Re: DIS: Proto now

[Nic Evans]

On 11/04/17 18:39, Madeline wrote:
> One thing I'm trying to figure out - why would you only scam a black
> ribbon when you could just as easily scam every ribbon?
>

You can also just scam a win directly. The herald's report records the
method of victory partly as a matter of prestige. It'd just be plain
rude to claim a type of win you didn't really work for, and chances are
you'd see significant backlash.

>
> On 2017-11-05 10:38, VJ Rada wrote:
>> Don't you only have Black left now? You're really close. Yeah, I
>> agree we should keep ribbons static for a while.
>>  
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Kerim Aydin > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> > Proposal: Backed Out the Door (AI=2)
>>
>> So I have to say, I'm going a bit insane here.
>>
>> The economic system is fundamentally broken.  I'm trying to draft
>> something, but it's dependent on 3 other unproposed things by
>> others, 2 of them major, and those are moving targets.   We have
>> quite a few new and extensive mechanics (like campaign proposals).
>> Seeing something like this (and it's not just you) is utterly
>> paralyzing - I was planning on doing some economic fixing today
>> (a draft of Land) but right now, I plain old give  up.  I just
>> can't keep up.
>>
>> This isn't a reaction to this proposal, this was just the last
>> straw for thinking I would cope to get some basic fixes in place.
>> But - frankly - it's just too many cooks right now.
>>
>> My only side comment on this:  if we keep adding Ribbons, how
>> is anyone ever supposed to get that win condition?  Every time
>> I think I'm relatively close, someone adds one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

[Nic Evans]

On 11/03/17 12:45, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I said before I didn't have time to work on it, but the rest of your
> system is clear and I like it - drastically decreases the reforms needed
> to get land working so maybe I'll have a crack if you don't mind?
>

Go for it.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

[Nic Evans]

On 11/03/17 12:11, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>> Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Estate Types and Assets" with the
>> following text:
> So, I'm not very keen on this part.  I think that these add very little
> to Land and don't reform it to anything reasonable based on giving
> folks things to buy.  I'd prefer that Land Reform is done separately
> as a way to really change supply/demand and spending, not just adding
> trinkets to buy or simple pend/CFJ tokens - this needs more thought.
>

Fair enough, I'm not as happy with it as I thought I'd be either. But
what do you think of the assets in general? Would they be acceptable in
a different format, such as being randomly created & auctioned like stamps?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

[Nic Evans]

(Hopefully) fixed in the next version. I really need to make a proposal
editing checklist and put 'ensure MMI compliance' as every other bullet.


On 11/03/17 11:42, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 at 12:38 Nic Evans  <mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> title: Complete Economic Overhaul v2
> ai: 2
> author: nichdel
> co-authors: Alexis, PSS, ais523, o, aris
>
>
> You need to clean up the MMI here. You have MAY without CAN, and SHALL
> without CAN, and CAN/SHALL without a mechanism. 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Proto: CEO v2: Now with revamped estates

[Nic Evans]

title: Complete Economic Overhaul v2
ai: 2
author: nichdel
co-authors: Alexis, PSS, ais523, o, aris

[changelog:
* the first draft of estates!!
* s/Secretary/Treasuror
* a couple typos, including inanimate their
* increase monthly pay from 50 to 100 (enough for 7 actions)
* Housekeeping on Community Chest assets]

# Shinies

Amend 2483 'Economics' to be titled 'Shinies' and to read, in full:

   Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are a liquid currency
   and the official currency of Agora.

   If Agora would own shinies, they are instead destroyed.

   The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.

Repeal 2487 'Shiny Supply Level'

Amend 2496 'Rewards' to read, in full:

   A Reward is a specified amount of shinies associated with a Reward
   Condition. For each time a player meets a Reward Condition, e CAN
   and MAY claim the specified award, by announcement, exactly once
   in a timely manner after meeting the Reward Condition.

   When a player 'claims' a Reward, the specified number of shinies are
   created in eir possession.

   Below is an exhaustive list of Reward Conditions and their rewards:

   * Being the author of an adopted proposal: 5 sh.

   * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to: 5 sh.

   * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 sh. This reward
 can only be claimed once per office per week for a weekly report
 and once per office per month for a monthly report.

   * Resolving an Agoran Decision for the first time this week: 5 sh.

   * Having a Thesis pass peer-review and be granted a Degree based on
 its merit: 20 sh.

[NOTE: I removed the Pend Reward.]

[TODO: Add definitions to better distinguish first drafts of reports and
amended reports.]

[TODO: Replace blue cards with fines. Players get fined for bad reports
and mooted judgements. If they can't pay the fine, they can be carded.]

Repeal 2497 'Floating Value'

Repeal 2499 'Welcome Packages'

Destroy any assets owned by the Community Chest.

Repeal 2508 'Community Chest'

Amend 2516 to read, in full:

   As part of eir monthly duties, the Treasuror SHALL, for every player,
   create in eir possession 50 shinies.

   As part of eir weekly duties, the Treasuror SHALL, for every player
   that registered in the last week, create in eir possession 100
   shinies.

[NOTE: 100 is enough to perform 7 actions under the Triangular Costs
paradigm, and still have a bit left over.]

Repeal 2500 'Action Points'

Enact a new Power 1 rule titled 'Triangular Costs' with the following
text:

   Action Cost is a player switch, with possible values of triangular
   numbers, and default value of 1. At the beginning of every month,
   every player's Action Cost is set to 1.

[NOTE: I have no explanation for using triangular numbers except it
feels good.]

Amend 2445 'How to Pend a Proposal' by replacing the paragraphs
starting with 'a)' and 'b)' with:

   a) by destroying 1 Griot, OR

   b) by paying eir Action Cost in shinies. Eir Action Cost is then
  flipped to the next highest triangular number.

Amend 991 'Calls for Judgement' by replacing the paragraphs starting
with 'a)' and 'b)' with:

   a) by destroying 1 Griot, OR

   b) by paying eir Action Cost in shinies. Eir Action Cost is then
  flipped to the next highest triangular number.

# Estates

Repeal 2490 'Estate Ballots'

Repeal 2504 'The Agronomist'

Repeal 2502 'Agoraculture'

Repeal 2501 'Farm Rate'

Repeal 2503 'Comestibles'

Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Estate Types and Assets" with the
following text:

   Each Estate has a Type, and Type has a corresponding Asset. Once a
   week, the owner of an Estate can pay Agora 10 shinies to create in
   eir possession the corresponding Estate Asset.

   The following is a list of Estate Types and their Assets:
  
   * Alabaster Mines produce Decorative Totems.

   * Camelthorn Mills produce Stamps of the same Series as the most
 recently auctioned stamp.

   * Storyteller Circles produce Griots.

   * Echo Chambers produce Strong Opinions.

Assign a random Type to each existing Estate such that no there are not
more than two more of any type than any other type.

[TODO: I think I can word that better...]

Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Decorative Totems" with the following
text:

   Decorative Totems are an asset. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor of
   Decorative Totems. The owner of a Decorative Totem can destroy it by
   announcement to increase or decrease the karma of a specified player.

Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Griots" with the following text:

   Griots are an asset. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor of Griots. The
   owner of a Griot can destroy it by announcement to submit a CFJ or
   pend a proposal without paying.

Enact a new Power 1 rule titled "Strong Opinions" with the following
text:

   Strong Opinions are an asset. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor of
   Strong Opinions. The owner of a Strong Opinion can destroy it by
   announcement to increase eir voting strength on a specifie

Re: DIS: Draft: [Proposal] Auctions

[Nic Evans]

Overall I like the bones of this. Notes sprinkled throughout.


On 10/27/17 21:01, ATMunn wrote:
> The draft of my long-awaited (not really) auctions proposal is finally
> finished.
> Here it is in all its glory (not really):
>
> Title: Auctions
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Authors: (none)
> AI: 2
>
> In this draft, numbers enclosed in square brackets (e.g. [1], [2],
> [3], etc.) indicate footnotes which are written at the bottom.
> These will not be in the final proposal.
> Lines beginning with hash marks (#) also have no effect on the
> proposal, and are only added to improve readability.
>
> Create a power-2[1] rule titled "Auctions"
> {
> # Defining Auctions
>
> An Auction is a way for entities to give away an item or items in
> exchange for shinies.
> There are two types of auctions, Agoran Auctions and Contractual
> Auctions.
> An Agoran Auction is an auction that is permitted to be initiated
> by a rule.
> Any rule except for this one may permit (or require) an Agoran
> Auction to be initiated.
> A Contractual Auction is any auction not specifically permitted by
> a rule.
> Any contract CAN initiate an Contractual Auction, if its body
> allows it to.
> Also, any player CAN initiate Contractual Auctions if a contract
> that e is a party of permits em to do so, as long as it is not
> otherwise IMPOSSIBLE or ILLEGAL to do so.

More traditional/less wordy: "Any contract or play can initiate a
Contractual Auction as described by the contract."

The "as long as it is not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE or ILLEGAL" part seems
unnecessary, since that's sorta implied with any rule.

> 
> All auctions MUST[2] have all of the following:
>     * An Auctioneer,
>     * An auction announcer,
>     * A lot or lots of items to be auctioned off,
>     * And a starting bid.
> 
> # Defining Lots
> 
> A lot of items is an item or set of items that will be auctioned
> off together.   
> Types of legal items to be auctioned off include assets and
> partyship to a contract.[3]
> A singe lot of items can only contain one type of item.

Typo. Also, by 'type' do you mean 'either assets or partyships' or do
you mean that a lot can only be all stamps or all estates, etc?

> If multiple lots of items are being auctioned off, the auction
> announcer SHALL specify whether all of the lots are to be auctioned as
> one, or separately.
> E SHALL only do so as described by the Auctioneer.
> If the lots are to be auctioned separately, then players bidding
> on the auction may bid on any one of, or multiple of, the lots.
>
> # The Auctioneer
> 
> The Auctioneer of an auction is the entity that initiates an
> auction, and describes all of the specifics of an auction.
> For Agoran Auctions, the Auctioneer should be specified by the
> rule that permits the auction to be initiated, otherwise, it defaults
> to Agora.
> For Contractual Auctions, the Auctioneer is either the contract
> that initiated the auction or the party of a contract who was
> permitted to, and did, initiate the auction.
> If the Auctioneer of an auction is a player, that player MUST
> abide by the contract who made em the Auctioneer.
> If the contract that made one of its parties an Auctioneer of an
> auction does not permit that player to specify certain parts of an
> auction by eir own free will, and instead as described by the auction,
> e SHALL NOT specify those parts otherwise.
> The Auctioneer also MUST, at the initiation of the auction, own
> all assets that it is auctioning off, and be capable of granting any
> contract partyship that it is auctioning off.
> 
> # The Auction Announcer
> 
> The announcer of an auction initiation is known as the Auction
> Announcer.
> The auction announcer must be a player.
> If the Auctioneer of an auction is a player, then that player is
> also the announcer of the auction.
> For Agoran Auctions, the auction announcer is specified by the
> rule that permits the auction to be initiated.
> For Contractual Auctions where the contract is the Auctioneer, the
> announcer MUST[4] be specified by the contract, otherwise the auction
> cannot be initiated.

Using 'auction announcer' and 'announcer of an auction' interchangeably
probably works as intended, but is a little sloppy.

>
> # Auction Initiation
> 
> When an auction is to be initiated, the announcer of the auction
> SHALL announce the initiation of the auction.

"in a timely fashion" to make the timeframe clear.

> In the same message, the announcer SHALL specify the Auctioneer,
> the lot or lots of items being auctioned, and the starting bid, as
> described by the Auctioneer.
> If there are multiple lots of items being auctioned, the announcer
> SHALL specify whether they are to be auctioned together or separately
> as described above.
>
> # Bidding
> 
> Once an auction is initiated, any player CAN bid on the auc

Re: DIS: Proto: Complete Economic Overhaul

[Nic Evans]

On 10/25/17 22:16, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 at 23:15 Nic Evans  <mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The intended specialization is in the not-yet-included Estates
> sections. Each player could have only one estate, and each estate
> would produce either Pend Tickets or CFJ Tickets (probably with
> nicer names). Paying for everything in shinies is intended to be
> infeasible in the long run to encourage using estates and trading.
>
>
> Ah. Strong dislike: CFJs and proposals really shouldn't be the core
> driver of the economy. 

I'm open to alternatives or additions, those are just analogs for the
current system.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Proto: Complete Economic Overhaul

[Nic Evans]

On 10/25/17 21:50, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> Amend 2445 'How to Pend a Proposal' by replacing the paragraphs
> starting with 'a)' and 'b)' with:
>
>    a) by spending 1 Pending Ticket, OR
>
> How does one get a Pend Ticket? 
>
>    b) by paying eir Action Cost in shinies. Eir Action Cost is then
>   flipped to the next highest triangular number.
>
> That's too expensive. That's only 5 per month.
>
> Overall, it seems quite weak in my opinion. It doesn't support
> specialization and has costs that are too high.

The intended specialization is in the not-yet-included Estates sections.
Each player could have only one estate, and each estate would produce
either Pend Tickets or CFJ Tickets (probably with nicer names). Paying
for everything in shinies is intended to be infeasible in the long run
to encourage using estates and trading.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Proto: Complete Economic Overhaul

[Nic Evans]

In the interest of collaborating with everyone else that is working on
econ-related proposals, I'm posting the drafts of my Econ Overhaul as
they get written. Here's the first one. Would love any feedback.

# Shinies

Amend 2483 'Economics' to read, in full:

   Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are a liquid currency
   and the official currency of Agora.

   If Agora would own shinies, they are instead destroyed.

   The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.

Repeal 2487 'Shiny Supply Level'

Amend 2496 'Rewards' to read, in full:

   A Reward is a specified amount of shinies associated with a Reward
   Condition. For each time a player meets a Reward Condition, e CAN
   and MAY claim the specified award, by announcement, exactly once
   within 24 hours of meeting the Reward Condition.

   When a player 'claims' a Reward, the specified number of shinies are
   created in eir possession.

   Below is an exhaustive list of Reward Conditions and eir rewards:

   * Being the author of an adopted proposal: 5 sh.

   * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to: 5 sh.

   * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 sh. This reward
 can only be claimed once per office per week for a weekly report
 and once per office per month for a monthly report.

   * Resolving an Agoran Decision for the first time this week: 5 sh.

   * Having a Thesis pass peer-review and be granted a Degree based on
 its merit: 20 sh.

[NOTE: I removed the Pend Reward.]

[TODO: Add definitions to better distinguish first drafts of reports and
amended reports.]

[TODO: Replace blue cards with fines. Players get fined for bad reports
and mooted judgements. If they can't pay the fine, they can be carded.]

Repeal 2497 'Floating Value'

Repeal 2499 'Welcome Packages'

Repeal 2508 'Community Chest'

Amend 2516 to read, in full:

   As part of eir monthly duties, the Secretary SHALL, for every player,
   create in eir possession 50 shinies.

   As part of eir weekly duties, the Secretary SHALL, for every player
   that registered in the last week, create in eir possession 50
   shinies.

[NOTE: 50 is enough to perform 5 actions under the Triangular Costs
paradigm, and still have a bit left over.]

Repeal 2500 'Action Points'

Enact a new Power 1 rule titled 'Triangular Costs' with the following
text:

   Action Cost is a player switch, with possible values of triangular
   numbers, and default value of 1. At the beginning of every month,
   every player's Action Cost is set to 1.

[NOTE: I have no explanation for using triangular numbers except it
feels good.]

Amend 2445 'How to Pend a Proposal' by replacing the paragraphs
starting with 'a)' and 'b)' with:

   a) by spending 1 Pending Ticket, OR

   b) by paying eir Action Cost in shinies. Eir Action Cost is then
  flipped to the next highest triangular number.

Amend 991 'Calls for Judgement' by replacing the paragraphs starting
with 'a)' and 'b)' with:

   a) by spending 1 CFJ Ticket, OR

   b) by paying eir Action Cost in shinies. Eir Action Cost is then
  flipped to the next highest triangular number.

# Estates

[TODO: All of this]

# Stamps

Amend 2498 'Economic Wins' by changing its title to "Stamps"
and amending it to read in full:

   Stamps are an asset. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor of Stamps.

   Each stamp has an associated Series and Value. The Series of a Stamp
   is assigned at its creation.

   The Value of a given stamp is the current total number of stamps
   divided by the current total number of stamps within the same Series.

Create a new Power 1 rule titled "Stamp Collections" with the following
text:

   A Collection is any three stamps fitting some condition. A Collection
   has a Value, and CAN be destroyed by announcement to create that
   value in shinies.

   A Set is a Collection where all stamps are of the same Series. A set
   has a value equal to three time the sum of the values of the stamps
   in it.

   A Run is a Collection where all stamps are of different Series. A run
   has a value equal to the sum of the values of the stamps in it.

   A player MAY destroy any Collection e owns by announcement to create,
   in eir possession, the Collection's Value in shinies.

   When the Treasuror publishes eir weekly report, e SHALL destroy
   any Collections any player owns to create, in that player's
   possession, the Collection's Value in shinies.

TODO: Weekly, Agora either auctions any stamps it has or creates three
of the same Series, randomly chosen from the list of current players,
and auctions them.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Asset Auctions

[Nic Evans]

On 10/25/17 17:47, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, ATMunn wrote:
>> I might not vote for this, as I'm working on a draft for a much more
>> in-depth Auctions proposal. Hopefully I'll post that draft soon,
>> however I haven't had much time to work on it recently.
> Just as a warning, I need to know how auctions work for a proposal I'm
> writing, so was planning to post my own draft of one tomorrow.

What are you working on? I was considering starting a big overhaul like
I outlined earlier, but I don't want to duplicate your work.

>
> If your rule contains the "auction N items" (not just a single option)
> I can probably hold off and assume yours will work for what I need.
>
> What I need to assume:
>  There will be an auction process for auctioning N items, for
>  which N winners will be determined and the price (for each item)
>  will be the Nth highest bid.
>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution revision 2 (attn ais523)

[Nic Evans]

On 10/25/17 17:49, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>> I favor this case.
> Given how many game facts playerhood drives are you able to turn this one
> around pretty quickly (within 4 days)?  If so I'll assign right away.
>
>

Yes. I actually feel this is pretty clearcut, and I have a couple days
mostly free.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Asset Auctions

[Nic Evans]

On 10/25/17 17:20, ATMunn wrote:
> I might not vote for this, as I'm working on a draft for a much more
> in-depth Auctions proposal. Hopefully I'll post that draft soon,
> however I haven't had much time to work on it recently.

Considering the discussion in "Let's talk Economic Realities" I'm
unlikely to act on this anytime soon and I'd be glad to see your proposal.

>
> On 10/25/2017 3:37 PM, Nic Evans wrote:
>> I know there's some talk of wider Estate fixes, but this fixes one of
>> the issues and also gives Agora something to do with the Stamps it's
>> accruing.
>>
>> I pledge to either withdraw or pend the below proposal within 7 days
>> from this message.
>>
>> I submit the following proposal.
>>
>> title: Asset Auctions
>> ai: 2
>> author: nichdel
>> co-authors:
>>
>> Amend 'Estate Auctions' by renaming it 'Auctions', by replacing the
>> first paragraph with:
>>
>>     Once a week, while there is not already an Auction in progress, and
>>     while Agora owns at least one Asset that is not shinies, the
>> Surveyor
>>     can and SHALL put one Asset Agora owns, that is not shinies, up for
>>     auction by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it
>>     begins.
>>
>> and by amending the third paragraph by replacing "the auctioned Estate"
>> with "the auctioned Asset".
>>
>>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

[Nic Evans]

On 10/25/17 16:30, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Secondarily, I'd like to remove actions that require knowing the whole
> gamestate (of those currencies) perfectly and fluctuates on a weekly
> basis:  setting FV in particular.  If "the value of everything" changes 
> with an officer's announcement and requires prefect knowledge, having it 
> happen weekly means either the Officer has to be very consistent in
> timing, and be perfect, or whenever e misses a week or makes errors, 
> peoples' strategies for the week go out the window, and literally half
> our play time is correcting mistakes.

I think this is the central failing point of this economy. We've made
several patches to transparency and calculation, but ultimately what we
have is a system that allows completely decentralized instant actions
but each of those actions have a global effect. It might work fine as a
computer game, but it's not suited to something where everything is
mostly done by people. O has done absolutely astounding work, and it
still results in regular mistakes.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

[Nic Evans]

In fact, I think this is my vision of a major overhaul:

# The shiny part

* Reduce the existing assets to their most basic definitions
* Fix all prices to set levels, remove the supply limit, and remove
Agora's shiny supply. Simply destroy shinies when they're used.
* Insitute a basic shiny income per period (week, month?)
* Pay officers for the first version of a report.
* Pay players for passing proposals and judging CFJs.
* Fine players for reports that have undenied CoEs, and for CFJ results
that get mooted.
* Make pending and cfjing via shinies cost an increasing amount of
shinies for each time a given player does either in within the period.
* Make wins straight-up buyable.

