DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer pledges loyalty to the deal
CuddleBeam wrote: > So, twg was cool to not weasel out when they had the chance to, so I will > as well. I don’t know how to best do this aside from a Pledge, and I dont > want to make the N too high in case he wants to use the blot availability I > have during rental for something and this Pledge ends up being flawed > somehow (since I could be deregged for too many blots, and I dont want to > be deregged), so here goes: > > The following is a Pledge: > > “I pledge to not perform actions (while acting as myself, this doesn’t > affect me when twg is acting on my behalf) which have a clear intent to be > part of the usual gameplay of Agora nomic, without twg’s approval to do > them, as long as they are my Supermaster. This does not include > participating in commentary of the game, I can still communicate opinion > and such freely. This has a time window equal to the remaining time twg has > as my Supermaster. The N for this Pledge’s Oathbreaking Crime is 10.” I appreciate your trust! I promise (informally, because I'm not sure how or even if this sort of thing can be governed by the rules) to play the game in both our best interests, and to leave you at the end of the period with as good a game standing as possible. Relatedly, H. Arbitor, would you be willing to consider CuddleBeam as an interested judge? Or is that too suspicious a move for your tastes? (Or alternatively, swap em for me if you object on the basis that I shouldn't have twice as much precedent-setting power as everyone else.) -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Clean r2493 (Regulations)
G. wrote: > On 3/2/2020 12:54 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Mar 2, 2020, at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > >> wrote: > >> > >> Please, put some effort in though. After a request/discussion a couple > >> months ago people stopped doing it and threads became easier to read > >> again. Now it's becoming hard to read threads again. Some courtesy on > >> this would go a ways. thx for considering. > >> > >> -G. > > > > Alright, happy to. Quite frankly, I think about it occasionally, but that > > usually ends up just being “which end am I supposed to never post on > > again?” and I go with what my mail client does. I’ll try to do better. > > > > Gaelan > > > > Notice of Honour > +1 Gaelan showing willingness to work with the geezers. > -1 nch (sitting at +1 for no particular reason). > > Srsly, mail clients (esp. mobile) are making it harder and harder and I > get lazy about this too for short replies, but since we sorta started > making the effort again, it makes things (like Caller's Arguments) so much > easier to figure out esp. when there's a long conversation I want to stick > in the Gratuitous section. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. -twg Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. ~~ Top-Posting and Bottom-Posting: A Q&A ~~ Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
G. wrote: > Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow > that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening: > > > If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as > > possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and if an action > > or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type > > of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on > > its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes > > on its default value. > > I'm pretty sure that error-trapping was added after a switch ended up in > an ambiguous condition. What would y'all say to making ownership an asset switch? It would necessitate a bit of rewriting to the current asset rules, but it gives us all the anti-ambiguity safeguards that already exist for switches. A "pure" safeguard for the asset rules might look something like this: If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, or if its owner would otherwise be indeterminate or logically undecidable, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. ...but that seems inelegant compared to reusing the switch rules. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
CuddleBeam wrote: > If I tell you "you can take a cupcake", that doesn't mean you can take > ALL the cookies. It means you can take one. > > And if I say "a cupcake is a pastry", that doesn't mean that only ONE > cupcake is a pastry. It means that all cupcakes are pastries. Sure, I'm with you that both meanings are valid definitions for the word "a". It's just that I think the second one makes more sense in this context. Certainly it wins on "best interests of the game" if it prevents everyone's (except Warrigal's) coin balances from being indeterminate. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
CuddleBeam wrote: > But "a player" is just one player, no? At least that's my understanding of it. Compare, for example: > A player whose master is not emself is a zombie (syn. inactive); > all other players are active. I don't think any reasonable interpretation of the rules would conclude that exactly one player (we just don't know which one!) is be a zombie at any given time. "A player" must surely be interpretable as "each player". ...At least I hope so. Quite a lot of rules use this formulation. The scariest one I can find is "A registered person is a Player." -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On Sunday, March 1, 2020 10:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sun., Mar. 1, 2020, 17:05 Tanner Swett via agora-business, <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I submit a proposal with AI = 1, titled "Somebody gets a coin":
> > {
> > Enact a power-1 rule titled "A Coin Award":
> > {
> > When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
> > author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
> > coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
> > rule repeals itself.
> > }
> > }
> >
> > According to Rule 217, "When interpreting and applying the rules, the
> > text of the rules takes precedence", which presumably means that this
> > rule does, in fact, award a player a coin.
> >
> > It would be awfully interesting to see whether or not this rule really
> > does award a coin, and if so, who the coin is awarded to.
> >
> > —Warrigal
> >
>
> I think I know what outcome I'll argue for, at least initially, but I want
> to see if pass first.
>
> >
I'm in the "one coin for each player except Warrigal" camp, personally...
