as "any reasonable ambiguity" or "any practical/effective ambiguity") and the computer programming/mathematical approach where "any" might mean "any at all full stop". The hybrid mix leads to some very weird outcomes, where there's a surface level of hyper-precision - mainly because the player base draws far more from the mathematical side than the legal side in its expertise - but digging deeper it all rests on some hazy common-law common-sense applications to break out of logical loops (hazy is not meant as 'bad' but more as 'flexible case-by-case including intent, good-of-the-game, and so forth'). I think the hybrid approach certainly contributes to the philosophical vigor of the game, but the translation of that hybrid approach to rules-lanugage is quite messy and it breaks down in very particular ways, as you say. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Active Player Tax
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 12:57 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > It's fine, I'm kind of curious myself too. > > On Thursday, May 4, 2023, Forest Sweeney via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 2:51 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I note this infraction made by 4st. The infracted rule is rule 2471 (No > > > Faking), because after reviewing the rules I've found that taxes actually > > > don't exist, and 4st should've known it before posting something as > > > misleading as this; this is the incident. > > > > > > On Saturday, April 29, 2023, Forest Sweeney via agora-official < > > > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Under penalty of no faking, as Referee, I do the following game action > > > > for each active player: > > > > I collect that player's taxes that are owed to the office of Referee. > > > > (The active players being 4st, Aspen, G.,Janet, Murphy, Yachay, ais523, > > > > cuddlybanana, juan, nix, and snail.) > > > > > > > > Please make any disputes about this individually, as taxes are done on > > a > > > > case by case basis. > > > > > > > > Furthermore, I intend to, without objection, declare apathy, specifying > > > all > > > > players. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 4st > > > > Referee and Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor > > > > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator > > > > > > > > > > > YOU FELL INTO MY TRAP! I NOW COLLECT YOUR TAXES! > > I note this infraction made by Yachay, for violation of Rule 2125. Arbitor, > > I'm sure you will find that e did indeed commit the crime of proscribing an > > unregulated action at this point in time. And even if e didn't indeed > > commit that crime, then how will the Justice system handle my outrageous > > claim that e had done so? > > MUAHAHAHAHA! > > > > (OOC: I don't think you had any scams lined up that probably two blots > > profoundly affects your plans? And I'm really sorry in advance if you > > actually do... > > Also it is probably equally likely that I will be found to commit another > > crime of No Faking by claiming to once again collect your taxes.) So a couple things: - this is still the Referee's job - it's only the Arbitor if the perp is the referee. It feels like we used to have a "no Judge Dredd" clause where the referee couldn't note crimes so there'd always be at least two people involved. But it's not there now. - Still, if you want to make a pledge to use any unofficial investigation I give as your final investigation, I'm happy to opine (up to you). - But finally, this might be better a "straight to CFJ" case (on whether Yachay violated the rule). One question is who did the alleged proscribing, Yachay by noting that there might be a crime, or the Arbitor for investigating and penalizing for it? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Review Board for 4st's Thesis @Yachay @G. @Janet
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 9:44 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > In response: > I had written this thesis with exactly as you say also in mind. We take > conclusions to their logical extremes without first testing and confirming > via CFJ or otherwise if the Truth that we'd found ACTUALLY holds up in > court. And we therefore move through the motions of accepting and adopting > bugfixes that may not actually be necessary. For example, in Time B Safe, > it doesn't make ANY sense at all whatsoever, to me, in most scenarios, to > interpret that Agora would stop Time Itself before becoming ossified, as > this actually feels like a paradox to me: Agora would still be ossified > that way, since time would be stopped and that itself would ossify Agora > just as much, even if the interpretation of time were different. Just on the minor point of Time B Safe, this was in fact the result of a CFJ. The judgement could always be wrong/reconsidered etc., but it was "CFJ-tested" (albeit via a fairly hypothetical CFJ statement) in the sense you're describing and the proposal was a direct, if delayed, result: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3580. This isn't to take away from your overall point of our tendency to fill the rules with too many edge-case and hypothetical "bug" fixes. Also, culturally, several of us lived through the demise of B Nomic some years ago, a well-established and popular nomic which died precisely because it came up with a way to stop time and not restart it. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Awards Month (@Promotor, @Arbitor, @Tailor, @ADoP)