# The estates part

* Create assets that are always exchangeable for one pend or cfj,
therefore circumventing the increasing value.
* Make estates into different categories which generate these assets.
* Players may only own one estate at a time (which also means we need a
simultaneous trade mechanism)

# The stamps part (admittedly more self-indulgent than necessary.
everything above works without it)

* Instead of players creating stamps, Agora auctions stamps weekly.
Either from ones it currently possesses, or it creates one corresponding
to a random current player.
* Certain 'collections' of three stamps are cashed as soon as a player
has them. Collections have different values based on the type of
collection (three of a kind, three different ones) and the rarity of
each stamp (as a fraction of all existing stamps).


On 10/25/17 15:39, Nic Evans wrote:
>
> On 10/25/17 14:44, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> It doesn't work that way.  When everyone's their own specialist, no one is.
>> Trading for the stamp win condition is up there with trust tokens as a
>> standalone and fairly useless activity, insufficient to support an economy.
> [...]
>
>> With respect, I think this minor tweak will add very little.  I respect
>> the work put into this to date, but we need either a major, major overhaul
>> with strong goals and objectives other than this stamp win condition, or
>> just let the whole fluctuating economy go.
>>
>> To be clear, by "let it go" I mean:
>>
>>  - Get rid of stamps.
>>  - Fix all prices to set levels.
>>  - Stop worrying about total shiny level, create however many needed.
>>  - Shinies become the "basic income augmented by officer salaries".
>>  - Create a multi-sector economy that you can enter via multiple paths
>>(land or other asset-based) base buy-in to a specialty is shinies.
>>
>>
> I'm willing to abandon Stamps and Speculation as core mechanics, but I
> don't think they need to disappear entirely. If you make the frozen
> proposal, I'd appreciate simply leaving stamps as assets and stripping
> out their usages while I ponder something more inline with your vision.
>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

[Nic Evans]

On 10/25/17 14:44, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It doesn't work that way.  When everyone's their own specialist, no one is.
> Trading for the stamp win condition is up there with trust tokens as a
> standalone and fairly useless activity, insufficient to support an economy.

[...]

> With respect, I think this minor tweak will add very little.  I respect
> the work put into this to date, but we need either a major, major overhaul
> with strong goals and objectives other than this stamp win condition, or
> just let the whole fluctuating economy go.
>
> To be clear, by "let it go" I mean:
>
>  - Get rid of stamps.
>  - Fix all prices to set levels.
>  - Stop worrying about total shiny level, create however many needed.
>  - Shinies become the "basic income augmented by officer salaries".
>  - Create a multi-sector economy that you can enter via multiple paths
>(land or other asset-based) base buy-in to a specialty is shinies.
>
>

I'm willing to abandon Stamps and Speculation as core mechanics, but I
don't think they need to disappear entirely. If you make the frozen
proposal, I'd appreciate simply leaving stamps as assets and stripping
out their usages while I ponder something more inline with your vision.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: Hon Our Not Ice

[Nic Evans]

On 10/25/17 14:20, Nic Evans wrote:
> This is a notice of honour.
>
> O gains 1 honour, for being the best at what e does.
> PSS loses 1 honour for being a contrarian.
>

Oops, that was meant to be CB, not PSS. I'll fix it next week I guess.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Basic income distribution

[Nic Evans]

On 10/25/17 11:52, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> People don't spend to buy others' votes.  They just don't.  I have 
> theories as to why, but while I've seen many many people set up contracts, 
> etc. to sell votes, over years of observed play they rarely make more 
> than a few shinies here and there.  A bought vote might help one little
> scam/victory proposal here and there, but it's not a basis for gameplay.

1) There's enough pre-discussion that few proposals narrowly pass, so a
single vote is rarely relevant.

2) There's rarely a clear reward for a proposal passing, so it rarely
pays off.

2a) If the proposal passing does have a payoff for you, there's a good
chance you don't want to signal that.

3) It's ethically squicky to some people (myself included).

3a) It's tempting to think players in a game will be more 'unethical'
because it's, well, a game. But players seem to act fairly high-minded
in routine play, probably because of the implicit social contract of
'play'. The only time people tend to do ethically grey things is when it
is a clear route to a win.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Let's talk Economic Realities

[Nic Evans]

On 10/25/17 11:47, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,  I wanted to share some observations on what makes Agoran 
> economies function, and where we're not quite there yet.  These are just 
> observations from watching systems go by.
>
> - To get trading, you need SPECIALIZATION and DIVERSE GOODS.  For 
>   trading to work, you need the Cost of Specialization (in time or funds)
>   to be much greater than the cost of a specialist producing those codes.
>   Otherwise people just rotate through specialties to get the goods they 
>   need.  (This is Econ 101 for Free Trade between nations).
>
> - Our current system has none of this.  What the current system is is
>   an abstracted and volatile stock market.  We can invest stamps or
>   proposals when price is low to sell high.  It's basically each player
>   against "the system" (where the "system" is our collective behavior)
>   and it's kind of interesting.  But it doesn't, at all, promote cross-
>   person economic activity. 
>
> There's nothing wrong with an "abstract stock market" game.  But we shouldn't
> mistake it for a trading system.  

In a way, the fact that each person's stamps are different makes
everyone a fixed specialist. This was by design. Trading is intended to
happen for win conditions, but I agree that it's become clear that we
need more routine reasons to trade.

>
> So the way I see it, we should do one of two things:
>
> 1.  Embrace the current system as a stock market/gambling system, and
> increase the Stamps and aspects of gambling, and make more ways that 
> speculation can happen.  But not try too hard to make this a "trading 
> economy".
>
> 2.  Scrap the volatile aspects entirely (fix FV, mint more shinies than
> we'll ever need).  Instead, create a system of Specialization.  We can
> use things like Land as a vehicle - either by making Land *one* limited
> specialty (limited supply) but creating other specialty directions...
> OR by making Land a basic low-level commodity (lots of supply) but with
> customization (Farms and so forth).
>
> I think *either* system could be fun.  I do enjoy the "buy low/sell high"
> simple gaming we've got now, and (in past history) we've done (2) much
> more often than (1).  
>
> But we should really not try to go in both directions, because this hybrid
> is just a *bit* of a mess.  [Once we've answered this basic question -
> what are we trying to do - then we can talk about details like incomes,
> supply level, etc. etc.]
>

I think a middle ground can exist, but only if the trading focuses on
the speculative aspects. I propose that we make stamps even more unique,
in a way that makes their trading more worthwhile. My proto:

* Create a Bonus Stamp Value, at 1/5th the FV, with a minimum of 1.

* When a player destroys a stamp that they did not create, the receive
Stamp Value + (BSV / # of instances of that stamp that exist).

Thus, your stamps are always more valuable to someone else, and vice
versa. This should encourage trading. Additionally rarer stamps are more
valuable, which gives new players a bit of an indirect advantage.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Proto Contract

[Nic Evans]

I'm posting this now partially for feedback, and partially so I can
easily establish it if/when contracts pass:

Title: Nichdel's Premium Stamp Market

Any player may become, or cease to be, a party of this contract by
announcement.

While nichdel owns no stamps created by a given player, stamps created
by that player are Desirable. While nichdel owns at least two stamps
created by a given player, stamps created by that player are Excessive.

Any party of this contract may act on behalf of nichdel to transfer to
emself one Excessive stamp if e first, within the same message,
transfers nichdel one Desirable stamp.

Any party of this contract may act on behalf of nichdel to transfer to
emself an amount of shinies one greater than the current Stamp Value if
e first, within the same message, transfered any stamp to nichdel and
nichdel has at least enough shinies for the transfer to be effective.





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel

[Nic Evans]

Wow I can't read today. Carry on.


On 10/15/17 16:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> The thing you quoted says "with Shinies"...?
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>> On 10/06/17 14:14, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> [Sorry, I initially missed the second "linked" CFJ in the below message.]
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I also call a linked CFJ  (yes, I know those don't exist) with Shinies
>>>>> with the statement: "G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency."
>> Did this linked CFJ work? It doesn't say how it was paid for.
>>
>>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel

[Nic Evans]

On 10/06/17 14:14, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> [Sorry, I initially missed the second "linked" CFJ in the below message.]
>
>
>>> I also call a linked CFJ  (yes, I know those don't exist) with Shinies
>>> with the statement: "G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency."

Did this linked CFJ work? It doesn't say how it was paid for.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Campaigns

[Nic Evans]

On 09/28/17 14:26, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 19:06 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>> I submit the following and spend 1 AP to pend it:
>>> I pend this proposal for 1 AP.
>> IIRC these both work, leaving you out of AP for the week.
> I don't think so.
>
> CFJ 3529 found recently that setting a switch to a value it had 
> already was a null-op (didn't count as "flipping the switch").
>
> There was some discussion of "if you pay a fee for an action that
> fails to do anything, you don't lose the money" recently.  I 
> thought the conclusion was that you didn't lose the money, but I
> don't think it was CFJ'd.

I think there's a difference between 'the action fails to happen' and
'the action fails to have a meaningful effect'. Pending something
already pended might be more of the latter.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Passive Income

[Nic Evans]

On 09/28/2017 03:15 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:

I submit the following proposal:

Title: Passive Income
Author: o
Co-authors: G.
AI: 2.0

Create a new rule, titled "Distributing Assets", with power 1, whose text is

 To “distribute” a quantity of a fungible asset to a set of recipients is to
 transfer one instance of that asset at a time to the recipient that owns
 the least number of instances of that asset, until either no more instances
 of the asset are eligible to be distributed, or the number of instances so
 transferred equals the quantity to be distributed. If, when distributing a
 specific asset, two or more recipients each own the least number of
 instances of that asset, then the recipient that most recently became
 eligible to own the asset SHALL receive the asset being distributed.

Create a rule, titled "Passive Income", with power 2, whose text is

 The Tax Rate is a singleton natural switch which can take values between 0
 and 100, inclusive, tracked by the Secretary. The Tax Rate has a default
 value of 50.

 Whenever Agora receives Shinies from another owner other than itself, the
 Secretary CAN cause Agora to distribute a percentage of that payment equal
 to the Tax Rate to all players, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion. As
 part of eir weekly duties, the Secretary SHALL do so for all payments to
 Agora that have not yet been distributed.

Interesting way to implement a flat tax. But as such, it relies on the 
rich players spending enough. If poorer players are spending more or the 
same amount as richer players, then it's just benefiting the rich.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7876-7898

[Nic Evans]

On 09/27/17 12:45, Josh T wrote:
> I'm not going to officially CoE on this, but I am listed not by 天火狐

Sorry. I do that in my records to avoid any potential unicode problems.
Normally I manually edit it.

>
> 天火狐
>
> On 26 September 2017 at 15:49, nichdel  > wrote:
>
> Good luck Gaelan.
>
> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7876-7898as below.
>
> 
>
> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
>  following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
>  Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!). If a
>  decision's voting period is still ongoing, I end it immediately
>  before resolving it and after resolving the previous decision.]
>
> ID     Author(s)     AI   Title                        Pender     
> Pend fee
> 
> ---
> 7876*  o             2.0  Float On                     o         
>  1 AP
> 7877x  CB [1]        1.0  Monsters                     CB [1]     
> 1 AP
> 7878x  Gaelan        1.0  Not So Cuddly Now            Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7879*  o, Aris       1.0  You can take it with you     o         
>  1 sh.
> 7880*  o             1.0  Agency Typo Fix              o         
>  1 sh.
> 7881*  o, [2]        1.0  Stamp CAN Patch              o         
>  1 sh.
> 7882*  o, K, ais523  1.0  Welcome Package CAN Patch    o         
>  1 sh.
> 7883*  G.            1.0  Fear v2.1                    G.         
> 1 sh.
> 7884x  V.J Rada      3.0  Mother, May I?               V.J Rada   
> 1 sh.
> 7885*  o, [3]        3.0  Restraining Bolt             o         
>  1 sh.
> 7886*  Aris, [4]     2.0  Card Reform and Expansion v4 Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7887*  Aris          3.0  SLR Ratification             Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7888*  o, V.J Rada   3.1  BILLY MAYS HERE              o         
>  1 sh.
> 7889*  Aris          3.0  Agora Protection Act         Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7890*  Aris, G.      2.0  Improved Buoyancy v2         Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7891x  Gaelan        1.0  Proletarian Revolution       Gaelan     
> 1 sh.
> 7892*  Aris          1.0  Truthfulness v2              Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7893x  V.J Rada, [1] 2.0  Zimbabwe-style economics     V.J Rada   
> 1 sh.
> 7894x  G.            2.0  Shiny Weather                G.         
> 1 AP
> 7895x  Gaelan        3.0  No Telepathy                 Gaelan     
> 1 sh.
> 7896x  P.S.S. [5]    3.0  Registration Delay Fix       P.S.S.     
> 1 AP
> 7897*  CB [1]        1.0  University Funding           Aris       
> 1 sh.
> 7898*  G.            2.0  Community Chest              G.         
> 1 AP
>
> |    | 7876 | 7877 | 7878 | 7879 | 7880 | 7881 | 7882 | 7883 |
> 7884 |
> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> |Aris    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |
> A    |
> |Bayushi | F    | A    | A    | F    | F    | F    | F    | P    |
> P    |
> |CB  | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |
> F    |
> |G.  | F    | F    | A    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |
> A    |
> |grok    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    | A    |
> A    |
> |Josh T. | N    | F    | N    | N    | N    | F    | F    | A    |
> N    |
> |K   | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |
> A    |
> |Nichdel | F    | A    | P    | F    | F    | F    | F    | P    |
> P    |
> |o   | F    | A    | P    | F    | F    | F    | F    | P    |
> A    |
> |PSS | F    | A    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |
> A    |
> |VJ Rada | F    | A    | A    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |
> P    |
> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> |F/A | 9/1  | 5/6  | 4/4  | 9/1  | 9/1  | 10/1 | 10/1 | 6/2  |
> 1/6  |
> |AI  | 2.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  |
> 3.0  |
> |V   | 10   | 11   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 11   | 11   | 11   |
> 10   |
> |Q   | 3    | 3    | 3    | 3    | 3    | 3    | 3    | 3    |
> 3    |
> |P   | T    | F    | F    | T    | T    | T    | T    | T    |
> F    |
>
> |    | 7885 | 7886 | 7887 | 7888 | 7889 | 7890 | 7891 | 7892 |
> 7893 |
> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> |Aris    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | A    | F    |
> F    |
> |Bayushi | F    | F    | P    | F    | F    | F    | P    | P    |
> P    |
> |CB  | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    |

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: [Herald] More than one way to skin a win

[Nic Evans]

On 09/27/17 11:22, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> CuddleBeam:
>>> I dislike having wins being granted by election like this, because it feels 
>>> too easy. I vote present.
> So I agree with CuddleBeam's sentiment here - in this case the Victory 
> Election
> was basically an ad hoc Speaker election (at least, I'm guessing that was some
> of the motivation of voters when it was thought CuddleBeam was speaker).  
> Current system doesn't really have much interesting gameplay potential IMO.
>
> Is there a way to make them interesting?
>
> I'm thinking of a Proto that would scrap Victory elections, but also institute
> a gameable system of Speaker Succession (similar to Oligarchies of the past),
> in such a way that you buy into the succession initially (giving another thing
> to spend shinies on).
>
> Though I do want to give Agora Game winners some kind of temporary game 
> advantage
> beyond titles and ribbons!

Advantages for winners are a risky business, considering how many wins
come from amassing advantages that don't necessarily disappear right
afterwards.

>
> -G.
>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Proto: Very Important Reportor Amendment

[Nic Evans]

Quick proto idea (doesn't even actually require a rule): have each
officer, when they submit a report, also privately send the Reportor a
short editorial about their relevant gamestate bits. The Reportor then
includes all of them in the Newspaper.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Assessment

[Nic Evans]

On 09/26/17 18:45, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Could you provide your assessment script for your successor’s use? 
>
> Gaelan
>

The kludge and example outputs are attached. Somewhere I have a nascent
yaml version; if it ever gets done I'll post it.
Didn't capture vote N
Didn't capture vote N
Didn't capture vote N
Didn't capture vote N
Didn't capture vote N
Didn't capture vote N
Didn't capture vote N
Didn't capture vote N
Didn't capture vote N
Didn't capture vote N
Didn't capture vote N
Didn't capture vote N
Didn't capture vote N
|| 7876 | 7877 | 7878 | 7879 | 7880 | 7881 | 7882 | 7883 | 7884 | 7885 
| 7886 | 7887 | 7888 | 7889 | 7890 | 7891 | 7892 | 7893 | 7894 | 7895 | 7896 | 
7897 | 7898 |
|+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|Aris| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| A| F
| F| F| F| F| F| A| F| F| P| A| P| 
F| F|
|Bayushi | F| A| A| F| F| F| F| P| P| F
| F| P| F| F| F| P| P| P| F| A| P| 
F| F|
|CB  | F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F
| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| 
F| F|
|G.  | F| F| A| F| F| F| F| F| A| A
| F| F| F| A| F| F| A| A| A| A| A| 
F| F|
|grok| A| A| A| A| A| A| A| A| A| A
| A| A| A| A| A| A| A| A| A| A| A| 
A| A|
|Josh T. | N| F| N| N| N| F| F| A| N| F
| F| F| F| F| N| N| N| N| N| N| A| 
N| N|
|K   | F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| A| F
| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| F| P| 
F| F|
|Nichdel | F| A| P| F| F| F| F| P| P| P
| P| F| F| F| F| A| F| A| A| A| P| 
F| P|
|o   | F| A| P| F| F| F| F| P| A| F
| F| A| F| P| F| A| F| A| A| A| P| 
F| F|
|PSS | F| A| F| F| F| F| F| F| A| F
| F| F| F| F| F| A| F| A| A| A| F| 
F| F|
|VJ Rada | FF   | AA   | AA   | FF   | FF   | FF   | FF   | FF   | P| FF   
| FF   | FF   | FF   | P| P| P| AA   | FF   | AA   | AA   | FF   | 
P| FF   |
|+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|F/A | 10/1 | 5/7  | 4/5  | 10/1 | 10/1 | 11/1 | 11/1 | 7/2  | 1/6  | 9/2  
| 10/1 | 9/2  | 11/1 | 7/2  | 8/1  | 3/5  | 6/4  | 5/5  | 3/7  | 2/9  | 4/3  | 
8/1  | 9/1  |
|AI  | 2.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 3.0  | 3.0  
| 2.0  | 3.0  | 3.1  | 3.0  | 2.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 2.0  | 2.0  | 3.0  | 3.0  | 
1.0  | 2.0  |
|V   | 10   | 11   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 11   | 11   | 11   | 10   | 11   
| 11   | 11   | 11   | 11   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 11   | 
10   | 10   |
|Q   | 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3
| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 3| 
3| 3|
|P   | T| F| F| T| T| T| T| T| F| T
| T| T| T| T| T| F| T| F| F| F| F| 
T| T|

Final quorum: 3
q;3
p;7876;2.0
p;7877;1.0
p;7878;1.0
p;7879;1.0
p;7880;1.0
p;7881;1.0
p;7882;1.0
p;7883;1.0
p;7884;3.0
p;7885;3.0
p;7886;2.0
p;7887;3.0
p;7888;3.1
p;7889;3.0
p;7890;2.0
p;7891;1.0
p;7892;1.0
p;7893;2.0
p;7894;2.0
p;7895;3.0
p;7896;3.0
p;7897;1.0
p;7898;2.0
v;CB;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;
v;G.;F;F;A;F;F;F;F;F;A;A;F;F;F;A;F;F;A;A;A;A;A;F;F;
v;Aris;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;A;F;F;F;F;F;F;A;F;F;P;A;P;F;F;
v;VJ Rada;FF;AA;AA;FF;FF;FF;FF;FF;P;FF;FF;FF;FF;P;P;P;AA;FF;AA;AA;FF;P;FF;
v;K;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;A;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;F;P;F;F;
v;PSS;F;A;F;F;F;F;F;F;A;F;F;F;F;F;F;A;F;A;A;A;F;F;F;
v;Nichdel;F;A;P;F;F;F;F;P;P;P;P;F;F;F;F;A;F;A;A;A;P;F;P;
v;o;F;A;P;F;F;F;F;P;A;F;F;A;F;P;F;A;F;A;A;A;P;F;F;
v;grok;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;A;
v;Josh T.;N;F;N;N;N;F;F;A;N;F;F;F;F;F;N;N;N;N;N;N;A;N;N;
v;Bayushi;F;A;A;F;F;F;F;P;P;F;F;P;F;F;F;P;P;P;F;A;P;F;F;
#!/usr/bin/env python3

import re

# TODO: Read votes.py into arrays

class Voter:
   def __init__(self, name, votes):
 self.n = name
 self.v = votes

class Proposal:
   def __init__(self, name, ai):
  self.n = name
  self.ai = float(ai)
  self.q = 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Nic Evans]

On 09/25/2017 11:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I will issue everyone who does this a trust token (all at once, with 
my charity report) and will try to think of a more substantial token 
of gratitude. Thank you.