-twg
Re: [attn G.] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
I wrote: > Ah ok, gotcha. (I wasn't particularly invested in this to be clear, just > saw an opportunity and took it. Mostly in this for Cuddles' voting > strength) And also the opportunity to send a message with the subject line "OFF: [Prime Minister] humble agoran farmer distributes proposal 8349". Which would have been hilarious if it had worked out. Ah well. -twg
Re: [attn G.] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
G. wrote: > It means that someone tried it (I wasn't the first I don't think) and > there was some discussion and everyone involved agreed it worked and > no-one offered any counterarguments worthy of a CFJ. And it was tried a > time or two after that before CFJ 3688 with same results. I'll see if I > can find the first time it happened (2017-ish IIRC) but if someone has a > cogent CFJ that can always overrule. Ah ok, gotcha. (I wasn't particularly invested in this to be clear, just saw an opportunity and took it. Mostly in this for Cuddles' voting strength) I think this means: - CuddleBeam is Speaker (and therefore not a valid PM candidate) - PM is vacant - I am Laureled if nobody has any more complaints? -twg
[attn G.] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I thought about that possibility, because R2160 includes this > provision, which seems to prevent any deputisation where other rules > of any power prohibit the same action from the officeholder: > 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, > other than by deputisation, if e held the office; > That is why I included the second portion from R103, which sets the > limitations on R2472. For this reason, I think it really comes down to > two questions: (1) how the second list item in R2160 is interpreted > with regards to lower-powered restrictions, and (2) how the exception > to R2160 in R103 is interpreted with regards to your message. Hmm, this does sound plausible. The most recent precedent is CFJ 3688, in which G. wrote: > I accept the Caller's arguments that e was Prime Minister at the time of > eir attempted action, and thus generally able to issue Cabinet Orders, as > there is game consensus and past practice that implies that e became PM > successfully. (https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33078.html) Unfortunately, I don't know what "game consensus and past practice" e was referring to, and e didn't cite any other CFJs by number. So we may need eir help to figure it out. Disturbingly, if it failed, then CuddleBeam is still Speaker and couldn't become a PM candidate! I may need to do the whole set of actions over again, this time without deputisation, in order to bring about convergence... -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > twg deputised for the Prime Minister and it was not noted as a > temporary deputisation, therefore e became Prime Minister. However, e > also made emself Speaker. One of these was not possible, according to > R2472, which states, "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player > CANNOT be installed into an office if doing so would make em > Overpowered." However, if one of these wasn't possible, then the other > was. This seems to create a paradox. R2472 (Office Incompatibilities) is Power-2, whereas R2160 (Deputisation) is Power-3 and overrides it. This gets exploited every now and again (mostly by G., IIRC), but has never been fixed for precisely this reason - all the simple ways of fixing it cause paradoxes. > Either way, I demand resignation from twg with notice. I also ENDORSE > CuddleBeam in the election for Prime Minister. I believe that this > obligates twg to give me 600 coins, but will hold off on a CFJ until > someone contests it. Unfortunately, I think you are not eligible to vote because you were not a player when the voting period began. -twg
Re: DIS: [proto] Fix zombie auctions
Jason wrote: > Perhaps relevant: CFJ 3762 [0], which concluded both that a person CAN > perform a certain action and that that action is IMPOSSIBLE. Warrigal wrote: > My interpretation of the Honorable twg's ruling is that since the > rules say that the action CAN be taken, but the criteria for taking > the action are impossible to fulfill, the action is both POSSIBLE and > IMPOSSIBLE. As part of eir justification for this, e stated that, by > Rule 217 "Interpreting the Rules", "it is perfectly acceptable to > conclude an absurdity from provisions in the rules". A small correction to both of you: I didn't say that the action was "both POSSIBLE and IMPOSSIBLE" (which, I agree, would be oxymoronic). "IMPOSSIBLE" is a rule-defined term with a specific definition that is not precisely equivalent to the ordinary-language word "impossible". The action in question in CFJ 3762 was impossible (i.e., players were physically unable to attempt it, because of out-of-game mathematical laws), yet POSSIBLE (i.e., if a player somehow _had_ attempted it, the rules indicated that the attempt would have been EFFECTIVE). The situation in CFJ 3817 is not analogous, because there was no out-of- game condition preventing an attempt to perform the action in question, and indeed Falsifian actually did attempt to perform it. The CFJ was only about whether or not that attempt was EFFECTIVE. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8342-8348
sukil wrote: > Let's see if I get this straight now. Proposals and elections (except > for first condition in election initiation) are not dependent actions, > because they are not governed (by definition) by these restrictions > (consent, support, etc.). Things such as impeaching a player are > dependent actions. Counterintuitive, but fine, I screwed up again. I > apologise for asking these dumb questions again. They're not dumb at all! Asking questions is the best way to learn, and everyone here made mistakes when e first registered. You're correct: if an action is governed by the restrictions in Rule 1728, then it is a dependent action; otherwise it is not. In general, explicit definitions in the rules take priority over everything else, even common sense! As Rule 217 says: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. This might seem unintuitive at first, but it's one of the core principles of Agora and I'm sure you will get used to it. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] End of February zombie auction
Falsifian wrote: > I pay Agora a fee of 11 Coins to satisfy my auction debt. > > (If the auction didn't happen, I vaguely remember some discussion > concluding this announcement doesn't do anything. I guess it depends > whether I triggered the "Upon such an announcement" in R2579. Maybe > not, since my announcement doesn't specify a "correct set of assets" > and I'm probably not "otherwise permitted to perform the action" of > satisfying my auction debt since I have none.) Based on my own vague memory of the discussion in question and the recent CFJ judgement that the auction was never initiated, I believe Falsifian's announcement here was INEFFECTIVE. Without (informal) objection I intend to disregard it in the next Treasuror report. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3810 Assigned to Jason
G. wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:01 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 14:40, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:26 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > > Rule 478/37 states that 'To "publish" or "announce" something is to send > > > > a public message whose body contains that thing'. Because of this > > > > definition, it is generally IMPOSSIBLE to act on behalf of another > > > > person to "publish" information, since that would be acting on behalf to > > > > send a message, which is prohibited by Rule 2466. > > > > > > This reads to me like it forbids acting on behalf to vote (R693 > > > "publishing a notice") or publish officers' reports (R2143 > > > "publication of all such information"). Would you agree your ruling > > > extends to these cases? > > > > I would interpret this as applying to reports for sure, but less > > certain about voting, as that's explicitly an action, so it's > > distinguished. It might well have the same result, of course. > > Ah I see, the distinction between "doing X by publishing a notice" and > "publishing a notice, which has the effect of causing X". Makes sense > (potentially - I also wouldn't try to predict the outcome). Not necessarily going to dispute the judgement, but I don't like its implications. It seems to suggest that the effect of the rule is different solely because it's phrased in the passive voice rather than the active, which is frankly unintuitive. Certainly the CAN, which the judgement says is extraneous, seems to imply that karma transferral was _intended_ to be an "action performed by publishing a notice" rather than an "effect of publishing a notice". -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3815 judged TRUE (𝐸𝓃𝑔𝓁𝒾𝓈𝒽 𝒾𝓃 𝒶 𝒸𝑜𝑜𝓁 𝒻𝑜𝓃𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝐸𝓃𝑔𝓁𝒾𝓈𝒽.)
G. wrote: > keep the nonstandard characters limited "Nonstandard"? Unicode has been around since before I was born - seems to me your software has had plenty of time to update... 😛 -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] The Ribbon Bar
Jason wrote: > Hmm... Seeing as I have never previously owned a White Ribbon, I award > myself White Glitter. To be eligible for Glitter of any colour you need to have owned that Ribbon within the past 7 days (that's what the "Otherwise" near the end of R2438 does). Which doesn't work with White, unless I'm missing something. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Re-renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-8341
Alexis wrote: > I think I missed something. Why does broken zombie auctions mean that > you own the zombies? Jason already replied about eirs, but as for me, my zombie's master switch self-ratified a while back. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Re-renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-8341
I wrote: > > 8325e Falsifian2.0 Inflation Vote > Conditional: AGAINST if Falsifian votes AGAINST; otherwise PRESENT. > (Remaining officially neutral as Treasuror.) > NB: Your definition of "Median" does not match the usual mathematical > definition for cases where there are an even number of ballots. For > example, for [1, 1000, 3000, 300], it picks 3000. Ah, I just re-read the proposal and realised you explicitly called that out as being intentional. I apologise. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] Leaving the bourgeoisie
Jason wrote: > Since we're probably about to remove this method of winning, I pay a fee > of 1000 coins to win the game. Goddammit, all I wanted was a platinum ribbon -twg
Re: DIS: reply-to headers always pointing to this list
omd wrote: > Yep, but speaking as the Distributor, I think it would be nice to have > better documentation. (Not necessarily volunteering to write it > though. ;)) Yes, we seem to periodically come up with lists of non-obvious Agoran nuances that it would be good to put in a FAQ on the website, and then not do anything with them... -twg, who is equally unwilling to put the effort in
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
So it is, thank you - I marked all the zombie auction stuff as "uncertain, revisit later" and never did. Revision forthcoming. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, February 14, 2020 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > Also missing my transfer from o: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-February/042174.html > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:16 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org wrote: > > > On 2/14/20 1:31 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-official wrote: > > > > > 1048Jason > > > > > > > CoE: I believe this is missing my transfer from Rance at 0. > > -- > > Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8308-8321
Jason wrote: > On 2/12/20 9:17 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > PROPOSAL 8317 (Zombie trade) > > FOR (5): Alexis%, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg& > > AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o > > PRESENT (0): > > BALLOTS: 11 > > AI (F/A): 21/19 (AI=1.0) > > OUTCOME: ADOPTED > > Out of curiosity, what the reward have been if this had passed? Would > the author have lost a coin or would nothing happen when e was granted > the reward? CFJ 3703 suggests the latter. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Promotor] Renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-3341
Jason wrote: > On 2/13/20 12:00 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > Fucking hell. I didn't even fix the numbers. I'm so stressed out about > > my mistake that I only fixed half the problem. I am so sorry everyone. > > This is truly mortifying. > > > It's alright! I have no complaints about the work you've done since I've > been here, and I certainly can't claim to have made no mistakes myself. Seconded. (actually I think... "fourthed", now? whatever.) If I can get away with breaking rewards for two weeks then I think you can survive misplacing some digits. Especially if all your mistakes are going to be as amusing as this one. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Birthday
sukil wrote: > Me too! Hi sukil, welcome to Agora! You sent this to the main Discussion Forum (agora-discussion@agoranomic.org), whereas you probably meant to send it to the main Public Forum (agora-busin...@agoranomic.org). Messages sent to a discussion forum have no in-game effect, because it's useful for us to have a way to talk about the game without actually performing in-game actions. The details about fora are in Rule 478, and you can find a list of fora in the Registrar's weekly report, which is published online here: https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/ -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Statement on Proposal 8311's Effect