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:28 AM nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 4/30/23 17:47, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > > I intend to award Employee of the Year to either Janet or snail, > > subject to discussion. > I'm not convinced this works as an official intent (I'm not even sure if > it was meant to be one vs just a statement of what you plan to do). But > I also would support giving this to either person. I can make the intent > when/if you decide on a particular one. > > Very hard to choose between the two. Maybe other factors shouldn't > count, but since neither has ever won any yearly award, and snail > already looks like a lock for the Golden Glove, I'd personally lean > towards Janet for this one. one other note is that (going from Murphy's list) some of snail's offices are basically "contestmaster" in that e proposed a subgame e wanted to run, and ran it. Nothing wrong with that (and it's great) but it's more like thanking people for running tournaments. So factoring that in, and seeing similar (excellent in both cases) effort in the core offices, I'd also lean towards Janet.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 10:28 AM nix via agora-business wrote: > If an officer specified a Delegate when taking a Vacation, and the > Delegate has publicly consented, then the Delegate can act as if e > is the holder of the Office while the officer is On Vacation. I'm still against this happening with nothing but consent between two parties. I like Juan's idea of making this like the judicial list or the thesis committee lists, maybe just governed by SHOULDs and "relatively fair/equal chances". I think this could help us with both ends of the issue - it would ensure no one person got the best assignments, but there would also some expectation that if you volunteer to be on the delegate list, sometimes you should accept being assigned something that no one really wants to do. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun [CFJ]
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:17 AM Aspen via agora-business wrote: > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > >> [Proposal 8639 > > >> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. > > > > > > If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to > > > miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even > > > by > > > r105 standards? > > > I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a > > > rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text. > > > > > > Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said. > > > > I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's > > title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to > > that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule > > rather than that my reading is wrong). > > > > My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only > > and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is > > inherently ambiguous. > > > > -- > > Janet Cobb > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > > I CFJ 'Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0.' I bar Janet. (I'd bar G. > too if I could - neither of them is biased, but I'm hoping for a third > opinion here.) Context can be found in the thread above. While you didn't file with the referee (won't be offended if you decide to withdraw and go with referee), I'll be sure to choose a judge that's not me (and without known-to-me biases on this). In fact, ITT this is a particularly good for a "newer" judge, as long standing "we've always read it that way" quibbles that resolve around exact text interpretation can benefit from a fresh reading by people not solidified in the game culture of the issue. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > [Proposal 8639 > failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even by r105 standards? I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Election updates
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 2:09 PM nix via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/23/23 18:45, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: > > I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Assessor > > election. > > * The Vote Collector is the ADoP. > > * The valid options are the candidates (currently 4st, Janet). > > * The voting method is instant runoff. > > * Quorum is 5 (based on 8 voters on Proposal 8955). > > I vote [Yachay, Janet]. Given recent discussion and that Yachay has some > ideas for how e wants to run Assessor, I think I would like to see some > shake-up. > Also - sincere apologies to Yachay for not mentioning campaigning on ideas earlier in the election process. Obviously it’s not clear to new players that it’s ok or expected to do that - and sorry for suggesting towards the end of the voting that you might be “gaming” it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 12:37 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 14:36, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > Ideally, I think, everything is doable with automation. In practice tho, > > I'm not sure what that looks like. > > Crucial typo. I think ideally everything is doable *without* automation. When you do a job manually for a while, you start to use shortcuts, get faster, streamline, then maybe join a couple of steps using a bit of code… there’s really no sharp line between “automation” and plain old “experience” - the two naturally go hand in hand.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Delegation
While I was supportive of the delegation idea on discord, I’m coming around to Yachay’s position. I’ve “taken breaks” from arbitor regularly - snail and Jason both did the job for a bit last year - but when it was technically resigning without the expectation of getting the job back I think it felt a bit healthier for the game than this would. That said, there’s a difference between jobs that will find temporary takers and ones almost no one will take on for a short time (rulekeepor is like that, or at least has been historically) Maybe making the delegation subject to a public volunteer process - so it’s treated differently if more than one person want the job, so the hand-picking potential is more limited? On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 11:32 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I'm not sure if my main point is coming across that the problem would be > the "dynasty" thing, where the veteran gets to hand-pick themselves how the > office continues rather than having a process that is more impartial. > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:24 PM nix via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/1/23 