-Aris

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:53 PM VJ Rada > wrote:


I have like 62 I think? I give Agora 20 shinies.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Aris Merchant
mailto:thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Kerim Aydin
mailto:ke...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> * The reward for authoring or pending a successful proposal
pended with shinies is 1 sh.
>>
>> Ok, so as much as I understand the assessor's lateness, I
suspect it cost me
>> personally a fair purse of shinies.  I'm at the point where I'm
ready to call the
>> entire wildly-adjusting and oscillating"system" frustrating
guesswork and
>> gambling to tune out of it entirely, voting to just keep AP and
be happy with
>> a couple actions a week.
>
> Economic reform goals:
>
> 1. Keep everything stable. I'd say we also need to keep things
> interesting, but frankly everyone could use a bit of boringness
right
> now. This is impacting the workloads of several officers (meaning we
> have to do our work in bursts) and is ruining stability and
financial
> planing. IMHO, this is is also the biggest flaw in at least two
> proposals, Shiny Weather and Hot Potato, which would both actually
> reduce stability in the markets.
>
> 2. Keep Agora solvent. Another major flaw in most financial
proposals.
> At least half of any wealth from taxes should go to Agora. Yes,
that's
> right, half. I know this is going to be unpopular, but wealth
> redistribution will not actually create a good financial system
unless
> rule based rewards work. This is the upside of "print money" style
> proposals, which people vote against primarily because they're
> applying too much real world economics (not that people need to vote
> for them, see the next sentence, but I think they vote against
for the
> wrong reasons). The disadvantage of that kind of proposal is that
> they're short term fixes that don't solve the underlying
problem. I'm
> starting to think that a two tier tax might be best. A wealth
> redistribution tax would be placed on the rich, while a public tax
> would be levied on all but the poor.
>
> 3. Redistribute wealth. Yeah, this is third. No, that isn't a
mistake.
> Every self-respecting economic reform proposal does this, but it's
> actually rather pointless without the other two. Until those happen,
> shines aren't a stable form of value.
>
> Temporary fix (mandatory charity): I have 48 shinies. I pay Agora 16
> shines. All players, but especially o and P.S.S SHOULD give
Agora 1/3
> of their shinies, receiving nothing in exchange. I pledge to
publish a
> list of who has and has not done so. I also pledge that if I
judge the
> response of the community to be insufficient, I will submit and
pend a
> proposal levying a tax upon all players.
>
> -Aris



--
From V.J. Rada

As the player with the lowest sh count, I'm abstaining from this if it's 
alright.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Nic Evans]

On 09/23/17 20:35, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> This is Cuddlebeam-esque and I'm ashamed of myself. But I
>> will now copy and paste "Without objection, I intend to win by
>> apathy", until there is thousands of  copies of that text, each of
>> which is a seperate action. Under the precedent of several CFJs,
>
> [snip]
>
> I object - to the horrible formatting.
>
> I am also just not quite tempted enough to register just to propose
> either/both:
>
> * outlawing quoting huge parts of messages when not specifically
> responding to those parts
> * nullifying actions buried after huge quotes or inside published
> documents

If we do either I think it should be the second.

>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: BUS: Lime Ribbon Awarding and Unrelated Question (Was: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7876-7898)

[Nic Evans]

On 09/26/17 15:41, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Oh, I forgot my question:
>
> I am soon planning to transition to Linux for most of my computing. What is 
> the best email program (CLI or otherwise) that I could use for emailing for 
> Agora?

Entirely up to preference. Thunderbird is what I use, though it's
recently given me grief. I think that's just my settings.

> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 4:39 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> I award a Lime Ribbon to each of Aris, V.J. Rada, ais523, K, Ørjan, and G., 
>> if each of them lacks it currently.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 26, 2017, at 4:24 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 21:19 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
 On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 14:49 -0500, nichdel wrote:
> ID: 7881
> Co-authors: V.J Rada, Aris, ais523
>
> ID: 7882
> Co-authors: K, ais523
>
> ID: 7886
> Co-authors: ais523, Ørjan
 Could someone award me a Lime Ribbon, please? It's one of the very few
 I don't already have, and as a non-player I can qualify for Ribbons but
 a player has to actually make the award.
>>> And checking the whole list of co-authors:
>>>
>>> Co-authors: Aris
>>> Co-authors: V.J Rada, Aris, ais523
>>> Co-authors: K, ais523
>>> Co-authors: V.J Rada, Ørjan
>>> Co-authors: ais523, Ørjan
>>> Co-authors: V.J Rada
>>> Co-authors: G.
>>>
>>> it seems that V.J. Rada deserves one too. (Just realised that it was
>>> such a large distribution that it might be quite fruitful for Lime
>>> Ribbons; there were fewer than I expected, though.)
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7876-7898

[Nic Evans]

On 09/26/17 14:59, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, nichdel wrote:
>> |VJ Rada | F    | A    | A    | F    | F    | F    | F    | F    | P    |
> Does VJ Rada have 2 votes on everything for being prime minister?
>
>
>

Correct but luckily for me that doesn't change any results this time.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Assessment

[Nic Evans]

I probably won't be able to keep up with assessment for a few months if
it continues at this volume. The bottom line of my excuse being that I'm
currently sitting on the floor with my desktop on a coffee table,
frustrated that my email client is ignoring my retention settings, sad
that I have yet to make my assessment script able to line wrap, and
stressed about coordinating an upcoming move (another one) and change in
the employment status/schedule of all three members of my household.

By the end of January this will all be 100% fixed. I actually enjoy
being assessor, and have big hopes for improving my workflow once other
stressors are gone. But if someone else thinks they can handle the job
better in the meantime, I'll gladly hand it over.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Rules confuse me.

[Nic Evans]

On 09/25/17 21:47, Trigon wrote:
> At the time that I'm writing this, the Full Logical Ruleset [1] claims
> that the most recent change to the ruleset is the adoption of Proposal
> 7875, "Better Accounting" [2]. This should have modified rules 2496
> and 2497, but the text that was proposed to be appended cannot be
> found. Additionally, Proposal 7873 has not been added anywhere yet,
> despite the resolution post [2] stating that it has passed.

That's a question for the rulekeepor.

>
> Additionally, Proposals 7875-7898 [3] were distributed 10 Sept 2017,
> and the length of the voting period is 7 days, meaning that there
> should have been a resolution post some time the next week, but there
> hasn't been one. In fact, the last Assessor post was on the 7th.

I'm behind on those because of travel and the sheer volume of them. In
general I try to assess within 7-14 days of distribution.

>
> So, if someone could explain if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate that.
>
> [1] https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt
> [2]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08264.html
> [3]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08268.html
>
> -- Trigon




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: CFJ (Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7899-7904)

[Nic Evans]

On 09/25/17 18:38, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement:
>
>     In the below quoted message, VJ Rada endorsed G.
>
> Argument: Rule 2127 states
>
>   Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to
>   conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most
>   common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that
>   decision.
>
> It seems to me that VJ Radas votes are equivalent to what's stated in
> the last part of that, and thus are endorsements.

This seems to rely on how you interpret the intent of 2127: Creating a
new action by defining it, or describing the effects of an existing action.

>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> I vote as G. does.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
 7899*  G.    2.0  Arbitor's Union  G. 
 1 AP
 7900*  o 2.0  Come What May    o  
 1 AP
 7901*  o, [1]    3.0  Make Your Home Shine o  
 6 sh.
 7902*  G.    1.0  Switch no-ops    G. 
 1 AP
 7903*  G.    2.0  Numerical switches v2    G. 
 1 AP
 7904*  G., 天火狐 1.0  Such is Karma v2 Aris    1
 AP
>>>
>>> I vote FOR all of these.  -G.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Nic Evans]

On 09/23/2017 06:55 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:

What fatal mistakes can a new player make?


Right now, since we lack a basic income or enough 'easy' rewards, new 
players can burn through their Welcome Package and not be able to 
replenish it.




On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Nic Evans <mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On 09/23/2017 06:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:

On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 01:30 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:

http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#g

<http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/%7Emichaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#g>
erontocracy-syndrome

One obvious fix is to make it so that it's possible to cash in an
economic advantage for a win. That way, before long (if the
economy is
functioning correctly), the experienced players will have won
and then
will end up behind the newer players as they've spent all
their assets
on the win.


That's the general idea behind stamp wins. You destroy 10 stamps
to gain a win.



In general, though, I suspect gerontocracy issues are less of
an issue
than many players think. The most recent time I've seen it be a
noticeable problem was in the era of permanently accumulable
VLOP, and
that went away soon after I initially joined the game, many
years ago
now. Since then, I don't think we've had an economic system
that didn't
reset either as a result of people using economic assets to
win, or as
a result of it being repealed and replaced with something else
that had
a cap on how much economic advantage you could accrue. (I also
note
that with the typical rate at which players become inactive,
deregister, etc., it tends to be fairly hard to get a
considerable age
advantage over another player, especially given how often the
economic
rules reset.)

Note that there are two separate issues here: "can new players do
something?" and "can experienced players do more?". Making
sure that
new players aren't locked out is very important. Making sure that
they're on a level playing field with experienced players is
hard to do
fairly, though, as otherwise deregistering and reregistering is a
simple way to get rid of any economic disadvantage you might
have. In
general, I'd suspect that the perfect system involves a) enough
starting assets for new players to be able to participate in
the game
at a reasonable rate (I'd argue AP is sufficient for this),
and b) a
way to get semipermanent advantages which will fade over time
if not
maintained, and for which a skilled new player who's trying to
accumulate advantage and a skilled existing player who's trying to
accumulate advantage will both end up as roughly level
frontrunners
within a medium timescale (say, a few months; Agora tends not
to do
anything quickly).


Pretty much entirely agree with the above. The way I see it a game
should:

- Be interesting to both new and old players
- Prevent new players from fatal mistakes
- Reward both long term planning and short term cleverness

Admittedly, we're failing the second point right now. But that's
not because of any perceived 'gerontology'.

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Nic Evans]

On 09/23/2017 06:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:

On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 01:30 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:
http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#g
erontocracy-syndrome

One obvious fix is to make it so that it's possible to cash in an
economic advantage for a win. That way, before long (if the economy is
functioning correctly), the experienced players will have won and then
will end up behind the newer players as they've spent all their assets
on the win.


That's the general idea behind stamp wins. You destroy 10 stamps to gain 
a win.




In general, though, I suspect gerontocracy issues are less of an issue
than many players think. The most recent time I've seen it be a
noticeable problem was in the era of permanently accumulable VLOP, and
that went away soon after I initially joined the game, many years ago
now. Since then, I don't think we've had an economic system that didn't
reset either as a result of people using economic assets to win, or as
a result of it being repealed and replaced with something else that had
a cap on how much economic advantage you could accrue. (I also note
that with the typical rate at which players become inactive,
deregister, etc., it tends to be fairly hard to get a considerable age
advantage over another player, especially given how often the economic
rules reset.)

Note that there are two separate issues here: "can new players do
something?" and "can experienced players do more?". Making sure that
new players aren't locked out is very important. Making sure that
they're on a level playing field with experienced players is hard to do
fairly, though, as otherwise deregistering and reregistering is a
simple way to get rid of any economic disadvantage you might have. In
general, I'd suspect that the perfect system involves a) enough
starting assets for new players to be able to participate in the game
at a reasonable rate (I'd argue AP is sufficient for this), and b) a
way to get semipermanent advantages which will fade over time if not
maintained, and for which a skilled new player who's trying to
accumulate advantage and a skilled existing player who's trying to
accumulate advantage will both end up as roughly level frontrunners
within a medium timescale (say, a few months; Agora tends not to do
anything quickly).


Pretty much entirely agree with the above. The way I see it a game should:

- Be interesting to both new and old players
- Prevent new players from fatal mistakes
- Reward both long term planning and short term cleverness

Admittedly, we're failing the second point right now. But that's not 
because of any perceived 'gerontology'.

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Nic Evans]

On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how much 
time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will 
achieve a win (or dictatorship) given their join date.


If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at 
the start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on 
that front). For example, the case where the total capital of all 
active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome Pack), 
grows over time.




New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome 
consistently good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't 
restricted to one-time. New players can still win with as much work as 
old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting sooner.


On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin > wrote:




On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently
gerontocratic system.
> It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
allocation.

Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some
broad thoughts.

I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of
Economies and
think of it in terms of Game Design.

On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset
growth.  Base
assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster (I'm
particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here). This can
be very
fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties
start *really*
producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early determination of
winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a
frustrating
slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real
life), this is
the gerontocracy.

It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of valuable
assets
is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight lead in
your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset). Moreover,
right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have to
compete
directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to hoard
right now
is to have any chance in an auction.

I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically
reducing the
buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased land).

On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough
diversity of
things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on. 
We need
to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.

There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I personally
would
add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic system, and
simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about
last week.
This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other
things we could
invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think
about specialized
roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't
easily change
whether you're a farmer or not).

The total portfolio of things to buy should have a unified game
balance and
different pathways to riches/success, and not just be a grab bag
of random
investment instruments (e.g. stamps, bonds, whatever).

Re: DIS: Various questions

[Nic Evans]

On 09/23/17 09:21, ATMunn . wrote:
> I've put together a list of various different questions I have. I
> don't expect all of them to get answered, but feel free to answer any
> that you can.
>
> 
>
> What is the whole "floating value" thing? What determines it, and what
> does it do? It's not really clear in the rules.

The cost and reward of things varies based on how many shinies Agora
itself owns (basically how much is in the central reserve). But we
didn't want it to fluctuate wildly throughout the week because that's
hard to track. So instead we check how much the bank has once a week and
set the Floating Value to that. So named because it 'floats' at a
certain point instead of changing with the actual reserve amount.

>
> In regards to
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
>
> * Write a proposal that is impossible to vote against.
>
> How would you actually do that? I'm just curious, I don't intend on
> doing it.
>

I think e meant a simple good proposal, but e may have also been
refering to a scam I don't remember.

> What exactly is an Agoran Decision? Is it just a thing that people
> vote on?

It's a generic term for something that requires player input. So yes,
generally a type of vote.

>
> I've had a few people suggest running for an office as something I
> could do as a new player. How would I go about doing that, and what
> office(s?) should I run for?

You can gain an office in a few ways. One is by an election, which is
generally initiated by the ADoP. Simply vote for yourself in the
election and indicate why you want the office, and others may vote for
you (probably will, unless someone else really wants the office).
Another way is to deputize. If a responsibility of an office isn't being
fulfilled, you can deputize to do it yourself. Once you successfully do
that, you take that office.

Reportor has basically no requirements. Prime Minister has a few powers
but no responsibilities, so it's easy but also highly desirable.

Registrar and ADoP basically just require monitoring activity throughout
the week, so they're good introductory ones as well. Regkeepor and
Superintendent might also belong on that list, but since they're new
more experienced players won't be as helpful at catching mistakes.
Promotor is a step or two up from those.

Referee would be an interesting new player one if it wasn't currently
buggy.

Assessor, Arbitor, Rulekeepor, Tailor, and Secretary are generally held
by more experienced players because they're complex and important.

I don't know enough about Argonomist or Surveyor to have an opinion yet.

You can't be elected to Speaker, it's gotten by being awarded it after
winning.

>
> Do Trust Tokens do anything other than give you the slim potential of
> winning if everyone gives you one?

That's pretty much it.

>
> Could someone summarize PSS's banking proposal? It seems interesting,
> but also quite complex.
>
> 
>
> Those are all the questions I have at the moment. If I think of more,
> I may put them here.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Nic Evans]

On 09/22/17 23:27, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 11:45 PM, Nic Evans > <mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently
>> gerontocratic system. It abstracts value from labor in a way that
>> allows arbitrary allocation.
>>
> I'm about 95% sure this is the gist of my partner’s argument when she
> said “inventing money is _rude_” about the original Shinies proposal.

My next big (read: enormous) project is as far away from inventing money
as possible. But it's under wraps at least until we get bored of shinies.

>
> I’m not sure I fully appreciated Spending Power while we had it. The
> debate and adoption predates me. I’ve long had a fascination with
> throughput-based monetary systems like Total Annihilation’s metal
> economy, where the driving numbers are the amount of money in per
> time, not the amount of money in the pile, and SP is as close as I’ve
> ever seen to that in a political system.
>

Arguably SP would be more gerontological if we tied assets into it. An
asset that cost 5 SP would only be available to those that can get that
much SP at once. At least under shinies players can save up and get any
asset, in theory.

> -o
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Nic Evans]

On 09/22/17 21:40, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:35 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>
>>> but would you consider supporting one that shrinks welcome packages?
>> 
>> http://www.hearthcards.net/cards/9b7efdf4.png
> Alt text: a Hearthstone card with the legend “Gerontocracy Warning”, 
> containing an image of a “Caution: Elderly People” sign. Under the legend, 
> the card text explains: “Counter target Protosal (sic) that buffs the 
> Geronotocracy (sic) or debuffs the non-Gerontocracy.”
>
> I think that's a fair caution. I strongly suspect any form of money that can 
> be accumulated has this problem, and pissing about over the exact numbers 
> doesn’t make a meaningful difference to anything other than the degree of 
> gerontocratic wealth. Since Agora is far, far too short-lived to exhibit 
> meaningful estate law or any investments more reliable than straight-up 
> gambling, we’re reduced to either having _some_ gerontocracy, with 
> pressure-relief mechanisms like the Nuclear Lottery proposal presently under 
> contemplation, or giving up on Shinies as unworkably gerontocratic.

This is why I'm still leaning towards giving new players a Stamp (either
of their own making or from the Agora Stamps proposal I posted a bit
ago). My current thought is 1 Stamp + enough currency for 2 pends/CFJs.
The stamps give them scaling value without immediately changing FV,
while the money discourages them from spending the stamp immediately.

>
> -o
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Nic Evans]

On 09/22/17 21:44, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> memes aside, I think that we're young enough in this current system
> that I don't mind there being player-wide taxing or rebalancing or
> something until we settle on something stable.
>
> HOWEVER, a way to look at it is that having the floating value be
> really low when a new player joins (because of the welcome package
> drain) is a GOOD thing. It's GOOD that there is a surge of activity
> when somebody joins imo, proposing and general nomicking is the *best*
> welcoming environment imo (aside from just greeting the person
> ourselves and such, but being able to show off Agora right at that
> moment imo is actually pretty superb af).

One of the most grounded arguments I think you've made.

However, any amount of welcome package award will lower FV, and the
current one does it too extremely while putting a lot of currency in the
hands of someone unlikely to use that currency.

As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently gerontocratic
system. It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
allocation.

>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:35 PM, Cuddle Beam  > wrote:
> >
> > >but would you consider supporting one that shrinks welcome
> packages?
> > 
> > http://www.hearthcards.net/cards/9b7efdf4.png
> 
>
> Alt text: a Hearthstone card with the legend “Gerontocracy
> Warning”, containing an image of a “Caution: Elderly People” sign.
> Under the legend, the card text explains: “Counter target Protosal
> (sic) that buffs the Geronotocracy (sic) or debuffs the
> non-Gerontocracy.”
>
> I think that's a fair caution. I strongly suspect any form of
> money that can be accumulated has this problem, and pissing about
> over the exact numbers doesn’t make a meaningful difference to
> anything other than the degree of gerontocratic wealth. Since
> Agora is far, far too short-lived to exhibit meaningful estate law
> or any investments more reliable than straight-up gambling, we’re
> reduced to either having _some_ gerontocracy, with pressure-relief
> mechanisms like the Nuclear Lottery proposal presently under
> contemplation, or giving up on Shinies as unworkably gerontocratic.
>
> -o
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Nic Evans]

On 09/22/17 21:18, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> given that it's so far mostly been the new player award that trips the big
>> drop in Agora balance, automatic right-sizing of the economy to the number
>> of players seems important an stability fix (maybe something to couple with
>> any final minimum wage proposal).
> I suspect that welcome packages are considerably too large, but I don’t think 
> that that was at all obvious at the time. Consider: in the last month or so, 
> the pending price has fluctuated between 1 and, approximately, 6 sh. 
> repeatedly. We’ve actually managed to keep most shinies in the hands of 
> player. 50 sh. is enough to author and pend more proposals than I have 
> written since I started playing, more than a year ago - and each Welcome 
> Package causes the pend price to drop at least one full shiny in the 
> following week.
>
> I strongly suspect that that’s more economic impact than intended or wanted. 
> I know you’re planning to vote against any economy proposals that doesn’t 
> enact a reliable source of shinies in one form or another, but would you 
> consider supporting one that shrinks welcome packages?
>
> -o
>

To add to this: While I see the issue with shinies being unreliable to
get, I personally think the bigger issue is shinies not being spent
readily. It was meant to be a boom bust system, after all.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Nic Evans]

On 09/22/17 20:46, Nic Evans wrote:
>
> On 09/22/17 19:46, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
>> Create a pledge owned by nichdel, whose terms are
>>
>> {
>> I pledge to not acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to
>> a-d, or to respond in a-d to anything CB does.
>> }
> I already broke this pledge, which I believe makes it impossible for me
> to be punished for it again. Thus this is equivalent to remaking the
> pledge for me.