I wrote: > Jason: >5Reward (assessing proposals, w/c 27 Jan) > 20Indigo Glitter (Baccalaureate of Nomic) [disputed by CFJ] >5Reward (CFJ 3788) > 14Blue Glitter (CFJ 3788) >5Reward (Rulekeepor weekly, w/c 10 Feb) >- > 49 CoE: Jason also receives 5 coins for assessing proposals w/c 10 Feb, because e resolved proposals 8308-8310 before 8311 passed. Accepted. Revision: Jason: 5Reward (assessing proposals, w/c 27 Jan) 20Indigo Glitter (Baccalaureate of Nomic) [disputed by CFJ] 5Reward (CFJ 3788) 14Blue Glitter (CFJ 3788) 5Reward (Rulekeepor weekly, w/c 10 Feb) 5Reward (assessing proposals, w/c 10 Feb) - 54 -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Last minute proposals
Alexis wrote:
> Proposal: The Paradox of Self-Appointment (AI=1, chamber=Participation)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 103 (The Speaker) by inserting
> {
> If the Prime Minister is emself Laureled, eir power to appoint a
> Speaker continues for the entirety of a message in which e resigns as
> Prime Minister, and if e is the only Laureled player, e CAN void that
> power, and thereby discharge the obligation to use it, by announcing
> that e declines to take the office.
> }
>
> at the end of the second paragraph, and by moving the first two
> sentences of the second paragraph to the first paragraph.
> }}}
Would it not be simpler to just say "If the Prime Minister is Laureled,
then e NEED NOT appoint emself Speaker, and doing so causes the office
of Prime Minister to become vacant"?
-twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
G. wrote: > On 2/10/2020 3:09 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Murphy wrote: > >> Alexis wrote: > >> > >>> I intend, with 2 Support, to initiate an election for each of the > >>> following offices: > >>> > >>> * Assessor, as I'm dissatisfied with the sparse content of resolutions; > >>> * Notary, as it is a brand new office; > >>> * Rulekeepor, as it is interim; and > >>> * Prime Minister, as it is interim. > >> > >> I support each of the last three. > > > > For each of the last three, I support and do so. > > > > Note the "provided..." bit in R2154: > > > > A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office: > > > > a) with 2 support, if either the office is interim or the most > >recent election for that office was resolved more than 90 days > >prior, and provided that the initiator becomes a candidate in > >the same message. > Oh, good point. In that case I guess I supported but didn't do so. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
Alexis wrote: > I will be treating this as invalid, per R2510: > > > A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. ... When a Notice of Honour is > > published... > > and R2466: > > > ... A person CANNOT act > > on behalf of another person to do anything except perform a game > > action; in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another > > person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that > > might be taken within a message. > > Since publishing a document an out-of-game action with in-game effect, > I believe it cannot be done via acting on behalf. > > I'm happy to accept a CFJ on it if you disagree. Hmm, interesting one! We've all been doing this for ages without ever questioning whether it was actually POSSIBLE. As far as I can tell, the earliest usage was by D. Margaux in 2018 (https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg32681.html), but nobody CFJed it because we got distracted by a related CFJ from Trigon (later withdrawn? can't find any record of it in G.'s archive) and an argument between Aris and G. Definitely worth a judgement. On balance, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. The effect of a Notice of Honour is "considered to be a 'transfer' of karma" (R2510), and asset transfers are undeniably a game action; it would be a bit of a stretch to argue that karma transfers are not. So although publication itself is excluded from acting-on-behalf, I would argue that karma transfers are perfectly kosher, and therefore that "[an] agent CAN perform the action in the same manner in which the principal CAN do so" (R2466) - i.e. by means of publishing a Notice of Honour. I CFJ, barring Alexis: "It is generally POSSIBLE to act on behalf of a zombie to transfer karma." -twg
Re: DIS: [Assessor] Request for office confirmation
Alexis wrote: > Gaelan is Notary. Notary doesn't have a ministry yet, though. Although I suppose it will come to have one partway though the resolution... We seem to be intent on making proposals that are difficult to resolve, don't we? -twg
DIS: Re: [proposal] Re: BUS: Redecoration
G. wrote: > On 2/8/2020 5:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > * I act on behalf of Bernie to award myself a White Ribbon. > > > > This is one of the few things that can permanently and adversely affect a > player's future participation while e's a zombie, as most other things can > be undone. It's a valuable thing, too (I didn't do this with Bernie or > Rance for this reason). Fine to keep it, but let's shut the door, and > give it back to Bernie as well? Oh, I'm sorry! It's precisely because nobody's done it (recently?) that it didn't occur to me it would be controversial. Totally on board with this proposal. -twg
DIS: Re: (all recent threads marked "attn Treasuror")
Murphy wrote: > Proposal 8295 moved office salary reporting to the ADoP. > > Wed Jan 29 2020 03:26:29 UTC - initial alleged resolution > Sat Feb 1 2020 02:24:44 UTC - CoE accepted, corrected resolution > > I grant 5 coins to each of these players for publishing these reports Jason wrote: > Oh, right, I have to do this now: [...] These all fail because R2496 lacks a "by announcement". Proposal 8311 will fix this and award the missed coins. Don't worry, I'm keeping track. -twg
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3806 Assigned to Gaelan
G. wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3806. I assign it to Gaelan.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3806
>
> === CFJ 3806 ===
>
> In the attached message, I submitted a public petition to the
> ADoP, as described by Rule 2143.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:twg
>
> Judge: Gaelan
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by twg:30 Jan 2020 01:37:47
> Assigned to Gaelan: [now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> I wrote:
> > Gaelan wrote:
> >> NOTARY'S REPORT OF JANUARY 29 2020
> >
> > Ooh, just occurred to me you don't have a Ministry set! That probably
> > wants doing. I reckon Economy probably fits best, since the Ministries
> > rule specifically calls out contracts ("private enterprise") as falling
> > under Economy.