13:20, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 5/1/23 12:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly > > >> encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto > > heads of > > >> who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate > or > > >> not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards > actually > > >> getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an > > unwritten > > >> requirement for it. > > >> > > >> It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it > > bothers > > >> me. > > >> > > >> I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all > > >> deputization/elections as we currently have it. > > > > > > With due respect, this is a newer player perspective. Some roles > (mostly > > > rulekeepor, assessor, arbitor) tend to stay with the same player for > > > several years. And then that player burns out/gets buys/moves on, and > > > suddenly there's nobody that knows how to do them. This is meant to > > > *lessen* the chokehold that established players have on the mechanisms > > > of the game but preventing that from happening. > > > > > > > And the "free-for-all" doesn't exist right now. It takes a lot of work > > to take over certain roles, so what happens is that nobody does, or > > someone does and immediately realizes they were unprepared for the work. > > > > And since experienced players know those are the most likely outcomes, > > they feel obligated to continue to run their office, some players have > > put out reports for multiple years without breaks. It's not healthy; the > > current system is clearly insufficient. > > > > -- > > nix > > Prime Minister, Herald > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Awards Month (@Promotor, @Arbitor, @Tailor, @ADoP)
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 3:47 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > > I intend to award Employee of the Year to either Janet or snail, > subject to discussion. Even if your "I intend with 2 Agoran consent everything I announced in the past 6 hours" works, I'm unsure how to think about the above statement. I *think* it's meant to be two intents (one for each possible award), but the fact that you used "either or" implies a conditional entanglement (either one or the other not both) so I'm not sure if that's an official part of the tabled actions conditions, your informal pledge to only pick one, or what. Though I totally agree from your stats that Janet and snail would be the finalists. :) -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Silver Quill Intent
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 4:07 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > I respond to all petitions made to me with "Wow look at this cool Awards > Month intent": > > It's hard to pick a single proposal from the last year: feedback from > everyone would be appreciated, if I missed something big! I just picked the > ones I found really impactful to consider, which I would include birds and > horses for but it seems like those weren't really "outstanding merit". > > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award nix the Patent Title "Silver > Quill" for proposal 8660 (The End of Sets). This proposal removed sets, > sending Agora into its post-sets era, also utilizing a system of marking > sections of rules to be repealed after the sets win. An influential > proposal with much merit, though I think there were some bumps once the > repeal actually happened, though nothing really important. > > nix also made stamps and changed finger-pointing to infractions, also > making stones slippery, and revamping stamps and score to be more balanced > when repealing coins, also adding a power bonus to offices, lots of big > stuff. I can intend for those instead, but I think lumping them into the > above intent could be fine? I support. I really like this approach - nix deserves "proposal writer of the year" not just for p8660, but also for eir breadth of both authorship and extensive participation in editorial comments (i.e. coauthorship). I think it's fine to lump the overall award into eir most prominent proposal which is deserving on its own. -G.
DIS: Re: [Arbitor] Investigation of 4st (Re: OFF: [Referee] Active Player Tax)
On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 2:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > This violation has a (default) class of 2. The fact that the > defendant revealed the situation right away is somewhat mitigating, > while using the guise of an official position is somewhat aggravating. > Balancing these, I conclude this investigation by specifying 2 blots > as the penalty. Aside: I would have made this forgivable, but the current forgiveness rules kinda suck (a somewhat boring procedural thing). I think we should bring back official apologies, which are far more fun (especially for test infractions like this one).
DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Convening the Thesis Review Board
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 12:52 PM juan via agora-business
wrote:
>
> ABSTRACT: based on the considerably well-crafted analysis and extensive
> historical research, useful and insightful crafting of concepts, but an
> unfortunate lack of indexing references, I ask the author to REVIEW &
> RESUBMIT the thesis by adding such references, after which I recommend
> nomination for a M.N.
>
Can you comment on why you picked the M.N. level? Levelling is often
the most contentious question on theses (we agree it deserves a
degree, but not which degree) and personally I would have pegged this
one at Bachelors, but that was just a qualitative first reaction on my
part ("substantial" but not "remarkable" contribution as per R1367
standards). Also, ais523 already has an M.N. but not a Bachelors. I
seem to remember we balked in the past at giving someone the same
degree twice, and nobody on the Scroll is listed as (x2) or any other
indication of a double award for any degree, and I remember we added
types of degrees (tracks) to allow for multiples. But I can't
remember why (I don't think there's an explicit prohibition on doing
so?)