I forgot to cut out everything above this to make it more visible, so
here it is again.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Nic Evans]

On 09/22/17 19:46, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I noticed a significant mechanical defect and a style defect after I pended 
> it, so I withdraw the proposal “Make Your Home Shine” and submit the 
> following proposal in its place. This time, for sure!
>
> Title: Make Your Home Shine
> Author: o
> Co-authors: CuddleBeam, Ørjan, V.J Rada
> AI: 1.7
>
> {{{
> This proposal CANNOT create a pledge, other than via clauses that begin 
> "Create
> a pledge".
>
> Amend rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read, in full:
>
> {
> Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. Ownership of pledges
> is restricted to persons. The Referee is the recordkeepor of
> pledges. Creating, destroying, modifying, and transferring
> pledges are secured.
>
> To "pledge" something is to create a pledge with those terms. A
> person CAN pledge by announcement to create a pledge e owns.
>
> To "retract" (syn "withdraw") a pledge is to destroy it. A
> person CAN retract a pledge e owns without objection.
>
> To "call in" a pledge" is to destroy it. A player can call in
> any pledge with Agoran Consent, if e announces a reason the
> Terms of the pledge should be considered broken. Support for an
> intent to call in a pledge is INEFFECTIVE unless the supporting
> player explicitly confirms the reasons that the pledge should
> be considered broken.
>
> It is ILLEGAL to own a pledge when it is called in.

Should be uppercase CAN in "A player can call in" I think. Also should
there be MAYs? I'm still confused about that.

Otherwise I *think* you've done as much as possible to make this
airtight. My main concern is that Agora will eventually somehow own a
pledge, which appears to be transferable regardless of the 'fixed'
property. Also, I am curious about the implications of Agora doing
something ILLEGAL.

> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by Quazie, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can,
> correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on
> Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For
> the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully
> self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in
> order to understand the explanation (So please, include all
> source info in the explanation).
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by V.J Rada, whose terms are
>
> {
> However I now pledge to include more recapping of agoran events
> in future newspapers.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by V.J Rada, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to
> the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to
> attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all
> other players.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by o, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge that, for the next month, if I have not yet paid a
> total of 30 shinies under this pledge, and a player pledges to
> pay me 6 Shinies within a month, I will pay em 5 Shinies in a
> timely fashion.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by o was created on Aug 23, 2017.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by Gaelan, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any
> proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless
> the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed.
> }
>
> Ratify the following statement:
>
> {
> The only pledge owned by Gaelan was created on Sep 14, 2017.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by nichdel, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by
> Cuddle Beam.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by nichdel, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can
> object to.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by nichdel, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to not acknowledge any messages Cuddle Beam sends to
> a-d, or to respond in a-d to anything CB does.
> }

I already broke this pledge, which I believe makes it impossible for me
to be punished for it again. Thus this is equivalent to remaking the
pledge for me.

>
> Create a pledge owned by nichdel, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies (as soon as
> possible) to any other player who also performs the above three
> pledges, except Cuddle Beam.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by nichdel, whose terms are
>
> {
> I pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
> }
>
> Create a pledge owned by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, whose terms
> are
>
> {
> I too pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Assessing Votes

[Nic Evans]

On 09/20/17 19:01, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>
>> Due to a stressful trip coming up this weekend and the size of the
>
> There was a part of my brain that expected the rest of the message to
> contain "I deregister".

I de... serve this sass.

>
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: humble agoran farmer auctions Estates

[Nic Evans]

On 09/18/17 20:01, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I’m sorry, I overreacted.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>

I don't think you're the one being reactionary here.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: [Draft] Make Your Home Shine, or, Contracts On The Cheap

[Nic Evans]

On 09/14/17 19:48, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 5:20 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>
>>> Title: Make Your Home Shine
>>> Author: o
>>> Co-authors: CuddleBeam
>>> AI: 1.7
>>>
>>> For the purposes of clarity, no existing pledge is intended to carry over 
>>> into this system, and this proposal does not imply the creation of any 
>>> assets corresponding to existing pledges.
>> For even more clarity, say it directly:
>>
>> All previously existing pledges are hereby destroyed and do not carry over 
>> in any way into the system created by this proposal.
> I’m not sure pledges exist in a sense meaning that they can be destroyed. 
> That’s why I didn’t do that. The current rules cause pledges to be 
> enforceable forever, from the moment they are pledged. Removing the necessary 
> provisions from the rules should fix that, but it’s not clear how to word a 
> proposal to make it clear that prior pledges are no longer binding.
>
> If consensus is that pledges can in fact be destroyed by proposal, then 
> that’s obviously simpler.

I actually intend to use the 'pledges are eternal' interpretation in the
near future. It seems to be clearly the case in the current ruleset.

>
> -o
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: a relief valve

[Nic Evans]

Combining this idea with a separate discussion: Make the Speaker
electable, but the only valid options are people with a certain karma
threshold. If the current holder drops below that, e can be impeached.


On 09/13/17 14:25, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> [Talked about several times recently, but inspired by Quazie's apology - we 
> need a 
> formal way to express approval/disapproval short of deregistration and 
> crimes, IMO].
>
> Proposal draft
>
> Create the following Rule, Karma:
>
>   Karma is a person switch tracked by the Herald, with a default of 0 and 
>   with any integer being a possible value.
>
>   A Player CAN publish a Notice of Honour.  For a Notice of Honour to be
>   valid, it must:
>1.  Be the first Notice of Honour that player has published in the
>current week;
>2.  Specify any other player to gain karma, and provide a reason 
> for
>specifying that player; and
>3.  Specify any player to lose karma, and provide a reason for
>specifying that player.
>
>   When a valid Notice of Honour is published, the player specified to gain
>   karma has eir karma flipped to be one integer higher than it was, and 
> the
>   player specified to lose karma has eir karma flipped to be one integer
>   lower than it was.
>
> [can't remember, can we use natural language like "increase by 1" and 
> "decrease
> by 1" for integer/natural switches?]
>
>   - Any player with a karma of 5 or greater is a Samurai.
>
>   - Any player with a karma of -5 or less is a (Japanese term for serf?).
>
>   - The player with the highest karma (if any) is the Shogun.
>
>   - The player with the lowest karma (if any) is the Honourless Worm.
>
>
> [Future rewards for holding these positions possible].
>
> [Once per week allows people to express satisfaction/dissatisfaction in a 
> meaningful
> way without it being a true "piling on"].
>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Speaker & Card

[Nic Evans]

On 09/13/17 20:55, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Without meaning to take away from the sentiment expressed in any way
> or anyone's right to express it, this little bit of win uncertainty is now 
> *really*
> propagating into the game state.  When VJ Rada made this appointment attempt,
> I almost CFJd on whether a conditional built on a conditional built on a 
> conditional was beyond a reasonable effort to allow, now we're a level 
> deeper...

This is part of the reason I did a CC instead of immediate
deregistration. I can continue normal actions until the Registrar
deregisters me, so there's no chance of causing more reversion and
uncertainty in the meantime.

> this little bit of Win uncertainty is *really* stre
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>> On 09/13/17 16:58, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> Because we currently have no speaker if Cuddlebeam was not the
>>> speaker, and because e is in both sets of possible recent winners, I
>>> appoint Cuddlebeam speaker.
>> After consideration, it strikes me as flagrantly beligerent to make CB
>> the Speaker. From a mechanical standpoint, e has a tendency to object to
>> things for no good reason and now has full veto power. From a
>> 'figurehead leader of Agora' standpoint, I have no intent of being part
>> of a community represented by someone prone to sexism, racism, and
>> misgendering.
>>
>> If CB is the Speaker, I submit the above as a Cantus Cygneus.
>>
>>> I also yellow card myself for being bad in several ways.
>>>
>>
>>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Guaranteed Stamp Income

[Nic Evans]

On 09/13/17 15:21, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>>>player CAN, by announcement, create a Stamp with Agora as the Creater
> "Creator" is actually a correct word in this case!

I'm aware, and avoided it so it didn't look like an office title.

>
> I'd put "2 stamps" rather than 1 as the welcome package.  = 4 proposals, 1
> per week when you first join.  Also gives you options (cash one, hold one).

Stamps are 4x the value of the cost to pend. 1/20th vs 1/5th.

>
> My overall question is whether this interfaces well with the Bond proposal -
> should those concepts be coordinated?  Otherwise looks like a good mechanism.
>
>
>

I was thinking of this as a somewhat lighter version of Bonds, including
the possibility of later adding other ways to get Agora Stamps. But I
haven't scrutinized that proposal too much yet.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Basic Guaranteed Income

[Nic Evans]

On 09/13/17 14:01, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> So some thoughts then:
>
> - Do away with AP, but just allow 1 free CFJ/week for everyone?
>
> - I think "new" players should get an extra bonus so they can jump in, with 
> the 
> understanding that "once that first stake is gone, you'll be operating on a 
> much
> lower level."  My thought is to give them each 2 stamps, that way they can
> immediately try to game the stamp (hold onto it if it's too low).

I was thinking that a simple solution to the want for bonds/speculation
might be to create Agora Stamps, which don't count for wins but can be
created more freely. If we did that, I'd support giving new players one
or two. I don't want to too easily flood the market with win tokens though.

>
> - I'd be tempted to just keep quiet and use this, but let's try to get it 
> right
> first time:  how do you defend against the following avoidance scheme:  "If 
> people
> transfer shinies and stamps to me before the beginning of the month for the 
> purpose
> of claiming basic income, I pledge/(Agency) to return them after the income is
> claimed".  Seems like a very natural thing that people would set up.

In either the case of agencies or pledges you could potentially go back
on your word, and in many cases that'd be more fruitful than the
punishments a pledge would give. I'd also assume most people would want
a cut of the claimed money, meaning there's competition, meaning the
money is getting moved around the market, which is generally good. If
two people offer equally good deals, people will gravitate towards the
most trustworthy or the least threatening as well.

>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>> On 09/13/17 13:38, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Mechanism aside (which looks generally fine), how many (proposals+CFJs) do 
>>> you
>>> think a "casual" (non-office holding) player should be permitted to perform
>>> regularly?  This is 2 total per month if the Floating Value is constant, 
>>> plus
>>> a person is screwed if the beginning of the month falls on a low shiny 
>>> period
>>> like last week.
>>>
>>> I think this can work with small adjustments, I'm just trying to get a 
>>> handle
>>> for what baseline activity level people feel is appropriate, and work 
>>> backwards
>>> to ensure basic income, on average, would allow for that.  I think 2 per 
>>> month
>>> is low, personally (though wouldn't be low if it were proposals only).
>>>
>>> For CFJs in particular, I'd really hate to think of someone joining, 
>>> getting 2
>>> shinies (last week's level), then this week and thereafter being unable to 
>>> call any
>>> CFJs (e.g. about eir playerhood or other problems) for a full month 
>>> following.  
>>> That would be enough for me personally to judge that the player is 
>>> unreasonably
>>> blocked from initiating a CFJ (for R217 purposes).
>> When it comes to CFJs I expect players to cover each other pretty well.
>> But the mechanics shouldn't rely entirely on good will, you're right.
>>
>> I'm hesitant to set it higher right now for a few reasons. One is that I
>> think there's a couple scammy interactions with other subsystems here,
>> and I'm hesitant to make them payoff more. Another is that the economy
>> is currently very unstable, and probably not representative of what
>> it'll be when/if certain changes pass. I also want to add more easily
>> obtained rewards that new players could approach. Finally, Solvency
>> should fix the specific case of hitting rock-bottom with FV, which
>> should make things a bit smoother overall.
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>>>> Here's my take on a basic income. Note that it's a form of guaranteed,
>>>> rather than universal, income in the sense that it only brings you up
>>>> to an appropriate level.
>>>>
>>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>>>
>>>> title: Basic Income
>>>> ai: 2
>>>> author: nichdel
>>>> co-authors:
>>>>
>>>> Repeal R2500 "Action Points"
>>>>
>>>> Amend R2445 "How to Pend a Proposal" to read in full:
>>>>
>>>>    Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by
>>>>    proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or
>>>>    "not pending" (default).
>>>>
>&

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Basic Guaranteed Income

[Nic Evans]

On 09/13/17 13:38, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Mechanism aside (which looks generally fine), how many (proposals+CFJs) do you
> think a "casual" (non-office holding) player should be permitted to perform
> regularly?  This is 2 total per month if the Floating Value is constant, plus
> a person is screwed if the beginning of the month falls on a low shiny period
> like last week.
>
> I think this can work with small adjustments, I'm just trying to get a handle
> for what baseline activity level people feel is appropriate, and work 
> backwards
> to ensure basic income, on average, would allow for that.  I think 2 per month
> is low, personally (though wouldn't be low if it were proposals only).
>
> For CFJs in particular, I'd really hate to think of someone joining, getting 2
> shinies (last week's level), then this week and thereafter being unable to 
> call any
> CFJs (e.g. about eir playerhood or other problems) for a full month 
> following.  
> That would be enough for me personally to judge that the player is 
> unreasonably
> blocked from initiating a CFJ (for R217 purposes).

When it comes to CFJs I expect players to cover each other pretty well.
But the mechanics shouldn't rely entirely on good will, you're right.

I'm hesitant to set it higher right now for a few reasons. One is that I
think there's a couple scammy interactions with other subsystems here,
and I'm hesitant to make them payoff more. Another is that the economy
is currently very unstable, and probably not representative of what
it'll be when/if certain changes pass. I also want to add more easily
obtained rewards that new players could approach. Finally, Solvency
should fix the specific case of hitting rock-bottom with FV, which
should make things a bit smoother overall.

>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>> Here's my take on a basic income. Note that it's a form of guaranteed,
>> rather than universal, income in the sense that it only brings you up
>> to an appropriate level.
>>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> title: Basic Income
>> ai: 2
>> author: nichdel
>> co-authors:
>>
>> Repeal R2500 "Action Points"
>>
>> Amend R2445 "How to Pend a Proposal" to read in full:
>>
>>    Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by
>>    proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or
>>    "not pending" (default).
>>
>>    Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" by
>>    announcement by spending the current Pend Cost in shinies.
>>
>> Amend R991 "Calls for Judgement" by removing point "a)" in the first
>> list and changing points "b)" and "c)" to "a)" and "b)" respectively.
>>
>> Amend R2497 "Floating Value" by adding to the end of the list of
>> Floating Derived Values:
>>
>>    * Income Floor: 1/10th the Floating Value, rounded up.
>>
>> Amend R2499 "Welcome Packages" to read in full:
>>
>>    Within an Agoran Week after a person registers, any player CAN and
>>    MAY cause Agora to pay the new player the Income Floor in shinies by
>>    announcement.
>>
>> Create a new Power 1 rule titled "Basic Income" with the following text:
>>
>>    Within an Agoran Week after the first Secretary Weekly Report is
>>    published in an Agoran Month, any player CAN and MAY cause Agora,
>>    by announcement to pay em the Income Floor minus eir Balance at time
>>    of the Weekly Report's publication if e has less than the Income
>>    Floor in shinies and has 0 stamps.
>>
>>
>>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Basic Guaranteed Income

[Nic Evans]

On 09/13/17 13:30, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any proposal that 
> amends rules by providing new text in full unless the text of the rule is 
> nearly entirely changed. 
>
> Gaelan 

Unfortunately I can't predict what R2445's text will be until I assess
votes for the current round, so I didn't think it prudent to try to do a
bunch of relative clauses.

>
>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>>
>> Here's my take on a basic income. Note that it's a form of guaranteed,
>> rather than universal, income in the sense that it only brings you up
>> to an appropriate level.
>>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> title: Basic Income
>> ai: 2
>> author: nichdel
>> co-authors:
>>
>> Repeal R2500 "Action Points"
>>
>> Amend R2445 "How to Pend a Proposal" to read in full:
>>
>>   Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by
>>   proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or
>>   "not pending" (default).
>>
>>   Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" by
>>   announcement by spending the current Pend Cost in shinies.
>>
>> Amend R991 "Calls for Judgement" by removing point "a)" in the first
>> list and changing points "b)" and "c)" to "a)" and "b)" respectively.
>>
>> Amend R2497 "Floating Value" by adding to the end of the list of
>> Floating Derived Values:
>>
>>   * Income Floor: 1/10th the Floating Value, rounded up.
>>
>> Amend R2499 "Welcome Packages" to read in full:
>>
>>   Within an Agoran Week after a person registers, any player CAN and
>>   MAY cause Agora to pay the new player the Income Floor in shinies by
>>   announcement.
>>
>> Create a new Power 1 rule titled "Basic Income" with the following text:
>>
>>   Within an Agoran Week after the first Secretary Weekly Report is
>>   published in an Agoran Month, any player CAN and MAY cause Agora,
>>   by announcement to pay em the Income Floor minus eir Balance at time
>>   of the Weekly Report's publication if e has less than the Income
>>   Floor in shinies and has 0 stamps.
>>
>>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7872-7875

[Nic Evans]

On 09/12/17 12:32, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
>> On Sep 12, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>>
>> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 78572-7875 as below.
> Oh dear, did CuddleBeam find a way to spam proposal pending? Also, weren’t 
> these already resolved? Did that fail?

I attempted to resolve the wrong batch last week, and as a result did it
too early. The result is the same.

>
>> 
>>
>> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
>>  following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
>>  Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!). If a
>>  decision's voting period is still ongoing, I end it immediately
>>  before resolving it and after resolving the previous decision.]
>>
>> ID Author(s) AI   Title   Pender  Pend fee
>> ---
>> 7872*  o 2.0  Estate Auction Cleanup  o   1 AP
>> 7873*  o, babelian   2.0  Agoracultureo   1 AP
>> 7874*  o 2.0  Shorter Apologies   o   3 sh.
>> 7875*  nichdel   1.0  Better Accounting   o   1 AP
>>
>> || 7872 | 7873 | 7874 | 7875 |
>> |+--+--+--+--+
>> |Aris| F| P| F| F|
>> |nichdel | P| P| F| F|
>> |o   | F| F| F| F|
>> |+--+--+--+--+
>> |F/A | 2/0  | 1/0  | 3/0  | 3/0  |
>> |AI  | 2.0  | 2.0  | 2.0  | 1.0  |
>> |V   | 3| 3| 3| 3|
>> |Q   | 3| 3| 3| 3|
>> |P   | T| T| T| T|
>>
>>
>> The full text of the adopted proposal(s) is included below.
>>
>> //
>> ID: 7872
>> Title: Estate Auction Cleanup
>> Adoption index: 2.0
>> Author: o
>> Co-authors:
>>
>>
>> In Rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions"), replace the second paragraph with:
>>
>>  During an auction, any player may bid a number of Shinies on eir
>>  own behalf by announcement, or on behalf of any Organization for
>>  which such a bid is Appropriate by announcement, provided the bid
>>  is higher than any previously-placed bid in the same auction.
>>
>>  If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid, then
>>  that player or Organization wins the auction. The player who
>>  placed the winning bid CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned
>>  Estate to the winner by announcement, by paying Agora the amount
>>  of the bid, or by causing the winning Organization to pay Agora
>>  the amount of the bid. E SHALL do so in a timely fashion.
>>
>>
>> //
>> ID: 7873
>> Title: Agoraculture
>> Adoption index: 2.0
>> Author: o
>> Co-authors: babelian
>>
>>
>> Enact a new rule, with power 1.0, titled "Farm Rate", with the following 
>> text:
>>
>>  The Farm Rate is a natural singleton switch, tracked by the
>>  Agronomist.
>>
>> Set the Farm Rate to 20.
>>
>> Enact a new rule, with power 2.0, titled "Agoraculture", with the following
>> text:
>>
>>  Each Estate has a Farm switch, tracked by the Agronomist, with
>>  values "farmed" and "unfarmed", defaulting to "unfarmed". Changes
>>  to Farm switches are secured. An Estate whose Farm switch is
>>  "farmed" is a Farm, and its owner is the Farmer of that Estate.
>>
>>  In the first week of an Agoran month, the owner of an unfarmed
>>  Estate MAY flip its Farm switch to "farmed" by announcement, if e
>>  pays Agora a number of shinies equal to the Farm Rate.
>>
>>  In the first week of an Agoran month, the owner of a Farm MAY till
>>  the farm by announcement, if e pays Agora a number of shinies equal
>>  to the Farm Rate. If the Farmer of an Estate does not till it
>>  within the first week of an Agoran month, the Agronomist CAN flip
>>  its Farm switch to "unfarmed" by announcement, and SHALL do so in a
>>  timely fashion.
>>
>>  When an Estate is transferred to Agora or to an Organization, its
>>  Farm switch is set to "unfarmed" immediately afterwards.
>>
>> Enact a new rule, with power 2.0, titled "Comestibles", with the following 
>> text

Re: DIS: [very early proto/idea] Inter-Nomic Currency

[Nic Evans]

On 09/12/17 09:06, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I have a clause in there about imported Subers being traceable back to a 
> Suber Creation Event. Presumably, this is something we’d do by proposal to 
> authorize another nomic’s minting of new Subers. In other words, BN could 
> fiat Subers into existence, but Agora wouldn’t accept them. 

Arguably this clause makes Subers not a real currency because they're no
longer fungible. If a player is in both BN and Agora and wishes to
transfer eir Subers, e'll need to show history for each one, and this
history need be verifiable. That's a lot of import paperwork.