> >
> > Only the ADoP can do that though, which might be tricky with Murphy
> > absent (hope e's ok). Proposal, or is this not that urgent?
> >
> > -twg
>
> ==
Gratuitous:
It's not been published in the SLR yet, but Rule 2143 was amended by
Proposal 8302 to add the following text:
> If an office has a discretionary power, and a player publicly petitions
> the officer to apply that power in a specific case or manner, the officer
> SHALL publicly respond in a timely fashion.
My message above clearly identifies (a) an action, (b) the relevant
circumstances, (c) the fact that I thought the action ought to be taken
and (d) the officer for whom the action is a discretionary power, but it
stops short of (e) an actual imperative instruction to the officer.
So the core question is - is part (e) actually required for a message to
be considered a petition? (And I have no idea what the answer is.)
-twg
Re: DIS: [Assessor] Request for office confirmation
Jason wrote: > Because there hasn't been an ADoP report in over a month (I hope > Murphy's okay), I'd just like to confirm office holdings because the > assessments depend on it: > > The latest report is at [0]. As far as I know, the changes from then are: > > * Herald is held by Alexis. > * Prime Minister is held by Alexis. > * Treasuror is held by twg > * Tailor is held by twg > > > Is that all that has happened? > > > [0]: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-January/013318.html Yes, that matches the list I came up with for Payday. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3805 judged TRUE
CuddleBeam wrote: > I pop into Agora and I find this lmao > > What is going on lol https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3805 -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
I wrote:
> I object to the capitalisation one for the same reason as Alexis.
>
> I object to the lists one because the example given is very confusing.
> It's not an inline list because it's separated from the surrounding
> prose, and it's not a block list because the elements aren't separated
> by line breaks. And why are those spacing restrictions needed anyway
> when R2429 lets you, as Rulekeepor, change spacing freely?
>
> I support the pronouns one, although I think it could do with amending
> to specify the other declensions ("eir", "eirs", "emself") too.
Sorry, this comes across more negative than I intended. I do support
editorial guidelines in general and I approve of the things you're
trying to do with them! - just that these could do with a bit more
drafting.
-twg
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Last Week in Agora
Falsifian wrote: > Welcome Tcbapo! > > A lot happened last week. twg won the game the hard way. Many parts of > the rules are changed after the adoption of twelve proposals, and > voting began on several more, including ways to make the decision > process smoother. The Herald invents the Patent Title of Little Ricky > Tables (read why below), and a degree is being awarded. > > The usual combination of proposals, CFJs and other rules questions are > discussed, along with a Prophecy of Doom and our first official > Editorial Guidelines. > > A game of blackjack continues, showing that many are eager to have fun > even while all this Serious Business is afoot. I really like this new summary section! Gives a great high-level view of what's going on. -twg -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Let's deal with the temporary rules.
Falsifian wrote:
> Sigh. I repeal Blink test v1.1 and submit:
>
> Title: Blink test v1.2
> AI: 1
> Chamber: Legislation
> Co-authors: Jason
> Text: {
>
> Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
>
> If this is the only paragraph in this rule, and it has been at
> least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player
> CAN Close the Eye by announcement. When that happens, this rule
> repeals itself.
>
> }
NttPF.
-twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
Jason wrote: > CoE: this leaves out he Payday coins. Sorry. I even remembered it, just confused it with the broken things. Roll on Friday morning. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: OFF: [Herald] Thesis Committee for twg
Warrigal wrote: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, 23:54 Tanner Swett via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award twg the Patent Title of > > > Baccalaureate of Nomic, subject to the conditions that the person > > > performing the award pursuant to this intent is the Herald, the previous > > > intent has not been resolved, and the ratio of supporters to objectors of > > > this intent is equal to or greater than that of the following intent. > > > > I object. > > > > To be clear, I object to Alexis's intend; I do not myself intend to award a > patent title. (One of the block quote marks got dropped.) I mean, if you want to award me the patent title "Baccalaureate of Nomic, subject to the conditions that the person performing the award pursuant to this intent is the Herald, the previous intent has not been resolved, and the ratio of supporters to objectors of this intent is equal to or greater than that of the following intent.", I'm hardly going to complain... -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
Alexis wrote: > On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:22, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On 2/1/20 7:20 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > I submit a proposal as follows: > > > > > > Title: Unrepetition > > > AI: 3 > > > Chamber: Efficiency > > > > > > Perhaps the H. Promotor should order this first in the batch so that the > > other proposals have a definite ruleset to work with? If not, I'll try > > to remember to resolve it first. > > You need to specify the order of rule changes. Also, not only does Legislation seem relatively uncontroversially to be a more appropriate chamber, but AI 3.0 proposals are always Democratic anyway. (proposal idea seems good in principle, though.) -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
G. wrote: > Pasted that one in the 3805 record, still getting bad line breaks it looks > like unless I made a copy/paste error? I could alter line breaks by hand but > I'm purposefully not gonna help you there (this is a script insertion > challenge not a social engineering challenge...) Mm, looks like because of the indentation, there are only 68 characters per line to work with, not 72. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
Jason wrote: > I know this is probably unnecessarily pedantic You are talking to a group of people who spend an appreciable fraction of their free time arguing about the proper interpretation of a twenty-seven-year-old set of rules governing the allowable use of a mailing list. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Finite Gifting
G. wrote: > awww - i'd seen that and my birthday is Feb 4th Same, though it sounds like it wouldn't have gone unnoticed until May anyway... You can still use it, though! No chance of the proposal passing before then, barring shenanigans. -twg
Re: DIS: Some thoughts on pragmatism and accounting
Aleixs wrote: > I think that Warrigal's concerns are valid. The only reason that the asset > rules work so well is because they've been well-tested and worked out. > Changing the base away from them to something else is entirely viable; it > would require care and likely plenty of time while things get worked out, > but there's no reason it couldn't be done. And more importantly, perhaps, a > highly pragmatic system would make this less of a concern. While I agree the asset rules' smoothness is a result of their maturity rather than some inherent benefit of the model itself, I don't think it's reasonably possible for fault people for not wanting to change something that is proven to work when new things so rarely work properly at the first time of asking. In my opinion, both this and Warrigal's initial complaint about parallel gamestates sometimes having to be recorded share the root cause that when bugs make it past the proposal process, it's not possible to fix them quickly enough to stop inconsistencies from propagating. We desperately need some way of testing rule changes, especially complex ones, before they are enacted. -twg
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
Jason Cobb wrote: > RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8287-8307 > = > > I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals. NB: The F/A ratios on several of Proposals 8292-8307, and on the second attempt at 8290, are incorrect because they do not take into account the amendments to voting strength made by Proposal 8291. To be specific, Alexis's voting strength falls to 3 because the Prime Minister now only receives a bonus (which itself is now of 2, not 1) on proposals with a ministry set, which none of these do, and G.'s voting strength rises to 4 because the Speaker now receives a bonus on all decisions. This is not a formal CoE because I don't believe it changes the outcome of any of the votes. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
Aris wrote: > For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran > culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. It’s > part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a dialectal > variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not just its own > terminology, is pretty awesome. Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Tbh I think Falsifian expressed it well when e talked about seeing the ruleset as some sort of ancient relic - the things like "-or" suffixes, Spivak pronouns, CAN/SHOULD/MUST, "in a timely fashion", etc. are all pieces of history reflecting how the game came to be the way it is. Heck, even a very small amount of the language from the prototypical Nomic is still in the current ruleset! > All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then > in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on > the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the > spirit of the game before applying other standards. https://web.archive.org/web/20200110101829/http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm (then again, there's also this:) > Judgments in Nomic are not bound by rules of precedent, for that would > require a daunting amount of record-keeping for each game. -twg
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