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification without Objection intent - Continuity of the game since 1993
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 9:41 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > Hm. Well, then, obviously, we need to implement some rules to prevent this > situation from ever happening again, and then make Agora permanently > unossifieable, so that if this question ever came up again, or if agora DID > die, it could come back to life anyway. "Permanently unossifieable" is a direct oxymoron - if the protection was permanent, it would be ossified. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification without Objection intent - Continuity of the game since 1993
On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 3:34 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > Rule 1727 is also not explicit that Agora is in fact the > same nomic that "rose like a phoenix from the ashes of Nomic World". > This has come up as a philosophical chat around here from time to time (I don't think there's any theses about it?) The general consensus (including back in 2002-2004 when Michael Norrish and other original Agorans from NW were still around) is that Agora is *not* continuous (i.e. not the 'same nomic') from Nomic World in the legal sense, and was never assumed to be. That "rise from the ashes" phrase is meant as continuity in spirit, as Agora was established by former NW players who wanted an email game with the same flavor of NW, and used very similar initial rules that NW had, as close to the Suber ruleset as possible with modifications for type of forum, with a few lessons learned from NW play (like not repeating the Lindrum World mistakes in the initial NW ruleset). Of course, the final rules of NW when it died were very different from the initial rules of Agora when it started up, so there was no continuity there. Conversely, NW had a subnomic going on while it was running - the Fantasy Rules Committee or FRC - that actually *was* contiguous by their rules. The FRC is still going on and, in a "legal" sense, may actually be "more continuous" with NW than Agora. But they always saw themselves as independent (when I was in NW, they were adamant that they wanted to keep FRC away from any NW politics) and have rejected almost all nomic-style play in the way Suber means it, so they are not continuous in spirit, even though they have a stronger legal claim to NW's inheritance, if that were relevant. -G.
DIS: Re: (@Herald) [Petition] BUS: A thesis: thoughts on Radiance
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:02 PM ais523 via agora-business wrote: > In conclusion: the way the reset from a radiance win works has > something of a design conflict with the way that radiance is actually > rewarded. Get rid of the reset, and suddenly that conflict is gone, and > many mechanics that were previously broken (and are causing friction in > the gameplay at present) start working. As a bonus, the resulting win > condition has enough historical parallels to seem like it's likely to > function correctly, but few enough (and different enough) that it might > produce a new (or at least "new to most current players") style of > gameplay. First of all, thank you for an excellent thesis draft. Your well-researched outlining of win types in Agora, and history/general analysis of radiance, are very thesis-worthy (and generally has my support for a thesis) whether or not subsequent discussions lead to changes in your final draft. However, I disagree with your solution, as a proposal. When I proposed the reintroduction of points back in Feb '22 [note: I'm just gonna use 'points' instead of 'radiance' in this discussion], it was a conscious experiment of "can we play with the old Suber win condition, which is rewards primarily for proposals?" And my conclusion, after reflecting on your thesis is: no, the game really doesn't support that any more, at least not for a simple "points based on voting results" mechanic (regardless of the exact formula connecting points to the voting results). The reason it works in Suber-nomic is because Suber-nomic is envisioned as a game that ends like a finite boardgame, with the single win condition protected by an immutable rules. Under that model, proposals are the only path to winning. This means that the play (by immutable default) focuses on cutthroat coalitions where proposals are primarily vehicles for points (e.g. straight up "this proposal awards this coalition points" proposals) and the mechanic leads into gameplay of last-minute coalition betrayals to come out on top. In that model, of course, only one person wins, and the reset is meant to simulate that dynamic. However, in our "multi-sector" Agora (which is as much a gaming community as a single game), the problem is deeper, and that model doesn't work - for two reasons. First, in a mult-sector game, people make proposals for all kinds of reasons, and having votes influenced by factors other than the ideas in