>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 11:27 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>>
>>> Idea: a “universal” currency that can be used across Nomics. I’d propose 
>>> the name as “Subers,” but I’m not super attached to that. I’d implement it 
>>> such that each Suber always belongs to one nomic. A nomic may internally 
>>> allocate their Subers however they wish, but that isn’t visible to other 
>>> nomics. This allows us a lot of freedom with regards to things like 
>>> Contracts owning Subers. In terms of record keeping, I’d have each nomic 
>>> track the Subers in its possession. Wording would vary across nomics of 
>>> course, but I figure around here Subers would be assets, and we would have 
>>> something along the lines of “A player CAN create any number of Subers in 
>>> their possession by announcement if an equal number of Subers were 
>>> destroyed in another nomic with the intent of transferring them to that 
>>> player in Agora. The Subers in the other nomic must be able to be traced 
>>> back to a Suber Creation Event that was authorized by Agora. Any player CAN 
>>> destroy any number of Subers in their possession. If they do so, they SHALL 
>>> create the equivalent number of Subers in  another nomic, citing this 
>>> destruction as the source, within the next two hours. If they do not do so, 
>>> the Subers are recreated and are not considered destroyed for the purposes 
>>> of foreign rules.”
>>>
>>> I guess the most important question is whether there is another nomic that 
>>> would be interested in such a mechanic; it seems like something BlogNomic 
>>> wouldn’t be willing to keep around for more than a dynasty; I don’t know 
>>> FRC well enough to know how they would react to such a thing. Are there any 
>>> other nomics around that have overlap with our player base?
>> I’m not sure this would work, but I like the bones of the idea.
>>
>> The underlying issue is that any Nomic is generally reasonably sovereign 
>> over its own state. If BlogNomic enacted the right changes to create an 
>> additional Suber in their collective possession, who’s to say we can 
>> meaningfully refuse to acknowledge it? You propose making Agora the Central 
>> Bank of Subers, but I see no reason another Nomic should accept that, on the 
>> face of it. Cooperative rule-making solutions might be workable with two 
>> Nomics involved, as we could keep the rulesets reasonably synced up, but it 
>> gets hairy very quickly with three or more Nomics.
>>
>> Instead, look to what currency exchanges do: they buy up local currencies in 
>> each interesting jurisdiction, then set exchange rates. Supposing you were a 
>> BN-Agora exchange merchant, you could buy up Shinies on Agora, and Stamina 
>> on BlogNomic, using whatever local mechanism you believe to be profitable, 
>> and then set an exchange rate. In turn, as a customer, I could propose to 
>> offer you 10 Shinies here if you promised to repay me with your chosen 
>> exchange rate in Stamina on BlogNomic, for example, and then use either 
>> Agora’s or BN’s rules (as well as simple social obligation) to hold you to 
>> that agreement as far as is possible.
>>
>> The major fly in this ointment is that Nomic currencies and currency-likes 
>> tend to be far, far too volatile to meaningfully trade in. Agora moves 
>> relatively slowly, but even so, Shinies have existed for less than a year. 
>> BlogNomic churns even faster, and a currency trader holding any significant 
>> inventory in BN currencies is taking on considerable risk - probably enough 
>> that facilitating the exchange isn’t worthwhile.
>>
>> I never expected to be dealing with foreign policy or international finance 
>> in a Nomic, so, well done!
>>
>> -o




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Severe email problems

[Nic Evans]

On 09/11/17 22:04, VJ Rada wrote:
> the office is vacant, you can deputize at any time.

Am I not assessor?

>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>> Sure thing all around.  Nothing's happening until Wed anyway because
>> that's the earliest (I think) that any assessor duty becomes late.
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>>> I am still interested, but I would like to note to ais, that I did not 
>>>> receive his original message to which you are replying.
>>> Same.
>>>
>>> I'm fine to judge if needed, although I strongly disclaim being reassigned 
>>> 3555.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>>> I'm not getting Ais's messages either
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>>>>> I'm willing to judge, though my current situation makes timeliness a
>>>>> consideration, so probably try to give me less time-sensitive CFJs?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/11/17 19:13, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>>>> Are Publius, o, Aris, grok, and myself the only ones currently
>>>>>> interested
>>>>>> in judging - any other volunteers at all?? (and I think grok has stepped
>>>>>> down).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> G. wrote:
>>>>>>>> ais523, can you provide the list of "interested judges" you were
>>>>>>>> working from for judicial assignments?
>>>>>>> Yes, although apparently I have to start a new thread with each message
>>>>>>> (because I can't send messages the normal way, I'm sending this from a 
>>>>>>> relay
>>>>>>> that doesn't store the messages in the usual way once they've been 
>>>>>>> received,
>>>>>>> so there's nothing to reply to; there's a backup of recently relayed
>>>>>>> messages but I'm not 100% sure what would happen if I tried replying to
>>>>>>> those). Here are my notes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Publius 3558
>>>>>>> o 3537*?
>>>>>>> Aris 3557
>>>>>>> grok 3555
>>>>>>> G. 3548* 3556
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First unused number: 3559
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * means that the CFJ's deadline has been refreshed (e.g. due to a
>>>>>>> reassignment or reconsideration). ? means that there's some uncertainty 
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> confusion about the status.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> grok has had 1 fewer CFJ assigned than the other judges listed here
>>>>>>> (thus needs 1 more CFJ assigned than the others in order to keep 
>>>>>>> approximate
>>>>>>> balance over time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ais523
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J Rada
>>>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Registration Delay Fix

[Nic Evans]

On 09/10/17 16:40, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I will definitely do this in the future. Would you recommend retracting this 
> and replacing it?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com

I don't think it's necessary, the intent seems unambiguous to me.
They're more style suggestions than anything else.

>
>
>> On Sep 10, 2017, at 5:42 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>>
>> WRT to this style of proposal:
>>
>>
>> On 09/10/17 16:30, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> I submit the below proposal, “Registration Delay Fix”, AI 3: {
>>> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and 
>>> Leave Agora
>>> index 4683d3d..91e2b6c 100644
>>> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
>>> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
>>> @@ -63,7 +63,8 @@ text: |
>>>   consent.
>> I'd remove all this part and possibly replace it with a quick blurb
>> stating "Amend RXXX: by adding the lines starting with + and removing
>> the lines starting with -". A simple wrapper script could do most of
>> that work, and it'd be more readable to people not familiar with diffs.
>>
>>>   A player CAN deregister (cease being a player) by announcement.
>>> -  If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
>>> +  If e does so, e CANNOT cause register emself to become a player
>>> +  for 30 days.
>> This looks nice.
>>
>>>   If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
>>>   month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
>>> }
>> I'd also trim the context that diffs leave in.
>>
>>> 
>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Registration Delay Fix

[Nic Evans]

WRT to this style of proposal:


On 09/10/17 16:30, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I submit the below proposal, “Registration Delay Fix”, AI 3: {
> diff --git a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora b/rules/How to Join and Leave 
> Agora
> index 4683d3d..91e2b6c 100644
> --- a/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> +++ b/rules/How to Join and Leave Agora
> @@ -63,7 +63,8 @@ text: |
>consent.

I'd remove all this part and possibly replace it with a quick blurb
stating "Amend RXXX: by adding the lines starting with + and removing
the lines starting with -". A simple wrapper script could do most of
that work, and it'd be more readable to people not familiar with diffs.

>
>A player CAN deregister (cease being a player) by announcement.
> -  If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.
> +  If e does so, e CANNOT cause register emself to become a player
> +  for 30 days.

This looks nice.

>If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
>month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.
> }

I'd also trim the context that diffs leave in.

> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Truthfulness

[Nic Evans]

On 09/10/17 12:41, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I've always disliked thought police rules, we've had them, but both
> the burden of evidence and bad feeling make them a pain, and trying
> to codify specific forbidden speech leaves loopholes where a scammer
> can skirt the technical punishment while still being just as "bad".
>
> Going along with our current punishment metaphor, and recent discussion of 
> conduct, why not just implement an "unsportsmanlike conduct" card with some
> general guidelines on what that is, maybe a higher bar for fingerpointing (I 
> dunno, 
> 3 support) and/or letting judges figure out what qualifies...

Democratizing sanctions on conduct sounds a lot like a popularity
contest, and probably breeds just as many bad feelings.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: humble agoran farmer cashes in your stamps

[Nic Evans]

On 09/07/17 18:53, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>> Seeing as I have to recordkeep the damn thing, I also so pledge. Gaelan, can 
>> you send that my way, as well? My From: address is fine.
>>
>> Note that I am already in possession of information whose sha256 is 
>> 204aa33ed7c42e58d6f391b3878dc89738c8a1bb95b39b3ebcda2609c1fabe3c which is 
>> likely relevant, and I make no promises about exploiting _that_ information. 
>> If the two are substantially the same, then you’ll just have to trust me to 
>> do the right thing.
> Since the cat’s out of the bag on this:
>
> $ echo 'It is possible to win by destroying Stamps in the possession of 
> others' | shasum -a 256
> 204aa33ed7c42e58d6f391b3878dc89738c8a1bb95b39b3ebcda2609c1fabe3c  -

Note that this still doesn't allow cashing in others' stamps because
that's a MAY, not a CAN.

>
> -o
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[Nic Evans]

On 09/06/17 18:47, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I think that's great for Agora but if its based on a CFJ or tradition,
> that's more of the "implicit rules" (or "obscure rules") phenomenon
> which I dislike. Conditional-ing stuff is as powerful as a real
> mechanic imo, and one of the most powerful ones. Luckily proposals are
> real cheap now, and I get rewarded for making good proposals, time to
> make it explicit! I'll pend this next week once I get APs back.
>
> If adding conditions to actions performed via fora is a mechanic which
> is explicitly acknowledged to exist in CFJs but not in the current
> Rules, I create the following Proposal:
>
> Name: "Conditionaling" actions is a very useful mechanic
> Content: Add to the rule "Fora" the following as a new paragraph at
> the bottom of the rule:
>
> "Actions can be stated to be performed conditionally, if such
> conditions are evaluable (by any player, with a reasonable amount of
> effort) at the time it is stated and at any future moment from then.

If adopted this proposal would have no effect. Default AI is 1.0, which
is too low to amend Fora.

>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Aris Merchant
>  > wrote:
>
> Oh, no, we definitely have conditional actioning (consider that a
> nonce). The condition just has to be evaluable at the time it is said,
> so no future conditionals. At least, that's my understanding.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Cuddle Beam  > wrote:
> > Note: we have explicit conditional voting, but not conditional
> explicit
> > action-doing in general.
> >
> > I'm in favor of conditional action-doing in general because it's
> another
> > useful tool for doing stuff (...and the rules are silent on the
> issue).
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Aris Merchant
> >  > wrote:
> >>
> >> If there are no regulations, no part of this message beyond this
> >> paragraph has any effect.
> >>
> >> I determine the regulations for the recent tournament to be in
> title
> >> T1-2017, or, if that title name is invalid, 1-2017. If I am
> Regkeepor,
> >> this is the official designation for that title; otherwise, I
> deputize
> >> for the Regkeepor to assign this designation.
> >>
> >> I then assign the ID T1-2017-1 (or, if that is invalid,
> 1-2017-1) to
> >> the only regulation in that title. If I am still not Regkeepor, I
> >> deputize for Regkeepor to do so, and then repeat the actions
> attempted
> >> in the previous paragraph.
> >>
> >> In accordance with Rule 2464, I repeal each regulation in title
> >> T1-2017 (or, if invalid, 1-2017).
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >
> >
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's clear things up a bit

[Nic Evans]

On 09/06/17 18:16, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Note: we have explicit conditional voting, but not conditional
> explicit action-doing in general.
>
> I'm in favor of conditional action-doing in general because it's
> another useful tool for doing stuff (...and the rules are silent on
> the issue).

Voting has an explicit conditional mechanism because it's a delayed
action. The conditional for a vote doesn't need to be interpretable at
time of declaration, but instead at time of resolution.

Other things don't need explicit mechanisms because we don't generally
care about the manner of an action. The exceptions being listed in the
rules, when something need be 'by announcement' or with a previously
announced intent.

From a speech act theory standpoint, any speech act already encodes
conditionals (that the preconditions match, that the way I invoke it
performs it, that others recognizes the previous two points, that
everyone assumes genuine intent). Allowing more conditionals to be
included is a natural extension.

>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Aris Merchant
>  > wrote:
>
> If there are no regulations, no part of this message beyond this
> paragraph has any effect.
>
> I determine the regulations for the recent tournament to be in title
> T1-2017, or, if that title name is invalid, 1-2017. If I am Regkeepor,
> this is the official designation for that title; otherwise, I deputize
> for the Regkeepor to assign this designation.
>
> I then assign the ID T1-2017-1 (or, if that is invalid, 1-2017-1) to
> the only regulation in that title. If I am still not Regkeepor, I
> deputize for Regkeepor to do so, and then repeat the actions attempted
> in the previous paragraph.
>
> In accordance with Rule 2464, I repeal each regulation in title
> T1-2017 (or, if invalid, 1-2017).
>
> -Aris
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] September Estate Auction

[Nic Evans]

On 09/02/17 18:28, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Might as well:
>
> I bid 50 Shinies.
>
> My blurb is the following between the lines of asterisks:
>
> **
>
> Calgiostro is a giant internet café tended by busty anime catgirls in
> maid costumes. Its internet never lags, you always get queued with
> amazing teammates and when you play online cardgames you always
> topdeck the card you need. Legend says this place has been blessed by
> RNGesus himself.
>
> -I pay Cuddlebeam an amount of shinies equal to all of the current
> shinies that I have.
>
> -I pledge to transfer to Cuddlebeam any amount of shinies that I gain
>
> -I pledge to always do what Cuddlebeam commands me to, if such a
> command has been ordered via agora-discussion.
>
> **

FTR this would fail to have any effect. It's a variant of ISIDTID. Text
does not necessarily perform actions, especially when it's explicitly
denoted as flavor.

>
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 1:12 AM, Quazie  <mailto:quazieno...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I bid 16 shinies
>
>
> The Cagliostro what a place - a lovely little shithole passed from
> scammer to slum lord, and it has finally ended up here: agoran
> public housing. It's not much, but there's a roof, and it mostly
> doesn't leak, it's got walls, and they mostly don't have mice
> living in them - it's got beds, and some of them don't have bed
> bugs. But you're out on your luck, so this will have to do.
>
> On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 16:08 Nic Evans  <mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I bid 15 shinies.
>
>
> On 09/02/17 16:26, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > I bid 15 shinies.
> >
> > Cagliostro is a warren of narrow windy streets running
> through tall
> > close-packed apartments; it's been the collection point for
> new arrivals
> > in the port since the city was a small landing point, with
> cheap spaces
> > and a multitude of languages heard across the alleyways; the
> smell is a
> > blend of cooking pots from a dozen cuisines that is just on
> the correct
> > side of being welcoming rather than rank.  The streets
> confuse the
> > unfamiliar traveler, but wander long enough and you'll find
> yourself
> > coming to a central square; and your eyes won't help but be
> drawn
> > the Magician's Inn, a ramshackle building with layers upon
> layer of
> > colorful but flaking paint, wherein it is said that if you
> can't find
> > someone to tell you a specific story, that story hasn't been
> invented yet.
> >
> > On Sat, 2 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >
> >> I bid 13 shinies.
> >> On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 00:59 Quazie  <mailto:quazieno...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>       I bid 12 shinies.
> >>
> >> The Cagliostro what a place - a lovely little shithole
> passed from scammer to slum lord, and it has finally ehard up
> here: agoran public housing.  It's not much, but there's a
> roof, and it mostly
> >> doesn't leak, it's got walls, and they mostly don't have
> mice living  in them - it's got beds, and some of them don't
>  have bed bugs.  But you're out on your luck, so this will
> have to do.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 21:09 Nicholas Evans
> mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>       I bid 11 shinies. I'll write a blurb later.
> >>
> >> On Sep 1, 2017 11:02 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  <mailto:o...@grimoire.ca>> wrote:
> >>       As Surveyor, it is my pleasure to annouce that the
> September estate auction, for the estate of Cagliostro, has begun.
> >>
> >>       For those of you who are new, please review Rule 2491
> (“Estate Auctions”). In summary:
> >>
> >>       * Bids may only be placed by announcement.
> >>       * Players may bid on their own behalf, to win the
> Estate for themselves.
> >>       * Players may bid on behalf of any Organization whose
> charter makes such a bid Appropriate, to win the Estate for
> that Organization.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] September Estate Auction

[Nic Evans]

On 09/02/17 18:12, Nic Evans wrote:
> I bid 15 shinies.

Since this is already irrelevant and I don't intend to continue to be
annoying about it I'll just mention my working theory:

1) A matched bid stops the highest bidder from being able to claim the
estate. This seems pretty certain from the wording in the rule: "[...]
if there is a single highest bid on that auction, the player or
Organization that placed that bid can cause Agora to transfer the
auctioned Estate to emself [...]" (R2491)

2) More interestingly, a matched bid may mean that both players receive
a Yellow Card, depending on interpretation of "If the highest bidder
does not do so in a timely fashion, the Surveyor shall issue the player
who submitted the bid a Yellow Card." (R2491)

>
>
> On 09/02/17 16:26, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I bid 15 shinies.
>>
>> Cagliostro is a warren of narrow windy streets running through tall
>> close-packed apartments; it's been the collection point for new arrivals
>> in the port since the city was a small landing point, with cheap spaces
>> and a multitude of languages heard across the alleyways; the smell is a
>> blend of cooking pots from a dozen cuisines that is just on the correct
>> side of being welcoming rather than rank.  The streets confuse the 
>> unfamiliar traveler, but wander long enough and you'll find yourself
>> coming to a central square; and your eyes won't help but be drawn
>> the Magician's Inn, a ramshackle building with layers upon layer of
>> colorful but flaking paint, wherein it is said that if you can't find
>> someone to tell you a specific story, that story hasn't been invented yet.
>>
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>
>>> I bid 13 shinies.
>>> On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 00:59 Quazie  wrote:
>>>   I bid 12 shinies.
>>>
>>> The Cagliostro what a place - a lovely little shithole passed from scammer 
>>> to slum lord, and it has finally ehard up here: agoran public housing.  
>>> It's not much, but there's a roof, and it mostly
>>> doesn't leak, it's got walls, and they mostly don't have mice living  in 
>>> them - it's got beds, and some of them don't  have bed bugs.  But you're 
>>> out on your luck, so this will have to do.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 21:09 Nicholas Evans  wrote:
>>>   I bid 11 shinies. I'll write a blurb later.
>>>
>>> On Sep 1, 2017 11:02 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:
>>>   As Surveyor, it is my pleasure to annouce that the September estate 
>>> auction, for the estate of Cagliostro, has begun.
>>>
>>>   For those of you who are new, please review Rule 2491 (“Estate 
>>> Auctions”). In summary:
>>>
>>>   * Bids may only be placed by announcement.
>>>   * Players may bid on their own behalf, to win the Estate for 
>>> themselves.
>>>   * Players may bid on behalf of any Organization whose charter makes 
>>> such a bid Appropriate, to win the Estate for that Organization.
>>>
>>>   The auction will end in exactly seven days.
>>>
>>>   As is my custom, I pledge as follows:
>>>
>>>   * If there is exactly one winning bid, and it includes a blurb 
>>> describing the region of Cagliostro, of at least 70 words, I will include 
>>> that blurb in at least one future
>>>   Surveyor’s report if it is possible for me to do so.
>>>
>>>   * If there is exactly one winning bid, I will pay Shinies to the 
>>> player who made the bid. The amount paid will be the lesser of 10% the 
>>> winning bid, rounded up, or 50 Shinies. I
>>>   will do so immediately after resolving the auction.
>>>
>>>   I bid 1 Shiny on this auction.
>>>
>>>   -o
>>>
>>>
>>>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Organization Repeal

[Nic Evans]

On 09/02/17 17:37, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I think we could upgrade Agencies to that they can hold Shinies
> themselves. With that plus proper Powers, they could operate extremely
> similarly to how I believe Organizations are intended to. (And even
> WITHOUT that, they still can, although with a bit less safety because
> its not as stalwart as "brutha choo cant do it, its da LAW" and more
> like "you get a card if you break this rule we made...". Just make an
> abstract wallet of shinies as a subsection of some player's existing
> wallet)

In general I'm supportive of making some combo of agencies and
organizations, but there's some problems with this proposed method.
Keeping shinies in a single player's possession defeats all the merits
of an escrow scheme: they can spend them without any issue (unless we
add punishments, which I think is the wrong direction), they can change
the agency without others' input (orgs typcially require member
approval), and if they deregister the shinies are gone. The whole point
of using an org as a middleman is that, if the org is structured
correctly, there's no way to cheat people out of the assets it holds.

>
> We can make entire *nomics* within Agencies already lol. They're
> incredibly powerful. With more more access to more gamestate, they can
> become really really useful tools imo. I really like Agencies lol. I
> think they're amazing.
>
> On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Alex Smith  > wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 23:45 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > I don’t support this. I see little harm in keeping an interesting
> > game mechanic in the ruleset, especially if we make it clear that it
> > is not necessary for beginners to understand.
>
> I still like the concept behind Organizations, but there's a lot of
> evidence that the execution is wrong. As such, for them to be used,
> it's likely that we'll need a new set of Organization rules that
> change
> many of the details that don't work.
>
> It may well be easier to clean the slate and start over than it would
> be to continuously morph the current Organization rules into a new
> set.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Promotor draft report

[Nic Evans]

On 08/31/17 16:50, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>>> I'm opposed to anything that doesn't scale with need. A regular payday
>>> would mostly benefit the already successful players.
> This is where I disagree, primarily.  We've never had a system that didn't
> allow a base level of activity on a weekly or monthly level (proposals & CFJs)
> just for being a player.