Falsifian wrote: > I was hesitent to raise this morbid concern, but now that the subject > has been broached, are dead former players persons? R869 would seem to > say no. This may affect the accuracy of Tailor reports. https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg45140.html (petered out with no conclusion) -twg
Re: DIS: Reply-To Headers
I wrote: > Alexis wrote: > > Is it intentional that the Reply-To headers for messages include the > > original author? I always take them out. > > To my knowledge, this isn't a general list problem - it only happens to > messages from me. Still unclear exactly why, although I blame my email > provider, which has historically done some crazy shit wrt Agora. Incidentally, nch, who used the same provider, had the same problem, so my blame is not just based on a general feeling of antipathy... -twg
Re: DIS: Reply-To Headers
Alexis wrote: > Is it intentional that the Reply-To headers for messages include the > original author? I always take them out. To my knowledge, this isn't a general list problem - it only happens to messages from me. Still unclear exactly why, although I blame my email provider, which has historically done some crazy shit wrt Agora. -twg
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
omd wrote: > However, I vaguely remember having proposed this in the past, and > someone objecting to it. But I can't find the thread; searching for > "scrapers", only this thread comes up. I could be misremembering. Is this it? https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg29597.html -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
G. wrote: > CoE on coin balances: missing blackjack payments? Oh yes. Somehow it didn't register with me that those were actual game actions. :P Revision forthcoming. -twg
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
Matthew Berlin wrote: > A custom Agora blockchain for the ruleset and BUS actions? It seems to me that an equally efficient, and somewhat lower-tech, solution would be for several different people to keep copies of the archives using the link omd provided upthread. Of course this doesn't protect against a situation where every person who plays the game dies simultaneously, but there are limits to what we can make contingencies for. Also relevant: CFJs 3411-3412. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)
Alexis wrote: > I'm not sold on this, or on the precedent. > > R2125 is clear that actions can only be performed by the methods > *explicitly* specified. It seems to me that it closes the door to methods > of performing actions being specified by implication, even by necessary > implication. I think it requires a conclusion that zombies are broken (cf. > the text of the rules taking precedence). I would have said that auction-as-a-method was *explicitly* specified, just not *clearly* specified. IOW, although its meaning is probably not obvious on a cursory inspection - and I don't think it was the intention of the original author, either - I don't see any other plausible interpretation of the text in R2545. "An Auction is a way" (syn. method) "for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency"; it just *is*, there's no subjectivity or subtle implication to it. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8280-8286
Alexis wrote: > Blatant attempt to sneak something Gaelan missed: I CFJ on "Gaelan > CAN, by announcement, award emself the patent title of 'The > Powerless'.", requesting linked assignment with the CFJ upthread. your thought being that the award can be made repeatedly? -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
Alexis wrote: > Two questions: > > First, twg, are you satisfied with the draft as it is? There do not seem to > have been any substantive comments from peer review so I believe we could > proceed with the award soon. Yes, a few days ago I mentioned I was thinking of making some minor additions, but tbh I think it stands well enough on its own. And I like the sense of authenticity lent by the whole thing having been written in a single draft. By all means proceed with the proceedings. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: I register
Aris wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business > wrote: > > > I, R. Lee, do register > > > > Welcome back! I cause R. Lee to receive a Welcome Package. Err. I find no evidence that R. Lee deregistered since e was last here, so I think this fails. E isn't even a zombie yet... -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [attn: ADoP] Whither the Agoran economy?
G. wrote: > I'm *slightly* concerned on this because I think that deputizing for > someone who isn't yet late is slightly rude, as the officer should be > given discretion on when to do stuff without being pushed that hard > (except for special circumstances). I don't disagree, but in this case the nomination period in fact ended nine days ago, on the 15th. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [attn: ADoP] Whither the Agoran economy?
G. wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:44 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > G. wrote: > > > No deputisation needed if there's only 1 candidate, R2154: > > > > > > > If at any point an uncontested election has a single candidate, > > > > then any player CAN by announcement declare em the winner of the > > > > election, thereby causing em to win the election. > > > > You're correct, but doing it that way wouldn't discharge Murphy's > > obligation to resolve it (leaving em REQUIRED to do something that's no > > longer POSSIBLE), which seems a little unfair. Also, more to the point, > > it wouldn't get me any cyan glitter. :P > > Which REQUIREMENT are you talking about? It's pretty clear to me that > the clauses (1) and (2) in R2154 are written to absolve the ADoP from > the duty if it's no longer POSSIBLE (but if my reading is wrong and > it's broken, pls. explain as it should be fixed). Oh, hmm, you might be right. I initially interpreted it as (∃t: P(t)) ⇒ (∀s≥t: R(s)) but yeah, I suppose it could also be seen as ∀t: (P(t) ⇒ R(t)) where P(t) means that, at time t, it is POSSIBLE to end the election early; R(t) means that, at time t, the ADoP is REQUIRED to end the election early if e hasn't already. It all depends on whether "If POSSIBLE" means "If currently POSSIBLE" or "If POSSIBLE when the requirement was created". I don't see that it's 100% unambiguous, but your reading definitely wins on "common sense" and "best interests of the game". Point about glitter stands, though. Not that it's worth terribly much, but it's a non-zero amount and I don't see any other incentives either way. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [attn: ADoP] Whither the Agoran economy?