the proposal is annoying. We have to ask, then: does the addition of simple "earn some points for regular activities like proposals and voting" cause people to act in ways that are "more fun" in terms of gameplay? The answer to me is no: people will either (1) just propose proposals and ignore the points they accumulate, resulting in the win being just a boring checkmark/consequence of things they would have done anyway, (2) good proposals will lose for bad reasons, or (3) people will spam proposals (or CFJs) to get points. None of this is desirable. Second, we, in general, have the problem of the over commodification of winning (making win types overly transactional). It's acceptable in Agora to say "I'll trade you a win in Subgame A for a win in Subgame B" or even "I'll give you a win for [some non-winning benefit]". This really hampers game design sometimes - with nix's current tournament for example, there's already a contract out there to trade in-tournament position for out-of-tournament benefits. While we consider this fine socially (unless the tournament explicitly asks us not to), it also hampers people who "just want to play the tournament as written" when other players are buying position with out-of-tournament commodities. As you've outlined, the accumulation of Stamps is a reflection of this problem - people have basically wins-for-sale to the highest bidder. If we remove the "reset" condition, this becomes worse, because it removes all cost of helping someone win. If you can help someone win without resetting your own position, there's basically no cost to kingmaking - you can help someone win, then you can win the next day in the same way - and again, the whole exercise becomes uninteresting. If we're going to allow trading between games, there has to be some cost within each game (like having your own points reset) or else the win just becomes another bit of dull trading of favors for free. We've had "rewards for proposals" work successfully in a few ways, that you mention in your thesis. Ribbons does this by making the rewards for specific, interesting proposal-related achievements, which reduces the commodification. For example, it's far more interesting for 4st to "donate" half-ideas to others in the hope of winning a co-authorship Lime, then it would be if e just put those proposals up for voting to gain points. On a more grindy-level, Glitter (small awards mirroring ribbons) was more interesting than points based on straight-up voting results - IIRC, voting base
Re: DIS: [Draft] Golems v1.0
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 1:08 PM juan via agora-discussion wrote: > When the conditions specified by the Golem's Mind are met, the Golem is > activated. When a Golem is activated, it performs the actions in its > Scroll on behalf of its creator. Only persons can perform actions on behalf of other persons (Rule 2466) so you'd probably need to modify that, or explicitly define what it means for a golem to act on behalf of a person as opposed to another person doing so. That may end up being controversial - saying "an entity can act on behalf of a person" or making a golem into a "person" might open a potential for all sorts of forms of future abuse for future entities to do (maybe not, too - but worth pointing out that it might be a concern). -G.
Re: DIS: [Draft] Golems v1.0
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 1:08 PM juan via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> --- DRAFT ---
> Title: The World's Enchantment
> Author: juan
> A.I.: 2.5
>
> Enact a rule called Golems with Power 2.5 and text
>
> {
> The Xaman is an Office.
>
> Clay is a currency tracked by the Xaman.
>
> Golems are entities tracked by the Xaman. Golems have a Mind, which is a
> document. Golems have a Scroll, which is a document. Golems have a Soul,
> which is a document.
>
> A player CAN create a Golem by paying a fee of 2 clay and specifying
> its Mind, Soul and Scroll. A player CAN destroy a Golem e has created
> by announcement if the conditions in its Soul are met. When e does so,
> e gains 1 clay.
>
> Once per week, a player CAN grant emself a Clay by announcement.
>
> When the conditions specified by the Golem's Mind are met, the Golem is
> activated. When a Golem is activated, it performs the actions in its
> Scroll on behalf of its creator.
> }
>
> Repeal Rule 1742 Contracts.
>
> Ammend Rule 2608 The Notary by deleting
>
> > 2. every contract, with its title, full provisions, and parties; and
>
> and replacing
>
> > 3. every promise, along with its title, text, creator, and bearer.
>
> with
>
> > 2. every promise, along with its title, text, creator, and bearer.
>
> --- END ---
You would also need to delete contract mentions from R1586, 2519,
2166, 2576, 2581. Removing the defnition of 'contracts' from the
rules and keeping these mentions might not make those text mentions
inoperable, but might allow "real-world" or "unregulated" contracts to
do those things like mint assets, which I'm guessing we don't want.