I'm not sure I see the complaint here. Under AP there is a minimum, and
in Debts you can just keep making CFJs and proposals indefinitely - you
just can't buy stamps or estates until you settle debts.

What I mean here is that giving X shinies to each player is a
compounding advantage for players that are really good with shinies.
They don't need that advantage. Thus, any free shinies should be given
out based on need, and when a player reaches a point where they can
efficiently use their shinies, they don't receive the bonus anymore.

>
> And officer-work, volunteer as it is, has always granted perks within the
> system, and I think it's important to reward work.  I'm not sure why a regular
> payday is a bad thing - if accumulation is an issue, I'd suggest dealing with
> it on the other side with taxes.
>
> I'm willing to try various systems, but don't like moving away from the
> two principles of "everyone's allowed to have a base activity level" and
> "officers get some rewards above that".
>
>> Actually, on this note maybe we should consider a monthly set of shiny
>> rewards for minor achivements. Things like:
>>
>> *Authoring the most passed proposals in the last month
>> *Judging the most CFJs in the last month
>> *Being the director of the most used agency in the last month
>> *Etc
>>
>> Ideally, things that any player could accomplish at any time.
> An old system we had:
>
> You could be awarded Boons for doing good things and Albatrosses for doing
> bad things.  Everything from standard office-keeping to random occasional
> things (like Birthday recognition) granted boons.  Monthly activity level
> each month was Base + Boons - Albatrosses (as earned in previous month).
>
> Glance through following randomly-selected ruleset for Boon to see range of
> things we awarded:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2004-September/001691.html
>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Promotor draft report

[Nic Evans]

On 08/31/17 16:17, Nic Evans wrote:
> (I've been a bit distracted lately but I'm keeping up with conversation.)
>
> The current economy was designed with the idea of coupling economics
> closely to productivity. Creating work costs, and resolving work pays.
> It's intentionally difficult to profit without doing considerable work
> successfully. I'd like to keep it mostly that way. Maybe there's more
> behaviors we should be rewarding.

Actually, on this note maybe we should consider a monthly set of shiny
rewards for minor achivements. Things like:

*Authoring the most passed proposals in the last month
*Judging the most CFJs in the last month
*Being the director of the most used agency in the last month
*Etc

Ideally, things that any player could accomplish at any time.

>
> But I do agree with the current criticism as well. A welcome package
> isn't enough to get the economy rolling, especially for new players.
> There needs to be a way to fail and bounce back. AP circumvents the
> problem by reducing need for shinies, but it doesn't help new players
> get into the game. Debts solves problems AP introduced, but may very
> well permanently cripple anyone who makes a bad play or two.
> Supplemental income is probably necessary.
>
> I'm opposed to anything that doesn't scale with need. A regular payday
> would mostly benefit the already successful players. A bailout when a
> player reaches 0 shinies would benefit clever players who purposely zero
> their shinies. Overall wealth (shinies, debts, estates, and stamps)
> needs to somehow be a factor to ensure that it's not abusable by players
> that don't need it.
>
> Since stamps are easily liquified, the best solution may be a payday
> only accessible to people with 0 shinies and 0 stamps. I suspect there's
> ways to abuse even that (by trading stamps around and/or buying
> estates), but hopefully its benefits outweigh the negatives. I'm open to
> other suggestions as well.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Promotor draft report

[Nic Evans]

On 08/29/17 13:00, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
 IDAuthor(s)   AI   Title
 ---
 pp1   nichdel, o, grok, Aris  3.0  Debts
 pp2   nichdel 1.0  Better Accounting
>>> I pend each of these proposals, using AP to do so.
>> Debts is badly broken for non-Officers and I'd recommend voting Against.  I 
>> was
>> hoping to see another draft because we want to get off AP, but this debts 
>> draft
>> is worse.
> Yeah, I’m doubtful it’ll pass. Nichdel can still withdraw the proposal, and I 
> do plan to vote AGAINST. I just figured that since I have nothing better to 
> do with my AP, I’d pretend they were Spending Power and use ‘em.
>
> -o
>

(I've been a bit distracted lately but I'm keeping up with conversation.)

The current economy was designed with the idea of coupling economics
closely to productivity. Creating work costs, and resolving work pays.
It's intentionally difficult to profit without doing considerable work
successfully. I'd like to keep it mostly that way. Maybe there's more
behaviors we should be rewarding.

But I do agree with the current criticism as well. A welcome package
isn't enough to get the economy rolling, especially for new players.
There needs to be a way to fail and bounce back. AP circumvents the
problem by reducing need for shinies, but it doesn't help new players
get into the game. Debts solves problems AP introduced, but may very
well permanently cripple anyone who makes a bad play or two.
Supplemental income is probably necessary.

I'm opposed to anything that doesn't scale with need. A regular payday
would mostly benefit the already successful players. A bailout when a
player reaches 0 shinies would benefit clever players who purposely zero
their shinies. Overall wealth (shinies, debts, estates, and stamps)
needs to somehow be a factor to ensure that it's not abusable by players
that don't need it.

Since stamps are easily liquified, the best solution may be a payday
only accessible to people with 0 shinies and 0 stamps. I suspect there's
ways to abuse even that (by trading stamps around and/or buying
estates), but hopefully its benefits outweigh the negatives. I'm open to
other suggestions as well.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Nic Evans]

On 08/24/17 20:15, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
>> * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of
>> them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at
>> once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges,
>> organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove
>> the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?
> On the contrary, I think the relative lack of activity in Agora is that
> there isn't actually anything to /do/. Much of what you list (like the
> winning conditions) is harmless. On that subject, I don't think we have
> nearly enough win conditions (most of the ones we do have are either
> scam release valves, or very long term goals). It used to be that you
> could win Agora every couple of months by outplaying people on the
> economy and on regular gameplay. That's no longer the case, and I don't
> think there have been any non-scam wins for a very long time (maybe a
> historically long time?).
>
> The thing about Agoran complexity is that there are two sorts: the
> rules you have to know about, and the rules that are only relevant when
> you interact with them. (Perhaps these should actually be in separate
> rulesets, at least presentationally? Most real-life rulesets work like
> that, after all.) If you don't know what a Trust Token is, it's
> unlikely ever to bother you. If you do, you can keep track of them and
> try to make progress in that direction (although with the mechanic
> unpopular, it's unlikely it'll ever result in a win).

We actually largely agree here, I think I was just poorly worded. It's
not that there's too much to do, it's that, from the perspective of a
new player looking at rules, it looks like there's too much to do and
that makes it really hard to see how everything fits together. A new
player doesn't know they don't need to worry about Trust Tokens, or that
the 7 rules about Organizations and 8 about Punishments are largely
irrelevant to them. In that regard I agree having a separation between
'Core' and 'Subsystems' in the rules would be nice. But I also think
that we should seriously consider scaling back and simplifying the
underutilized systems, at least for now. Add back the complexity as needed.

>
> Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to
> officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule
> defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the
> game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a
> new player if they apply to everyone.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregister

[Nic Evans]

On 08/23/17 22:46, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> On Aug 23, 2017, at 11:37 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>
>> like playing I Want To Be The Guy
> Steady on!
>
> Actually, I broadly agree with your overall thesis. Precedent and history are 
> _important_, and I think it’s worth understanding why things are the way they 
> are before tearing them down or rebuilding them another way - but the way 
> things are is fairly knob-heavy, and I cannot in the slightest blame K for 
> deregistering out of concern for comprehension.
>
> My personal coping strategy has been to ignore the mechanics that don’t 
> immediately interest me, more or less, and to focus intently on the ones that 
> do. However, that’s a coping strategy, not a solution: I’m surely missing 
> interesting opportunities by mostly-disregarding ribbons and patent titles, 
> or by not trying terribly hard to win.

I think we've fallen into Bad Game Design lately. This is something I'm
working on a thesis for, so I may reserve some thoughts, but generally:

We should look at Agora like a boardgame primarily. Sure there's some
automation, but it's off to the side. Equivalent to the many helpful
apps for more complex games. Primarily, rules are understood and
administered by players. With that in mind:

* We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of
them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at
once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges,
organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove
the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?

* We've conflated complexity and ambiguity unpleasantly. Some of this
has to do with the proliferation of SHALL NOTs and punishments. Some of
this is the sheer volume of rule text that currently exists. The
interesting complexity should come from how players react to situations,
and how does reactions collectively change the gamestate. It shouldn't
come from ambiguity about what can and can't be done, or what the
mechanical outcome of a purported action is. We're playing a social
game, not a single-player simulation.

* We just generate too much gamestate right now. It's hard to get people
to track all of it, and it's hard to keep up with that tracking. I think
this is primarily emergent from the above two, but it's still a distinct
problem.

> As a sketch, I’d like to draft two broad proposals:
>
> # Repeal the Referee
>
> * Convert SHALL NOT et al into something equivalent to CANNOT or IMPOSSIBLE
> * Modify SHALLs to allow any player to fulfil them if the obliged party does 
> not do so
> * Destroy the office of Referee entirely, as well as the associated card rules
>
> We can always reinvent it, but punishment is probably the wrong paradigm for 
> Agora as it is today, on the whole. A much more narrowly-scoped punishment 
> system for dealing with specific malfeasance might be a practical 
> replacement, and clearing the ground will make it easier to re-draft.

As a result of my above thinking, I agree here but for separate reasons.
SHALL NOTs and punishments encourage more ambiguity than they're worth
generally. We should limit them to behaviors we can't platonically
control, like repeated sloppiness or belligerence. Most actions should
be platonic, with some pragmatic-platonic backups that mostly already
exist (the way reports ratify and get CoE'd is a great example).

>
> # Repeal Organizations
>
> They’re moribund, really. No organization presently has more than one active 
> member.

This is hard for me because I really want multilateral entities to exist
within an economy, but I do see the point here. At the very least we
should probably scale back the expenditure and bankruptcy mechanics. I
love them but they seem to be mostly unused.

> -o
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: all work and no pay?

[Nic Evans]

On 08/24/17 15:46, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Does the Arbitor get paid at all for doing eir duties?
> What about the Assessor?
>

For Assessor: "Resolving an Agoran Decision
 for the first time this week: 5
shinies." So only if there is something to resolve.

I might have messed up on Arbitor.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

[Nic Evans]

On 08/24/17 11:56, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I thought people were over that.

I just think it's a poor blueprint to model yourself after, apt as it
may be.

>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Nic Evans  <mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/24/17 10:06, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> I bring up Blognomic a lot tbh but I bring Agora up a lot in
>> Blognomic too. I strive to improve stuff for both via sharing
>> stuff between them, a bit like how tea was brought from China to
>> Britain and become super cool stuff in both places.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War>
>
>>
>> Also, it's cool to know that a guide has been made historically.
>> I think that coalescing that tendency into a rule or something
>> somehow would make it more perpetual.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin
>> mailto:ke...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > However, turning into a dynastic nomic would be too much of a 
>> drastic change I feel,
>> > so I feel like a better solution would be to make
>> "tradition" and "play custom" EXPLICIT, if we want
>> > to make it matter. Or at least, much more easily
>> accessible, like a handbook, so that without needing
>> > to run into problems or having to suckle on teats, someone
>> can have enough independence to play the
>> > game on their own, just like how someone can grab a
>> playstation controller and instantly play versus
>> > needing to pester others or deal with a massive, not
>> particularly didactic archive which is only going
>> > to get larger and harder to use for any newcomer. 
>>
>> Sorry if the previous post was too snarky.  So, I think all
>> of us totally agree that it would
>> be great to have a guide.  The rules annotations are out of
>> date.  We don't have a simplified
>> intro.  But beyond saying that, no one's sat down to produce
>> one.  Or produce cross-linked
>> rules and cases, or some other nice interface.  If someone
>> did, it would be welcomed.  I think,
>> every few years, someone makes one, maintains it for a year,
>> then stops.  It would be great if
>> someone did again.
>>
>> But also, remember that some board games are simple, some are
>> long and involved.  And sometimes
>> players want a game long and involved.  You don't cut all the
>> rules out of Star Fleet Battles to
>> make it more like Flux - if you want Flux, you go play Flux. 
>> Similarly, if you want BlogNomic,
>> you know where to find it :).
>>
>> -G.
>>
>>
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: "The Ruleset is our Joystick" Proto Proposal / Proto Proposal Competition

[Nic Evans]

On 08/24/17 10:06, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I bring up Blognomic a lot tbh but I bring Agora up a lot in Blognomic
> too. I strive to improve stuff for both via sharing stuff between
> them, a bit like how tea was brought from China to Britain and become
> super cool stuff in both places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War

>
> Also, it's cool to know that a guide has been made historically. I
> think that coalescing that tendency into a rule or something somehow
> would make it more perpetual.
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin  > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > However, turning into a dynastic nomic would be too much of a drastic 
> change I feel,
> > so I feel like a better solution would be to make "tradition"
> and "play custom" EXPLICIT, if we want
> > to make it matter. Or at least, much more easily accessible,
> like a handbook, so that without needing
> > to run into problems or having to suckle on teats, someone can
> have enough independence to play the
> > game on their own, just like how someone can grab a playstation
> controller and instantly play versus
> > needing to pester others or deal with a massive, not
> particularly didactic archive which is only going
> > to get larger and harder to use for any newcomer. 
>
> Sorry if the previous post was too snarky.  So, I think all of us
> totally agree that it would
> be great to have a guide.  The rules annotations are out of date. 
> We don't have a simplified
> intro.  But beyond saying that, no one's sat down to produce one. 
> Or produce cross-linked
> rules and cases, or some other nice interface.  If someone did, it
> would be welcomed.  I think,
> every few years, someone makes one, maintains it for a year, then
> stops.  It would be great if
> someone did again.
>
> But also, remember that some board games are simple, some are long
> and involved.  And sometimes
> players want a game long and involved.  You don't cut all the
> rules out of Star Fleet Battles to
> make it more like Flux - if you want Flux, you go play Flux. 
> Similarly, if you want BlogNomic,
> you know where to find it :).
>
> -G.
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3513 Judged TRUE by Quazie

[Nic Evans]

On 08/01/2017 06:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3513
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

==  CFJ 3513  =

In a message dated Mon, 22 May 2017 15:31:30 -0400, Publius
Scribonius Scholasticus initiated an Agoran Decision.

===

Caller:   G.

Judge:nichdel
Barred:   Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Judgement:TRUE


Wrong judge listed here.

Thanks for keeping the records alive!


===

History:

Called by G.: 22 May 2017
Assigned to nichdel:  24 May 2017
nichdel recused:  12 Jun 2017
Assigned to Quazie:   12 Jun 2017
Judged TRUE by Quazie:12 Jun 2017

===

Caller's Arguments:

Given my recent attempt to "announce" OscarMeyr, I wonder if "announced non-
players" is ambiguous?  In past, listing "all members of set S" without
specifying the individual set members has been seen as ambiguous, IF it
is beyond a reasonable effort of an average player to dig back and find that
list (as opposed to the officer doing it, as it's eir job) or IF there's
some uncertainty on membership (e.g. OscarMeyr).

For players, there's a handy Registrar's report to refer to, so it's not
beyond a reasonable effort for average players to find that.  For non-
players, not so much (and if the rules are silent here, consider there
is an "unfair" burden on non-players who are not clearly listed for
informed voting - especially listing it as "Ørjan and others"!).

It is also unclear if the election is limited to "announced" non-players,
given R2482:  "non-player persons can also become valid options during the
voting period by announcement."  If this clause is non-functional due to
conflicts with R107, it would be good to identify the problem and correct
R2482.  If the clause is *not* non-functional, then the announcement
limiting options to "announced" players is simply incorrect and therefore
invalid.

===

Caller's Evidence:

True, the CoE having been successful, I hereby initiate a Victory Election
with all players, announced non-players, and PRESENT as valid options and
the Herald as the vote collector. I would be in favor of all watchers
(Ørjan and others) and G. putting emselves into the race. The ballots
should be cast in an instant runoff format.

===

Judge Quazie's Arguments:

R2482 states
{{{
If nobody has done so in the previous 180 days, the Herald CAN
initiate a Victory Election, a type of Agoran decision. On such
a decision, all players are valid options; non-player persons
can also become valid options during the voting period by
announcement. The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting
method is instant runoff.

Upon the resolution of the decision, if the outcome is a person,
then that person wins the game.
}}}
with the key phrase being:
{{{
non-player persons can also become valid options
during the voting period by announcement.
}}}

PSS's Agoran Decision states:
{{{
True, the CoE having been successful, I hereby initiate a Victory Election
with all players, announced non-players, and PRESENT as valid options and
the Herald as the vote collector. I would be in favor of all watchers
(??rjan and others) and G. putting emselves into the race. The ballots
should be cast in an instant runoff format.
}}}
with the key phrase being:
{{{
[...] announced non-players and PRESENT as valid options
}}}

I believe that the two key phrases are synonymous.  I go so far as to note
that it doesn't even say WHO must do the announcing, so by voting for a
non-player I believe that perhaps counts as an announcement of an intent
to make em a valid voting option.

As a result, if R2482 allows the Herald to start a victory election,
then PSS did so.

So, the question is: is having announced non-persons as a special subset too
much of a burden for the average player?

If it's not too much of a burden for an officer to collect votes in public
messages, it seems like it isn't too much of a burden to expect someone to
follow the current activity and see who is, and isn't, an announced non-player
especially if my earlier conjecture is correct, and voting for someone
counts as an announcement.

I don't think that keeping up with a weeks worth of messages on the public
forum is too ambiguous.

I vote CFJ 3513 as TRUE.

===

DIS: Re: BUS: Shiny Smuggling (Again)

[Nic Evans]

On 08/01/2017 12:48 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:


On Jul 30, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Nic Evans <mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Everything in the last attempt failed because I never had any 
shinies, stamps did not exist, and the mechanisms of ASaAA refered to 
were void at that time. So here they are again:


Since I have not received a Welcome package since I most recently 
registered, I cause myself to receive one now.


{
Me: 50 sh.
Agora: 950 sh.
}

I transfer 40 shinies to Agora to create a stamp.

{
Me: 10 sh. 1 Stamp (nichdel)
Agora: 990
}

I transfer 1 shiny to ASaAA, which gives me one ASaAA proxy.

{
Me: 9 sh. 1 Stamp (nichdel). 1 ASaAA Proxy
ASaAA: 8 sh.
}

I transfer my Stamp (nichdel) to ASaAA and, on behalf of the ASaAA, 
transfer 8 shinies to me.


{
Me: 17 sh. 1 ASaAA Proxy
ASaAA: 0 sh. 1 Stamp (nichdel)
}

I note that the ASaAA has now transitioned from an Open Session to a 
Voting Session.


I vote for myself in the ASaAA Voting Session 1 time, using all my 
Proxies.


I spend an action point, if it is possible for me to do so, to call 
for judgement on the following statement:


Nichdel has 1 Stamp (nichdel) and 9 Shinies.

Caller’s arguments:

First, my apologies to whichever poor sap gets to judge this, because 
you get to do some forensic accounting. I keep fairly complete 
records, so feel more than free to request further evidence.


The core of this CFJ is a transaction nichdel performed immediately 
prior to the passage of proposal 7867:


On Jul 29, 2017, at 7:12 PM, Nic Evans <mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote:



I transfer 7 shinies to ASaAA.


(Re: BUS: Transfer)

However, according to my records, at this time nichdel had a balance 
of 2 Shinies. Per rule 2483 (“Economics”) in effect at that time:


Any player CAN pay Agora, any other player, or any organization any 
amount by announcement, unless it would make eir own balance 
negative. Any attempt to PAY any amount that would make any player's 
or any organization's balance negative is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the 
contrary notwithstanding.


Paying 7 Shinies with a balance of 2 Shinies would make nichdel’s 
balance -5 Shinies, and therefore the payment is ineffective.


No other payments have ever been made to ASaAA, so its balance was, 
and remained, zero.


Subsequently, proposal 7867 passed, which zeroed all players’ 
balances, and reset Agora’s balance to 1,000 Shinies. (Organization 
balances were not affected, a fact which appears to have been 
intentional in hindsight.)


Afterwards, after some minor paperwork cleanup, nichdel performed the 
following trivially-successful transactions, quoted above:


* Received 50 shinies from Agora via a Welcome Package (nichdel: 50 sh)
* Paid 40 shinies to Agora to create 1 stamp in eir own possession 
(nichdel: 10 sh, 1 stamp)

* Paid 1 shiny to ASaAA (nichdel: 9 sh, 1 stamp; ASaAA: 1 sh)

Finally, e attempted to have ASaAA pay em 8 shinies in exchange for a 
stamp. E noted this as a single transaction. Since ASaAA does not have 
8 Shinies, by rule 2483:


Any organization CAN pay Agora, any player, or any other 
organization by announcement by a member of said organization, as 
specified in the charter of said organization, unless it would make 
the organization's balance negative. Any attempt by any player to 
cause an organization to pay any amount that would make that 
organization's balance negative is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary 
notwithstanding.


This payment cannot succeed, and therefore neither can the transaction 
it is part of.


I see that I had five shinies in one report [1] and 0 in the next [2], 
but I'm not sure where I spent them. In any case you're right because 
that second report ratified.


[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08147.html

[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08164.html

DIS: Re: BUS: Payment of Pending List Price for Proposal "Agoraculture v. 2.0"

[Nic Evans]

On 07/31/2017 02:37 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

CFJ: babelian has pended eir most recently submitted proposal.


You need to use AP or Shinies to submit the CFJ.


Gratuitous arguments: It has previously been found that actions could be spread 
across multiple messages. However, I am unsure of whether the first payment 
would have been effective because e was doing with the expressed intent of 
causing something to occur that could not have occurred. If the first one, 
failed I believe the second one failed for the same reason. Also, it is unclear 
whether these messages constitute one action unambiguously. Given these 
complications, I also request that the judge also give a recommendation as to 
babelian’s current shiney balance.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com




On Jul 31, 2017, at 3:33 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
 wrote:

CFJ: babelian has pended his most recently submitted proposal.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com




On Jul 31, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Ajay Kumar Raja  wrote:

I pay 5 more shinies to Agora to pay the full Pending List Price of 10 shinies. Given my 
"Welcome Package" of 50 shinies, I should have 40 shinies from that Welcome 
Package left over; therefore I transfer 5 shinies back to nichdel.

Sincerely,
Ajay Kumar Raja

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Nic Evans]

On 07/30/2017 02:22 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

I am not sure whether to accept this or not. I accepted a CoE last week, but I 
shouldn’t have because you had been deregistered by ratification, so should I 
accept this?

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



1) If the last report had em and it ratified, e got reregistered by 
ratification.


2) What ratification deregistered em?

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7867-7868

[Nic Evans]

On 07/30/2017 10:45 AM, nichdel wrote:

I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7867-7868as below.



[This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
 following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
 Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!). If a
 decision's voting period is still ongoing, I end it immediately
 before resolving it and after resolving the previous decision.]

ID Author(s)AI   Title

*7867  nichdel, [1] 2.0  Economics Overhaul v2
*7868  Murphy   3.0  Minor economic fixes

[1] o, grok, Aris

|  | 7867 | 7868 |
|--+--+--+
|Aris  | F| N|
|nichdel   | F| F|
|o | F| F|
|PSS[1]| F[2] | F[2] |
|Quazie| F[3] | F[3] |
|V.J Rada  | F[4] | F[5] |
|--+--+--+
|F/A   | 6/0  | 5/0  |
|AI| 2.0  | 3.0  |
|V | 6| 5|
|Q | 3| 3|
|P | T| T|


Oops, Aris definitely voted Present. Results remain the same, so I don't 
think a CoE is appropriate but if someone else thinks so I'll resubmit,

DIS: Re: BUS: Shiny Smuggling

[Nic Evans]

On 07/30/2017 10:57 AM, Nic Evans wrote:

I transfer 1 shiny to ASaAA, which gives me one ASaAA proxy.

{
Me: 9 sh. 1 Stamp (nichdel). 1 ASaAA Proxy
ASaAA: 8 sh.
}



I should've noted here: The ASaAA had 7 shinies I transfered to it 
before the proposal passed [1], and the proposal didn't affect shinies 
held by organizations. This wasn't intentional, but I decided to take 
advantage of it anyway.


[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28951.html

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3537 reassigned to o

[Nic Evans]

On 07/29/2017 06:30 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
My terminal email reader shows no formatting distinction between the 
new and old parts of your message. As such, until I read more 
carefully, I was about to complain that it was now too late for you to 
move to reconsideration.


It is possible that the raw html format version contains some kind of 
distinction, but trying to make sense of nested  tags with noisy 
style attributes in my head is beyond my patience.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


Thunderbird marked the old text in a different font, but it's far from 
the normal quote format. I'm not sure what's happened here, but I 
suspect VJ confused eir client in the editing process.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Nic Evans]

On 07/27/2017 08:30 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
I note that GII disturbingly requires the SLR to be _accurate_ for any 
of the actions to happen. What's the likelihood of that, when 
(according to itself) it hasn't been ratified in 3 years...


Greetings,
Ørjan.



Real idea: Ratify the Ruleset every Read the Ruleset Week.

Bad idea: Attempt to ratify two Rulesets every Read the Ruleset Week, 
one including a subtle scam, and make players discern the two.

Re: DIS: Re: 3527 judgement

[Nic Evans]

On 07/24/2017 05:42 PM, Alex Smith wrote:

On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 08:39 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:

Here is my judgement of this CFJ, which has definitely already been
judged.

Looks like I missed it first time, and couldn't find it in a search
because the number "3527" doesn't appear anywhere in the email itself,
only the subject line.

Conjecture: Agora's tradition of allowing freeform actions is one of
the main causes of mistakes in recordkeeping.

As perhaps the staunchest supporter of freeform actions, I have been 
wondering recently if it would be a worthwhile trade-off to require 
rule-defined IDs and identifiers to be in the body of an email that does 
an action. IE, you dont need to call or judge a CFJ in proper English, 
but you do need to include its ID #.


This would probably even work as a SHOULD. (I've also been thinking of 
introducing an extremely mild crime of ignoring too many SHOULDs. 
Nothing with a real punishment, just a finger wagging like Green Cards 
are now.)

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3544 assigned to grok

[Nic Evans]

On 07/24/2017 04:00 PM, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
I would appreciate gratuitous arguments on this CFJ in the coming day 
or two, especially from PSS regarding eir denial of the initial CoE.



-grok

On Jul 24, 2017 3:54 PM, "Alex Smith" <mailto:ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>> wrote:


On Sun, 2017-07-23 at 15:21 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 07/23/2017 03:08 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Denied, nothing caused it to cease to exist.
>
> I submit the following CFJ: C♥️U is an agency.

This is CFJ 3544. I assign it to grok.

> Arguments:
>
> Agencies are defined as follows in R2467:
>
> "An Agency is a document empowering persons to act on behalf
> <http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2466
<http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule2466>> of another player."
>
> C♥️U was created by CuddleBeam. CuddleBeam is not a player. C♥️U
> does
> not empower any persons to act on behalf of a player. Regardless of
> whether it exists, it is no longer an agency.
>
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
    <mailto:p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 23, 2017, at 3:23 PM, Nic Evans mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 07/23/2017 01:33 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > > > Superintendent's Weekly Report
> > > >
> > > > Short List of agencies:
> > > >
> > > > ASC - Head: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > BÖÖ - Head: Quazie
> > > > C♥️N - Head: CuddleBeam
> > > > C♥️U - Head: CuddleBeam
> > > > GII - Head: Gaelan
> > > > GOD - Head: Quazie
> > > > MKD - Head: Gaelan
> > > > PRN - Head: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > SSP - Head: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > WTQ - Head: Quazie
> > > > gFP - Head: grok
> > > > 𒌑შए - Head: 天火狐
> > > >
> > > > New or changed agencies since last weekly:
> > > >
> > > >There are none.
> > > >
> > > > A History of agency related events:
> > > >
> > > > 2017-06-05 - Superintendent's Weekly Report Published
> > > > 2017-06-05 - Quazie establishes BÖÖ
> > > > 2017-06-04 - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus establishes ASC
> > > > 2017-05-27 - Gaelan establishes GII
> > > > 2017-05-27 - CuddleBeam establishes C♥️U
> > > > 2017-05-27 - CuddleBeam establishes C♥️N
> > > > 2017-05-27 - CuddleBeam revokes BGW
> > > > 2017-05-27 - CuddleBeam revokes ACP
> > > > 2017-05-25 - Superintendent's Weekly Report Published
> > > > 2017-05-24 - grok establishes gFP
> > > > 2017-05-23 - 天火狐 establishes 𒌑შए
> > > > 2017-05-23 - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus establishes PRN
> > > > 2017-05-22 - Quazie establishes WTQ
> > > > 2017-05-22 - CuddleBeam establishes ACP
> > > > 2017-05-22 - CuddleBeam establishes BGW
> > > > 2017-05-21 - Quazie changes GOD
> > > > 2017-05-20 - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus establishes SSP
> > > > 2017-05-20 - Gaelan establishes MKD
> > > > 2017-05-20 - Quazie establishes GOD
> > > > 2017-05-18 - Superintendent's Monthly Report Published
> > > > 2017-05-18 - Superintendent's Weekly Report Published
> > > > 2017-04-23 - Aris revokes PDA
> > > > 2017-04-16 - Superintendent's Monthly Report Published
> > > > 2017-02-13 - Aris establishes PDA
> > > >
> > > > [Note: Events and Agencies preceded by a ! are potentially
> > > > invalid pending CFJ]
> > > >
> > > > [Archive available at
https://agoranomic.github.io/Superintende
<https://agoranomic.github.io/Superintende>
> > > > nt/]
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
<mailto:p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > CoE (possibly needs to be a CFJ): C♥️N and C♥️U are not agencies
> > > because they do not empower someone to act on behalf of a player
> > > (because CB is no longer a player).

--
ais523
Arbitor


I've already submitted my arguments, but I wanted to add the reasons I 
think this is an interesting CFJ.


If the CFJ is false, then it appears we have a legal fiction that an 
entity named CuddleBeam is a player. Any player would, in theory, be 
able to do anything the Agency allows on !CuddleBeam's behalf, as long 
as e can do it. And since !Cuddlebeam is theoretically a player, that 
covers a lot of ground.


If the CFJ is true, then there exists defunct 'Agencies' as legal 
entities. We don't assign anyone to track them, but they exist. And when 
any person registers as "CuddleBeam", or the definition of Agency 
becomes more inclusive, they become ripe for a surprise scam.

Re: DIS: [Proto] Vexity (was Re: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.)

[Nic Evans]

On 07/18/2017 09:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:

 A person whose Vexity is zero may initiate a Call for Judgement by
 announcement. A person whose Vexity is not zero may initiate a Call
 for Judgement with N Agoran Support, where N is the value of that
 person's Vexity switch.

The fact that there are circumstances in which a person CANNOT initiate
a CFJ on eir own is pretty clearly a violation of R217, IMO.  It's a
direct Rules to the Contrary Notwithstanding requirement that a person
be able to do this.

Initiate to later have dismissed?  Fine.  Not able to initiate without
another player's intervention?  Not fine I would guess.



I've been wondering about this in the context of the economy overhaul: 
In it *players* need to use shinies or AP to initiate CFJs, but 
*persons* can do it for free if they aren't a player. Does that pass 
R217's bar [1]?


[1] "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule 
 change that would (1) prevent 
a person  from initiating a 
formal process to resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable 
expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) 
prevent a person from causing formal reconsideration of any judicial 
determination that e should be punished, is wholly void and without 
effect."

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Nic Evans]

On 07/20/17 19:07, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
>>>
>>> A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
>>> to be possible so as to deceive others.
> What's the standard for belief.  Like, if I'm 50/50 "eh, this might or might
> not work, the rules are silent"?  (That's a pretty fair description on how
> I felt about the hashed pledge, for example).

I think that's a half-empty/half-full question. Personally my standard
for 'someone believes something' is >50. But also note that it includes
'so as to deceive others'. You didn't attempt to deceive others into
thinking the hash definitely works, and you didn't lie about your
certainty on it. By the same token, saying "If this is possible, I do
this" should circumvent the 'belief standard' because you've clearly
warned that it may not be possible.

Instead, I believe this applies to circumstances where a player purports
contradictory beliefs within different sets of actions without disowning
either set. E may not be certain either set of actions is IMPOSSIBLE,
but there's no way e can believe both are simultaneously possible.

>
> Written the above way, a 50/50 would mean that I don't fully believe it's
> possible, but I also don't believe it's impossible.  Sill, that would mean
> Guilty under the proposed rule.
>
> If you wrote it "which e believes is IMPOSSIBLE" instead of "not believe to 
> be 
> possible", which is the same phrasing as the current rule, then the 50/50 case
> would be not guilty.
>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[Nic Evans]

I'd really appreciate if someone pended this.

It'd be very useful in the following hypothetical: Imagine, if you will,
an extremely belligerent player that tries a deluge of 'scams' with
arguments full of special pleading, whatboutism, and
innocence-by-ignorance that could only be interepreted by a reasonable
person to be attempts to brute-force and exhaust players into giving em
a win. Also this belligerent person can't be bothered to read the rules
or correctly use crtl+f or follow the hypertext links in the HLR to the
relevant bits of definitions. Also e's so blind to other people that the
time, effort and feelings of other people don't register in eir
calculus. Also e thinks it's humble to repeatedly point out how humble e
is. Also e is very very proud that e can hit a couple targets with a
shotgun full of buckshot.

I know it's an unlikely type of person, but the shocking thing is none
of that behavior is apparently bad enough to be punishable. So maybe we
should start fixing that.


On 07/13/17 15:37, Nic Evans wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Less Strict Faking
> AI: 1
> Author: nichdel
> Co-authors:
>
> Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
>
> A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
> to be possible so as to deceive others.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Nic Evans]

You also created an organization with a Japanese charter, which is
acceptable because nothing says that chaarters have to be
understandable. But it also hasn't been allowed to do anything
meaningful. By the same token you could make a proposal in any language,
pend it andd vote on it, but whether it'd have an effect once passed is
unlikely.


On 07/20/17 15:51, Josh T wrote:
> I'd just like to mention I haven't actually succeeded in making a
> non-registration action in Japanese, and I think all my attempts at
> voting in such were thrown out, which I believe is the correct way to
> interpret the rules. (While there are technical and cryptographic
> differences, using another language is basically a form of encryption
> if not everyone can read it IMO.)
>
> 天火狐
>
> On Jul 20, 2017 15:40, "Cuddle Beam"  > wrote:
>
> >First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM
>
> humble agoran bloodhoun...-puppy at your service.
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Kerim Aydin
> mailto:ke...@u.washington.edu>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I disagree with that Public is explicitly defined. "Public 
> message", yes. "Public X" in general?
> > I don't believe so. "Public challenge" isn't explicitly
> defined to need to be a public message,
> > just a challenge which is "Public" (which, via your trick,
> if it works, could be encrypted).
> > So "Public" itself isn't defined in general. 
>
> First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM I was hoping to
> try, but didn't get around to.
> So I'll give it to you.  If you look at the possible
> *responses* to a Claim of Error, "publish
> a revision" and "Initiating an inquiry case"[*] are explicitly
> public, but DENY a CLAIM is
> *not* explicitly  public.  (and since the other elements on
> the list are *explicitly* public,
> the implication is that Denial doesn't need to be public).
>
> When I published the fake Report the other week, I'd intended
> to privately Deny the claim,
> putting it secretly back on the self-ratification clock.
>
>
> Anyway,on the "public challenge" side:
>
> The full phrase is "public challenge via one of the following
> methods".  So the methods define
> what the challenge is.  So a public challenge is something
> that is "identifying a document"
> (likely needs to identify the document publicly) and uses (1)
> an inquiry case (CFJ) which has
> it's own defined process that starts "by announcement" in
> R991[*], or (2) a CoE.  BUT... I
> notice you're right, there's nothing that explicitly says a
> CoE must be public.
>
> Though if you CFJd on CoEs, my guess is the Judge would say
> something like "a challenge is one
> of the following two things, so a public challenge is one of
> those things, done publicly."
> But sure, try saying:  "I CoE on on the error specified in
> this hash..."  Or maybe wait for
> some discussion on this point first, in case I missed something.
>
> Of course, it's a trivial result, as the document-keeper could
> just say "nope, I don't find
> that hash-hidden error, because I don't know what it is, so
> I'm going to deny it".
>
>
> [*] "Inquiry Case" used to be the term for a CFJ.  This is
> archaic language.  R991 talks
> about a "Case... specifying a matter to be inquired into" as
> the definition of a CFJ, which
> is close enough.  Whether by precedent or merely custom, I
> don't remember.
>
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Can unregulated actions cause changes to the gamestate?

[Nic Evans]

On 07/19/17 16:10, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Yeah, the gamestate thing would need to be separate (aside from using
> a BlogNomic GNDT-like thing and start to speak in some ad hoc conlang
> like replace_all(X, Y) or just manually do it all, I can't think of a
> better solution). I'm mostly concerned with rule page itself.
>
> And yeah, each person definitely has their own preferred way, but
> perhaps its compatible. I don't know for sure either if it would work
> for everyone and if it will actually profit Agora in the long run
> without resting it, but I hold that conjecture that it would. I'm
> generally for automatizing as much as possible because it feels like
> we're still doing things with abacuses and sticks when a lot of us are
> more technologically competent than that.
>

Humans made abacuses (and their replacements) to do the boring and hard
things that machines are better at. But the average person still does a
lot of math in their mind or by hand, because getting out the machine to
do it takes longer and is less intuitive. And theoretical math still
involves a large amount of work done by hand, because machines are bad
at the imaginative/exploratory aspects. The same reasons, in my
experience, apply to rule-writing.

Note also that much of officer's jobs are done with scripts already,
it's just not required. Instead of making players do things in certain
ways, we've decided to let them do things as they please and write
scripts to accomodate them. Making players speak in a restricted way is
the boring and unfun solution.

So in short I encourage you to make your toolkit and share it. If people
like it, they'll use it. If everyone is using it, then the Recordkeepor
can write scripts to automatically apply it. If people don't like it,
though, they shouldn't be mandated to use it.

> Just personal conjecture though, mostly influenced by BN and how more
> smoother I perceive it to be than Agora in this regard.
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Nic Evans  <mailto:nich...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On 07/19/17 15:07, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> Related to the Ruleset being outdated and needing a Rulekeepor
>> and that driving me mad lol, If I get the chance to go code it,
>> I'll definitely try to make a thing like this:
>>
>> https://i.gyazo.com/a9d07830e67fa7b2901aa70b9f3987e7.png
>> <https://i.gyazo.com/a9d07830e67fa7b2901aa70b9f3987e7.png>
>
> This looks fine for small changes, but terrible for big changes. I
> start from the concept and work my way back to the rules, so
> there's no point in using an application that forces you to start
> from the rules and edit up.
>
>>
>> The output in the right can be in "Beam Language" or something.
>> Then, some bot can wait for an Assessor post and automatically
>> read the Beam Language changes and update the Ruleset
>> accordingly, immediately. We write the description of edits to
>> the ruleset like robots in proposals anyway, so Beam Language
>> would be both human-readable and bot-readable.
>
> Not really. Many proposals include language like 'replace all
> instances of X with Y' or 'increment all values of X by 1'.
>
> Also, what about gamestate changes that aren't rules? The
> economics overhaul proposal changes some switch values; it's
> changing the gamestate without changing the rules.
>
>>
>> The thing would be to have everyone use the application to write
>> their proposals (which, if I make it good enough, everyone will,
>> because the tool should strive to be more comfortable than doing
>> it all without tool-assistance, and eventually passing a rule to
>> make it mandatory (at least Beam Language format) should be easy
>> from there.)
>
> If it was possible to make a writing platform that was 'good
> enough' for everyone, we wouldn't live in a world where nearly
> every writer, coder, and poet uses a different toolchain. Writing
> is taking your thoughts and putting them into a human-readable
> format, and everyone thinks differently enough that no single
> method is best.
>
> For instance, I start all my work as handwriting (and drawing and
> diagraming). Then I write some proto-language in vim. And then I
> start integrating the necessary rule changes manually. I've tried
> using a diff system in the third part, but it always seems like a
> distraction rather than a help.
>
>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> I think that would also work. It kind of depends on what is
>> c

Re: DIS: Can unregulated actions cause changes to the gamestate?

[Nic Evans]

On 07/19/17 15:07, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Related to the Ruleset being outdated and needing a Rulekeepor and
> that driving me mad lol, If I get the chance to go code it, I'll
> definitely try to make a thing like this:
>
> https://i.gyazo.com/a9d07830e67fa7b2901aa70b9f3987e7.png

This looks fine for small changes, but terrible for big changes. I start
from the concept and work my way back to the rules, so there's no point
in using an application that forces you to start from the rules and edit up.

>
> The output in the right can be in "Beam Language" or something. Then,
> some bot can wait for an Assessor post and automatically read the Beam
> Language changes and update the Ruleset accordingly, immediately. We
> write the description of edits to the ruleset like robots in proposals
> anyway, so Beam Language would be both human-readable and bot-readable.

Not really. Many proposals include language like 'replace all instances
of X with Y' or 'increment all values of X by 1'.

Also, what about gamestate changes that aren't rules? The economics
overhaul proposal changes some switch values; it's changing the
gamestate without changing the rules.

>
> The thing would be to have everyone use the application to write their
> proposals (which, if I make it good enough, everyone will, because the
> tool should strive to be more comfortable than doing it all without
> tool-assistance, and eventually passing a rule to make it mandatory
> (at least Beam Language format) should be easy from there.)

If it was possible to make a writing platform that was 'good enough' for
everyone, we wouldn't live in a world where nearly every writer, coder,
and poet uses a different toolchain. Writing is taking your thoughts and
putting them into a human-readable format, and everyone thinks
differently enough that no single method is best.