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Tournament Submission
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:52 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > What are generally the unwritten behaviour rules on Tournaments like these? > - Can I collude with other players in private? > - Can I participate without the intent to win, and instead just behave > according to how I'm secretly paid to behave? > - How are kingmaking situations viewed? So we generally accept that, with multiple ways to win in Agora, it's acceptable to say "I'll help you win over here if you help me over there" or any other deal that's outside the subgame, but still within Agora. In fact, helping a newer player win is often the surest bargain for their White Ribbon - a player's first and only White Ribbon is often seen as a ticket to buy a win or significant help towards a win. That said, it's a balance, because if not enough people are actually trying to win that subgame, it can be unfun. Where that balances in terms of "fair play" can sometimes cause some controversy or have design issues to take that into account - no perfect answer. Except that it's generally expected/accepted that players are doing some of that bargaining. The only line I've seen firmly drawn is when someone says "I'm not playing Agora for a while you can use me as a complete sockpuppet" - people get kinda bothered at that level of collusion. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rock, paper, etc
Putting together a repeal proposal for regs rn. Fair warning: I agree with the "daunting" feeling, but the rules text for tournaments as contracts is no shorter than tournaments as regulations (based on looking at a previous version), in fact to me it's a bit more complex because contracts have to manage membership (parties) and changes in a way differently than the regs do (membership doesn't matter for regs) so it's a bit more shoehorning of tournaments into an existing thing. On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:18 PM nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 4/12/23 14:16, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > Regulations to me feel more daunting, aesthetically, than contracts. > > > > Maybe regulations could be folded into contracts too? (Probably promises as > > well?) > Personally, I'd rather remove all of the above than fold them in > together; I've been against them for some time. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rock, paper, etc
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 7:16 AM nix via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 4/12/23 09:14, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Seeing this game play out, I think it would be possible to simplify the
> > Tournament rules greatly by just making win-granting a power that certain
> > Contracts can have, if they have the same level of authorization (2 Agoran
> > consent) that regular Tournaments currently require, with some safety rails
> > like "victory can only be granted via this kind of mechanism once per month"
> I'm not sure what needs to be simplified. Tournament Regulations have as
> much (if not more) flexibility than contracts already.
In my memory there's been 4 independent implementations of the "Free
Tournament" idea over time ("independent" = "repealed in between each
one with no direct connection"). Two of those used contracts.
Somehow, the time periods when they were in Contracts had the most
active use. The current time period (seems to me, without
quantifying) seems to have been the least active one for free
tournaments. Now this could be correlation not causation, but
regulations are the newer thing, and this is the only version of
tournaments that used regulations. Regulations also didn't work well
for auctions - the main other active gameplay they were used for - and
there have been comments here and there that regs have been
off-putting and with the appearance of inflexibility, whether that's
true or not.
Not sure that's a real pattern, but something about contracts that
leads people to initiate them more readily than regs - maybe the
appearance of control, control of membership, or ownership or whatever
- and tournaments through sanctioned contracts worked pretty well
before.
Another main difference is that, whether through regs or contracts,
the past versions had "points tournaments" (or now it would be
"radiance tournaments") where the prize wasn't a sole win, but #of
points awardable per week. If we're keeping point/radiance
accumulation instead of getting rid of it, having "small grind"
tournaments can work much better than "award a win or nothing"
tournaments.
-G.
-G.
Re: DIS: Question - Timestamp of an action?
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 12:12 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-04-11 at 13:54 -0500, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > Your client itself will normally display the timestamp attached by the > > sending machine. This is usually assumed to be honest, but could > > actually be forged (to amusing results, such as pushing a new email way > > back in your inbox because it reports and old date, I believe ais523 or > > someone else actually did this for an email in the archives). The > > archives also use this date I believe. > > I've been known to forge email timestamps in the past, mostly just > because it's another fun corner of the Agoran rules to mess around > with. > > It is much harder nowadays than it used to be: the email system has a > lot more anti-forgery protection in it than it used to (the idea being > to make it hard for spammers to disguise where their messages are > coming from, thus making the spam easier to block), so if you try to > forge email timestamps the way I traditionally used to forge them, the > computers along the way are actually somewhat likely to notice > nowadays. > > It is, however, still possible. I could probably manage it if I really > wanted to, but (assuming that I wanted the timestamp to be believable) > the easiest way to get an email with a given timestamp on it would be > to actually send it at that specific time. (With automation, it isn't > too hard to send an email at a specific time, if you know in advance > that you're going to have to.) > > The *really* fun variant, which AFAIK has never been tested at Agora, > is to exploit the fact that the start of an email arrives before the > end of the email does – if the email is being sent over a sufficiently > slow connection, the end of the email can theoretically contain text > that was chosen based on reacting to things that have happened since > the email started to be received. In this case, I think the email > servers along the way might nonetheless use the timestamp of when the > email started to be sent, although I'm far from certain about this. > (Some of the modern anti-forgery features stop this working, > incidentally, because the proof that the email's body has not been > modified during transit appears in the email headers, which appear > before the body, so you have to have the whole thing written in advance > in order to be able to come up with a header and body that match each > other.) It's worth adding a slightly-deeper concept that comes from CFJs - in CFJs, the term "Technical Domain of Control" (sometimes abbreviated TDOC) has been invented/used. The concept is that the best approximation of date/time is the moment when the sender loses control of the message (that is, the message leaves the sender's TDOC) and can't stop it from being received by the list. For standard email use on a single message, this is best approximated by (is closest to) the time of hitting the send button. So that's the ideal timestamp to use. Unfortunately, it's also the timestamp that's most forgeable - though maybe as ais523 says it's a less important concern these days, due to anti-forgery measures. For a "slow" message, it could be asked whether the sender can stop it partway through or not (whether it's left eir TDOC)? (we've also got an unresolved question on whether a message can be split over multiple emails - an old CFJ said it can, but I'm very doubtful that the precedent would seem reasonable if pushed very hard with the current ruleset). -G.