For instance, I start all my work as handwriting (and drawing and
diagraming). Then I write some proto-language in vim. And then I start
integrating the necessary rule changes manually. I've tried using a diff
system in the third part, but it always seems like a distraction rather
than a help.

>
> ---
>
> I think that would also work. It kind of depends on what is considered
> to be gamestate or not and then setting it up around that. But yeah, I
> agree with that it could work too, because its set around "cards"
> which seems more gamestate-y than promises being in the state of being
> broken or not.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Are promises gamestate? Are their status of being broken or not, 
> gamestate? If so, then no
> > unregulated action (for example, "If Bob posts a poem on a-d, I
> will pay them 4 shinies")
> > can actually cause the change of them going from unbroken to broken.
>
> It's a bit twisted, but it's *possible* there's a loophole here. 
> I don't think
> it works with your example, but how about the following:
>
> "I pledge to prevent Bob from posting a poem on a-d".
>
> If Bob does post a poem to a-d, I've broken my pledge.
>
> Which is tracked in that it's cardable, and (due to the poor way
> the Referee rules
> are written) creates a platonic requirement for the Referee to
> track/announce the
> rule violation.
>
> Which makes Bob posting a poem to a-d regulated...?
>
> But of course, 'posting a poem' is not something we can
> practically stop Bob
> from doing.
>
> But we can create a legal fiction around it.  We can say "since
> Bob's poem posting
> is now regulated, and the rules don't say how e can do it, e
> CANNOT do it."  So, when
> e posts some text labelled "A Poem by Bob", we create the legal
> fiction that it's
> really an *attempt* to post a poem, and we say "you tried to do a
> regulated thing,
> but the rules don't say how you CAN do it, so you failed."
>
> Which means... legally, I *did* keep my pledge and prevent em from
> posting a
> poem :).
>
> [note: I think the recent rules change just changes the word
> "regulated" in the
> above to "restricted" without affecting any mechanics - kept the
> term "regulated"
> for the purposes of this conversation].
>
>
>
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: [Proto] Vexity (was Re: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.)

[Nic Evans]

I should also add: If a player wants to use all eir hard-earned shinies
on useless CFJs (which the judges will get paid for resolving), then e
should feel free.

On 07/18/17 20:26, Nic Evans wrote:
>
> On 07/18/17 20:13, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> This loosely replicates the idea of a vexatious litigant, and could easily 
>> be folded into nichdel’s penalty reforms. The short timeout on Vexity, and 
>> the increasing consent requirement for increasing Vexity, is meant to 
>> prevent a rogue Referee from locking someone out of CFJs entirely.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -o
>>
> Note that the current econ proposal requires either shinies or AP to
> make CFJs without support. Also note that the Criminal Cases proto
> defines reducing someone's weekly AP as an appropriate punishment for
> High Faux Pas.
>
> All that's needed to integrate your concept into that system is defining
> excessive CFJs to be a Faux Pas.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: [Proto] Vexity (was Re: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.)

[Nic Evans]

On 07/18/17 20:13, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> This loosely replicates the idea of a vexatious litigant, and could easily be 
> folded into nichdel’s penalty reforms. The short timeout on Vexity, and the 
> increasing consent requirement for increasing Vexity, is meant to prevent a 
> rogue Referee from locking someone out of CFJs entirely.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -o
>

Note that the current econ proposal requires either shinies or AP to
make CFJs without support. Also note that the Criminal Cases proto
defines reducing someone's weekly AP as an appropriate punishment for
High Faux Pas.

All that's needed to integrate your concept into that system is defining
excessive CFJs to be a Faux Pas.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Two Related Protos: Judicial Expansion and Criminal Cases

[Nic Evans]

On 07/14/17 05:45, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I agree with all of o’s opinions. I would also like to add that it could be a 
> good idea to add some form of Summary Judgement to save time for clear-cut 
> things. Also, I don’t like requiring Agoran Consent for the punishment to 
> occur. What about implement punishment and require Agoran Consent to overturn 
> punishment?

I was intending to replace the PM's Dive with a sort of Summary
Judgement where e can assign (still subject to Agoran Consent) a
punishment package without the judgement process beforehand.

I'm _strongly_ against assuming punishments work and then sorting it
out. If we take the platonic approach, that's incredibly messy. You
could be reverting a week's worth of asset creation, destruction, and
transfer alongside any agorana decisions in that time. If you do it
pragmatically (the punishment was in effect until it wasn't), then eir
assets still potentially got used for profit by other players, and eir
votes didn't count.

Automatic assignment works currently because the punishments are highly
restricted. This system has harsher maximums, and so assigning them
should be more difficult. The benefit is that punishments can be better
tailored to the crime and the perp.

As a general note, I prefer that actions in Agora have a higher standard
to perform and are consequently turned over less frequently. We play
largely platonically, and the whole 'attempt things and find out if they
worked later' ethos is very dangerous to that underpinning.

> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>> On Jul 14, 2017, at 4:24 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>>
>>> As for crimes themselves, what follows is the proto text:
>>>
>>> {
>>>
>>> Crimes are divided into Classes, and Levels. Each Class specifies
>>> general qualifications and appropriate punishments. Low Level
>>> crimes are variants that occur through negligence and/or have minimal
>>> impact on game flow. High Level crimes are variants that occur
>>> intentionally and/or have significant impact on game flow. Punishments
>>> appropriate to Low variants of a crime class are also appropriate to
>>> High variants of the same class.
>> If we move away from treating individual rule violations (SHALL/SHALL NOTs 
>> and otherwise) as crimes to a more general system, I would want to see a 
>> very clear philosophical basis for the goals of this system. I don’t have to 
>> agree with it to vote for it, but I would need to understand what it is.
>>
>> I did see that you categorized existing infractions, broadly; would it be 
>> worth codifying that somewhere, or is this to be left up to the discretion 
>> of the officer assigning the case?
>>
>>> Faux Pas is a class of crime that represents poor form and violations of
>>> procedure that do not involve abusing agreements or specially granted
>>> powers.
>>>
>>> Appropriate Low Punishments:
>>>
>>> -Cause the perp to transfer 1-5 shinies to Agora.
>>> -The perp SHALL write an apology, including up to 10 required words
>>> chosen at the Punisseor's discretion.
>> Does this recur? That is, is it a Faux Pas to fail to write such an apology?
>>
>> I would generally like to see the optional nature of apologies preserved. A 
>> Yellow Card recipient may opt not to apologize, without incurring any 
>> further punishment - but if e does, eir voting strength remains at zero for 
>> the duration. That kind of alternative community service is important: not 
>> every player is apt to write to demand, and in any case compulsory speech is 
>> morally suspect.
>>
>>> Vow Breaking is a class of crime that represents breakages of
>>> agreements.
>>>
>>> Appropriate Low Punishments:
>>>
>>> -If the crime involved not giving or receiving promised assets, cause
>>> the perp to transfer the amount (of the same type(s)) of assets
>>> promised, to the entity they were promised to.
>> This is startlingly close to the notion of an equitable remedy, in the 
>> judicial sense. You may well be reconstructing contract law, but from the 
>> courts backwards rather than from the obligations forwards.
>>
>>> Appropriate High Punishments:
>>>
>>> -If the breakage involved not giving or receiving assets, cause the perp
>>> to transfer up to twice the amount (of the same type(s)) of assets
>>> promised, to the entity they were promised to.
>> This breaks 

Re: DIS: Two Related Protos: Judicial Expansion and Criminal Cases

[Nic Evans]

On 07/14/17 03:24, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>
>> As for crimes themselves, what follows is the proto text:
>>
>> {
>>
>> Crimes are divided into Classes, and Levels. Each Class specifies
>> general qualifications and appropriate punishments. Low Level
>> crimes are variants that occur through negligence and/or have minimal
>> impact on game flow. High Level crimes are variants that occur
>> intentionally and/or have significant impact on game flow. Punishments
>> appropriate to Low variants of a crime class are also appropriate to
>> High variants of the same class.
> If we move away from treating individual rule violations (SHALL/SHALL NOTs 
> and otherwise) as crimes to a more general system, I would want to see a very 
> clear philosophical basis for the goals of this system. I don’t have to agree 
> with it to vote for it, but I would need to understand what it is.
>
> I did see that you categorized existing infractions, broadly; would it be 
> worth codifying that somewhere, or is this to be left up to the discretion of 
> the officer assigning the case?

I meant to clarify that the proposal just recategorizes existing
offenses and adds new ones. It's not meant to be a system where every
rule violation is punishable.

>
>> Faux Pas is a class of crime that represents poor form and violations of
>> procedure that do not involve abusing agreements or specially granted
>> powers.
>>
>> Appropriate Low Punishments:
>>
>> -Cause the perp to transfer 1-5 shinies to Agora.
>> -The perp SHALL write an apology, including up to 10 required words
>> chosen at the Punisseor's discretion.
> Does this recur? That is, is it a Faux Pas to fail to write such an apology?

That was the idea, that not doing an assigned apology would be
essentially some sort of contempt of court.

> I would generally like to see the optional nature of apologies preserved. A 
> Yellow Card recipient may opt not to apologize, without incurring any further 
> punishment - but if e does, eir voting strength remains at zero for the 
> duration. That kind of alternative community service is important: not every 
> player is apt to write to demand, and in any case compulsory speech is 
> morally suspect.

I find the moral argument convincing. I'll expand the rule by adding
apologies as an optional (both to assign and to do) alternative punishment.

>
>> Vow Breaking is a class of crime that represents breakages of
>> agreements.
>>
>> Appropriate Low Punishments:
>>
>> -If the crime involved not giving or receiving promised assets, cause
>> the perp to transfer the amount (of the same type(s)) of assets
>> promised, to the entity they were promised to.
> This is startlingly close to the notion of an equitable remedy, in the 
> judicial sense. You may well be reconstructing contract law, but from the 
> courts backwards rather than from the obligations forwards.

That was intentional.

>
>> Appropriate High Punishments:
>>
>> -If the breakage involved not giving or receiving assets, cause the perp
>> to transfer up to twice the amount (of the same type(s)) of assets
>> promised, to the entity they were promised to.
> This breaks down in the face of non-fungible assets, but I like the bones of 
> it. Maybe the owed asset, and one or more assets that are, collectively, of 
> approximately equal worth in the eyes of the officer?

I think it should still work with nonfungibles, but it is true that the
officer could try to transfer an asset of higher value. I'm okay with
the officer being able to make potentially 'harsh' punishments; that's
why punishments need Agoran Consent.

>
>> -If the breakage involved a Promise, the perp SHALL NOT make promises
>> for up to 4 weeks.
> I’m on the fence on this. Pledges and promises are mechanically interesting 
> and a subtle part of Agora’s texture. Quashing someone’s promises for a full 
> month seems extreme.

'Up to' as in, the officer can choose any amount of time up to that
maximum. Again, Agoran Consent should prevent excessive punishments.

>
>> -If the crime involved an office, cause the perp to resign from
>> that office.
> I’d be sad to lose the separation between the formal judgement that someone 
> is unworthy of their office and the practical punishment of being removed 
> from it. It gives officers who make serious errors of judgement or character 
> some opportunity to make amends, if the players as a whole are willing to 
> grant some clemency.

Are you against being able to assign that punishment at all? I may have
failed to make it clear, but all these punishments are just options for
the officer to assign; e doesn't have to assign all (or any) appropriate
punishments and players can reject a set of punishments. I find it
unlikely that Agora as a whole would accept a removal for a single crime
without a good reason.

>
> Overall, I like the idea.
>
> -o
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Two Related Protos: Judicial Expansion and Criminal Cases

[Nic Evans]

On 07/13/17 17:44, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 15:23 -0500, Nic Evans wrote:
>>> (I already have a good deal of text written for these, but wanted
>>> feedback on the abstracts before getting too committed.)
>>>
>>> Judicial Expansion
>>> --
>>>
>>> Players opt-in to the judge list. When a judge is needed, assign to the
>>> first on the list that isn't ineligible, then move them to the end of
>>> the list. If the proto below also passes, both CFJs and Criminal Cases
>>> are assigned using the same list, keeping the workload for judges balanced.
>> I currently try to pick appropriate judges for CFJs, while keeping
>> things balanced. I'm not necessarily opposed to this change, but it'd
>> likely lead to a more even distribution of cases to judges, which might
>> or might not be seen as a good thing. Note also that it effectively
>> allows a CFJ caller to "choose their judge" via changing the timing of
>> the CFJ.
> Do you think Favoring/Disfavoring should still be a thing in a new system?
> I'm of two minds:  on one hand I like the idea of "forcing" someone to put
> their mind to whatever comes up as it leads to diversity of opinion; on the
> other hand I think we get better judgements (and better avoid lateness
> recusals) when the judge actually cares.  Just on past experience I'd lean
> towards the latter (i.e. keeping favoring).  -G.
>
>
>
>

A compromise that I considered (and rejected just because the other is
simpler): Have three pools: Nonjudges, Available Judges, Unavailable
Judges. You can choose anyone from the Available Judges pool, which also
makes the Unavailable. When you're out of Available Judges, everyone in
the Unavailable pool becomes Available. I think there was something
similar to this when I first joined.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Two Related Protos: Judicial Expansion and Criminal Cases

[Nic Evans]

On 07/13/17 17:16, Alex Smith wrote:
> I currently try to pick appropriate judges for CFJs, while keeping
> things balanced. I'm not necessarily opposed to this change, but it'd
> likely lead to a more even distribution of cases to judges, which might
> or might not be seen as a good thing.

I have no qualms with your system as it stands, but if we have two
separate officers assigning judges, you either need coordination or
something more formal.

> Note also that it effectively
> allows a CFJ caller to "choose their judge" via changing the timing of
> the CFJ.

Good to note, but not too worrisome since we have a robust appeals system.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Two Related Protos: Judicial Expansion and Criminal Cases

[Nic Evans]

(I already have a good deal of text written for these, but wanted
feedback on the abstracts before getting too committed.)

Judicial Expansion
--

Players opt-in to the judge list. When a judge is needed, assign to the
first on the list that isn't ineligible, then move them to the end of
the list. If the proto below also passes, both CFJs and Criminal Cases
are assigned using the same list, keeping the workload for judges balanced.

Criminal Cases
--

Players can accuse each other of crimes. Weekly, an officer collects the
accusations and creates cases, each being a collection of accusations
made towards the same player (this allows accusations related to the
same action(s) to be grouped together). Then assign them to judges
(arbitrarily, or using the above). For each charge in a case, the judge
rules GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.

That same officer takes all the finished cases and creates Punishment
Packages. A Punishment Package is a list of effects, chosen from the
list of appropriate punishments for each crime, that requires Agoran
Consent. When a Punishment Package reaches Agoran Consent, its effects
apply to the perp.

As for crimes themselves, what follows is the proto text:

{

Crimes are divided into Classes, and Levels. Each Class specifies
general qualifications and appropriate punishments. Low Level
crimes are variants that occur through negligence and/or have minimal
impact on game flow. High Level crimes are variants that occur
intentionally and/or have significant impact on game flow. Punishments
appropriate to Low variants of a crime class are also appropriate to
High variants of the same class.

For any punishment that states a range, the Punisseor MAY choose any
value within the range.

Faux Pas is a class of crime that represents poor form and violations of
procedure that do not involve abusing agreements or specially granted
powers.

Appropriate Low Punishments:

-Cause the perp to transfer 1-5 shinies to Agora.
-The perp SHALL write an apology, including up to 10 required words
chosen at the Punisseor's discretion.

Appropriate High Punishments:

-Reduce the perp's weekly AP by 1-2 for up to 4 weeks.

Vow Breaking is a class of crime that represents breakages of
agreements.

Appropriate Low Punishments:

-If the crime involved not giving or receiving promised assets, cause
the perp to transfer the amount (of the same type(s)) of assets
promised, to the entity they were promised to.
-The perp SHALL write an apology, including up to 10 required words
chosen at the Inquistor's discretion.

Appropriate High Punishments:

-If the breakage involved not giving or receiving assets, cause the perp
to transfer up to twice the amount (of the same type(s)) of assets
promised, to the entity they were promised to.
-If the breakage involved an Agency created by the perp, dissolve that
Agency.
-If the breakage involved an Organization, cause the perp to no longer
be a member of that Organization.
-If the breakage involved a Promise, the perp SHALL NOT make promises
for up to 4 weeks.

Malfeasance is a class of crime that represents misuse of elevated
privileges or negligence in elevated duties, particularly those granted
by offices.

Appropriate Low Punishments:

-Cause the perp to transfer 1-10 shinies to Agora.
-The perp SHALL write an apology, including up to 10 required words
chosen at the Punisseor's discretion.

Appropriate High Punishments:

-If the crime involved an office, cause the perp to resign from
that office.

}

Thus, Low Variants are similar to Yellow Cards, whereas High variants
are more egregious.

Violations of non officer SHALLS and SHALL NOTS, Faking, Making My Eyes
Bleed, (potentially) Endorsing Forgery, and excessive NttPF posts would
be potential Faux Pas.

Vow Breaking is basically just an expansion of breaking Pledges that
adds on a way to equalize the situation.

Malfeasance is mostly for SHALLS and SHALL NOTS of offices.

I'm debating a fourth category for Endorsing Forgery and other extremely
serious crimes. Haven't decided yet.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Language Trophies

[Nic Evans]

On 06/29/2017 12:49 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>Spivak is personally important to me. I don't think I've overstated 
my feelings on this matter in the least.


OK. It's alright to have that.

I don't need your approval.
I'm just curious how that is compatible with what you've stated here: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg36544.html


>Inclusivity: Language is part of culture and identity, and I'm not 
comfortable codifying Agora's
>culture to be so exclusive. We already have measures against 
ambiguity that don't disavow entire

>tongues.

Wouldn't enforcing Spivak be making it "exclusive"? Aren't there other 
(potentially culturally-influenced) ways to express yourself? Or are 
those not alright if they don't include Spivak?


I wasn't speaking in absolute terms, at some point between 'these words 
are prefered' and 'this entire class of communication is the prestige 
system' you cross from a difference of degree to a difference of quality 
(of course, the line is impossible to really suss out).


We already have prefered words to some degree. 'Reportor' is defined, 
but it's not prohibited to use synonyms, translations, circumlocutions, 
or encipherments if other players deem them not ambiguous. But if you 
constantly avoided keywords, other players might lobby you to stop. In 
the same vein, I don't support punishments for not using Spivak, but I'm 
still going to lobby for its usage.


Broader terms: Culture and individuality is negotiated between 
individuals. When communicating with others, especially when 
communiating _about_ them, there needs to be compromise to please both 
sides. Speak only how you prefer, and you risk hurting them. Speak only 
how they prefer, and you risk hurting yourself.


And the personal note: I'm a single Agoran, so my opinion is ultimately 
my own. But Spivak represents inclusivity to me, by circumventing 
English's need to either pre-categorize people, or have them explicitly 
categorize themselves. Symbolically, losing that system feels like a 
loss of an ideal.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Language Trophies

[Nic Evans]

On 06/29/2017 12:32 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:

>Your argument is that the comfort of one person, you, outweighs
>the comfort of any other persons? And that 'needing to think of
>pronouns' is an issue singular to you, and not also everyone else?

Possibly. I could be a Utility Monster, which could be curious to explore.

I don't think that strict use of Spivak or not should that much of a 
concern, really. BlogNomic uses no Spivak at all just fine.

I don't play BlogNomic and don't really care what they do.


I think we might be blowing this thing up out of proportion too much 
lol. If I've escalated too hard, I apologize.


Spivak is personally important to me. I don't think I've overstated my 
feelings on this matter in the least.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Language Trophies

[Nic Evans]

On 06/29/2017 12:10 PM, CuddleBeam wrote:

>This, to my mind, is beyond the pale. The fact that you're unwilling
>to 'stop and think' for other people's comfort. The fact that you
>are either willfully or ignorantly conflating 'technically acceptable'
>and 'I can call people whatever I want and not care about eir
>feelings'.

Of course, and my own comfort counts too. Needing to think of pronouns 
all the time is a big headache lol. Please consider me as well.


Your argument is that the comfort of one person, you, outweighs the 
comfort of any other persons? And that 'needing to think of pronouns' is 
an issue singular to you, and not also everyone else?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer aka robin hood

[Nic Evans]

On 06/29/2017 08:51 AM, CuddleBeam wrote:
> The only way you can be carded is by 'breaking' a pledge, and the 
>only definition of 'breaking' in the rules specifies the *creator* of 
>the pledge.


No? It just says:

"Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense."

Without specifying the creator. If I'm wrong, please provide a quote 
with proves me incorrect, because I might be missing something.
That sentence defines what happens when you break a pledge. This is the 
sentence I'm refering to:


If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do 
something, without providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely 
manner in order to not break said pledge.Without this sentence, I'd agree with your common-language definition of "whoever doesn't do the thing breaks it". But that sentence specifies a way that pledges can be broken, and explicitly mentions the creator. Usually when the rules define something like this, it's taken to completely override the common-language meaning. There's no rules to that effect, IIRC, so a CFJ is reasonable but IMO unlikely to fall in your favor.