Re: DIS: Question - Timestamp of an action?
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > How bad would it be to send several emails in a short period of time with > the hope that one of them has the best timing? I think it's logical to try, but if it's a necessary strategy it points to problem with the game design (no fault of the person trying it) - racing to be the first to send after a time mark is a type of game we really try to avoid, unless it's for minor things that people don't really compete over. Because that's not very exciting gameplay.
Re: DIS: Question - Timestamp of an action?
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:47 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Is the timestamp of the mailing list itself the one that appears on the
> archive website?
Yes for private archives, though with a UTC conversion.
There's been some tension on this over Agora's history. The timestamp
that most systems display is the one put on by the sender, under the
Date header. But this is forgeable, see this "June 1993" message
here:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/1993-June/014163.html.
And can have issues for other reasons (for example, if email is
composed "offline" it can get a Date stamp hours before sending when
it connects).
However, we tried to use the "date received by the list" for a bit, on
the grounds that it was an unforgeable common denominator, but this
was a huge pain for officers because every time they wanted to record
a time, they'd have to dig into the email headers or archives to find
that, rather than using the Date that their client displayed. To deal
with that issue, the CFJ precedents have sort of settled on "first
credible" timestamp, which means use the Date applied by the sender,
but if there's weird pauses between the Date and when it was received
by the list, use the list date ("weird pauses" being the subject of
CFJs for determining what's too long, as it's a rare event).
For who did something "first" after a set time, we've chatted idly
about setting up "ties", it's not hard for two people to manage to
send something with the same Date down to the second just by hitting
send at the right time. But nobody's tested that, and so far, there
hasn't been a CFJ when message timing mattered and there was a tie in
the Date string, so dunno what a judge would say to that.
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rules as Items V4
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 7:41 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > I think it is good to reward proposals. Proposals are the primary gameplay > of ANY nomic, so I don't have any trouble with rewards. But I do see what > you mean about how it is imbalanced: you could work hard on a proposal, or > you could spend a couple weeks collecting stamps, and if you have several > proposals, well, you just blow it out of the water. Sure, players could > PLEDGE not to grab the reward (EG Janet's "Might as well ask?" which solves > the problem you posit, but I don't find it to be a problem since I see it > as the core of nomic. We've always had tension between proposals being mainly ideas that should be democratically selected based solely on their merit, and proposals being game objects (both in terms of voting strength and any progress-towards-winning rewards). This has been dealt with in lots of ways: sometimes no rewards, sometimes pay-to-submit so you can't run up your score too much, sometimes only "special" proposals score game benefits and most don't. I think ribbons, for example, are a great balance - they encourage certain types of writing/submitting more than they encourage counter-voting, and I can't think of anyone ever saying "but e'll earn a ribbon" as a reason for voting against something, since ribbon wins don't reset everyone else's ribbons. On the flipside, last year the points situation was much "worse" than radiance is now, because we had the classic prisoner's dilemma scoring of awarding AGAINST votes - we got rid of that pretty darn quick when too many proposals failed. Right now, the combo of proposals being free-to-submit but gaining radiance leads to a bit of "flood the zone with proposals" behavior which leads to either less/poorer review per-proposal, a random collection of proposals that get adopted but add up to little pieces of games, not full ones, or people saying "heck with it too many to think about - vote them all down". I don't think things have gone too far that way, personally, and the odd disconnected proposals *can* be fun, but it's worth thinking about that if *too* many keep failing. I don't think we're there yet, there was plenty of principled reasons given, other than score, for many of the AGAINST votes in the most recent batch. But we may not be far off. > But yeah, I see that all these things aren't really "newbie" friendly. > Gerontocracy is a hot topic that gets brought up... probably quarterly? Could be wrong, but I don't think this is really a gerontocratic issue but more an ongoing-gameplay issue for everyone? radiance and stamps seem pretty well spread between new and old players, with the possible exception of the grandfathered-in stamps from the previous system (that we sorta thought would be gone by now). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:36 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > Wow, ok. Just tried to be cheeky and make a fun little action. Note that > > I also want forgiveness on a missed deadline. Just seemed fair. > > > Sorry, no rebuke implied. And I admittedly didn't check whether you had > earned that before sending, which I probably should have. > > You can \also initiate a Registrar election as the officeholder, and > you'll likely win if you want the ribbon. A reason I voted AGAINST this personally is I also forgot to award myself an Emerald Ribbon sometime back. Where is the line drawn? It's work on the ADoP and others to do an election just for emerald's sake, so why is emerald a "go re-earn it" ribbon and ultraviolet a "it should be back-awarded" ribbon? And is it just for this particular ultraviolet? Etc. No rebuke implied either, I honestly wrestled with this choice too. -G.
Re: DIS: (@Arbitor) I can has be judge
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 11:36 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > Hm, I thought I already asked this, but I'd like to become "interested" as > a judge. > (must be my bad, since now I can't find it!) You were added when you asked, just haven't rotated to the top yet, from the Gazette: > INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE > --- > 4012 snail > 4017 ais523 > 4st > 4018 nix > 4019 Janet > 4021 G. > (timeout: 4018 Murphy)
DIS: Re: [CotC] CFJ 4019 Judged FALSE by Janet
> Motion to extend filed: 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 > Judged FALSE by Janet:01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 heh forgot to fill these in, defaulted to 0. Fixed in the archive as: > History: > > Called by Juan: 27 Mar 2023 18:21:13 > Assigned to Janet:02 Apr 2023 17:59:43 > Motion to extend filed: 08 Apr 2023 06:16:09 > Judged FALSE by Janet:10 Apr 2023 14:26:39
DIS: Awards Month (@Promotor)
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 3:03 PM nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> Oh also, everyone else should feel welcome to submit suggestions.
>
> On 4/3/23 14:56, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> > - Silver Quill, awardable by the Promotor to the author of a
> > proposal of outstanding merit and influence on the game, or to
> > a coauthor, although e SHOULD only do so if it is generally
> > agreed that that coauthor contributed more to that proposal
> > than the person who submitted it (additional information: ID
> > Number of the proposal).
>
> P8386 ("Points") and P8387 ("Basic Scoring v0.2") by G. - score has been
> a dominate game for about a year now.
>
> P8682 ("Temptation") by snail - Adds succumbing. Simple, elegant, and
> impactful game contribution from a newer player.
>
To this, I'll also suggest P8660 (The End of Sets) by nix - the first
time to my knowledge that we've added editing marks to the ruleset and
triggered them, and it went smoothly enough (cfjs 3965-3967
notwithstanding).
[didn't do any kind of proposal search, was just reminded of this one
by the cfjs]
-G.
DIS: Awards Month (@Arbitor)
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 10:27 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 4:29 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:57 PM nix via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > - Wooden Gavel, awardable by the Arbitor to the judge of a CFJ > > > or series of CFJs with a strong and foundational impact on the > > > judicial precedents of Agora (additional information: ID > > > Numbers of the judgements). > > > > The qualifying CFJ judgements are CFJs 3938-4001 inclusive. > > > > Arbiter's Shortlist (I'll narrow it further after leaving time for > > discussion - please let me know if I've missed some good ones. > > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3938 > > Judge Jason gives an important reading on the minimum number of > > players possible to prevent ossification. > > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3948 > > Judge G. lays out the principle that different types of fora may have > > different definitions for things like addressing other players. > > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3957 > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3958 > > Dive deep into the forbidden arts with Judge ais523. > > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3966 > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3966 > > A set of rule-caused rule changes accidentally changes the changes it > > describes midway through changing. Judge G. tells us what happens. > > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3971 > > Judge secretsnail gives a nice walkthrough analysis of the "new" > > tabled action rule. > > > > -G. > > > > This isn't a voting situation, but I vote [3957/3958, 3966, 3971]. (barring > any unlisted that may make the shortlist also) I'll say my top choice at the moment is also 3957/3958 set. Also, for completeness, erratum on the above: The "3966" is actually a 3-cfj set (3965-3967) with the longest part in 3965: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3965 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3966 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3967