G. wrote: > No deputisation needed if there's only 1 candidate, R2154: > > > If at any point an uncontested election has a single candidate, > > then any player CAN by announcement declare em the winner of the > > election, thereby causing em to win the election. You're correct, but doing it that way wouldn't discharge Murphy's obligation to resolve it (leaving em REQUIRED to do something that's no longer POSSIBLE), which seems a little unfair. Also, more to the point, it wouldn't get me any cyan glitter. :P -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8287-8307
G. wrote: > > 8293 Bernie, twg 1.0 CFJ Bait > AGAINST. Only natural persons can register so this fails off the > bat unless I miss something - not particularly interesting. The first sentence yes, but none of the others are expressly conditional on that working :) Several of the others probably fail for similar reasons but afaict "I grant myself 9 coins" meets the tests Aris outlined in eir judgement on your version, which means several of the "I transfer X coins" may work too. Genuinely have no idea what results it has if any. -twg
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Aris wrote: > Here's a draft. The actual report will be about a day late; I > sincerely apologize for my tardiness, and I hope the extra day won't > cause significant trouble. Given how big this distribution has turned > out to be, I don't feel comfortable sending this out without a draft > to catch errors. The indentation has gone slightly askew in 8292 and 8295. In 8295 this actually changes the meaning of the first part of the proposal! This is at least partially my fault for using multiple levels of indentation in the first place - I shall add more punctuation in the future, instead. The attributes for 8297 have been repeated in 8298. I don't see any other errors. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Warranty
Gosh! This is all a much more positive reaction than I was expecting. Aris wrote: > However, you have convinced me to vote on your proposals on their > merits until the loopholes within them are actually located. Thank you. I hope you won't regret your decision. > I assure you that I will be looking through them at some point and > trying to find those loopholes, which I believe almost certainly > exist, myself. Perhaps I'm pushing my luck here, but supposing you _did_ come across such a thing and were willing to disclose it to me privately instead of publicising it, I'm sure some sort of compensation could be arranged... (Sorry. I'll stop with the Bond villain antics for now.) > I apologize for the capitalization error and will make an effort to be > more diligent in the future. Please don't worry too much about it! It's an incredibly small thing, which you had no way of knowing in the first place anyway. I was divided about whether to even mention it. G. wrote: > To me it reads, not like a careful legal analysis, but likw an impassioned > but reasoned plea to a jury of 12 on behalf of the accused, a rare thing > given that our judicial system is not an adversarial one. But it is > definitely a skill very much in keeping with the practice of the law. > > I think I'd defer to twg (choice of J.N or Bachelors) but would support > either. I'm with Aris on this one: the J.N. was supposed to be for seminal CFJ judgements that double as theses, so I don't think it would be appropriate here. Beyond that, I feel it would be uncouth to engage further in the discussion, except to express gratitude for your praise and the titles proffered. ... ...nd, maybe, if it please m'lud, to request that at least the degree intent, if not also the separate title, be delayed for a further, oh, say, four to five days? For purely self-serving reasons, I admit. > Oh, and on peer-review: having read it, I can think of no edits. This is a > gem. Well done. Not even to suggest pointing out the Town Fountain and Royal Parade in the part where I talk about honouring interesting/memorable scams? I'm kicking myself for forgetting to mention them, as basically the most prominent memorials of gameplay past. Ah well. ais523 wrote: > > I trusted (and still trust) em not to unnecessarily wreak havoc on > > Agora if and when e is successful at perpetrating one. > > I'm intrigued at the suggestion that there may be times when wreaking > havoc on Agora is necessary. Mostly I included the qualifier on the basis that, without it, some pedant would undoubtedly have complained about the hypothetical existence of such a scenario. I guess I can't win :P -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal dump
Alexis wrote: > > Amend Rule 217, "Interpreting the Rules", by inserting "authorial > > intent," after "past judgements,". > > Quite opposed; this would require judges to read mailing lists to determine > intent. Fair enough! Like I said, mostly there to provoke discussion. Would you feel differently if the Rulekeepor kept references to relevant discussions? > > - Otherwise, if e has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or > > the corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or > > came to qualify for that type of Ribbon, e CAN, by > > announcement, award emself that type of Glitter. > > > > This would not allow multiple Glitter awards for consecutive Ribbons, e.g. > from a series of proposals (except for the Assessor). Is this intentional? It intentionally replicates the current behaviour. I suspect _that_ was unintentional, but I figure it'd be better to wait and see what people think the behaviour should be when G.'s CFJ about it resolves than try to "fix" it now. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: blatant Lime bait
Alexis wrote: > Repeal rule 2603 or provide a manner for determining the office's holder, > as there's currently no way for that office to be held. R1006, last para. It's meant to be a penalty for proposal authors who define switches without specifying who, if anybody, should track them. > Amend the Prime Minister's voting strength bonus to be more meaningful. pls vote for Interesting Chambers c: -twg
Fw: Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v3
G. wrote: > *sigh* I'm hoping this isn't another mailing list problem, but I'm not > seeing the original email containing Gaelan's quote anywhere (via searching > my inbox or looking through the mailman archives). I'm curious what > unsavory things I shouldn't be doing today... It's not you - my mail provider is still sending out dodgy Reply-To headers, so Gaelan accidentally sent eir reply straight to me instead of to the list. Forwarded below. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, January 17, 2020 4:53 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Comments inline > > Gaelan > > >> On Jan 17, 2020, at 6:27 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Gaelan wrote: > >> Any reason we don’t just define this within the rules? Isn’t something > >> that should need to change except when offices change, so we can just do > >> this by proposal. > > > > Not particularly, but Aris preferred it the other way and I can't please > > everyone :P > > Fair enough. > > > > >> The proposal pool is only proposals that haven’t started voting, right? > >> I think this lets the Promotor avoid eir proposals being democratic by > >> creating them and starting voting in the same message. > > > > I can't imagine the current Promotor doing that, but you're right that > > it could be a very short length of time in which proposals can be > > democratised. Probably worth extending it until the end of the voting > > period. > > Yeah, not trying to insinuate that the current officers would do anything. > But we do occasionally have unsavory officers (as well as the possibility of > a cultural shift towards taking advantage of office powers), and we’re skills > be prepared for that. > > I’m not sure extending to the end of the voting period is any better, though. > The current H. Asor would never abuse it, of course, but still don’t want > it open for abuse. > > > Same thing applies to a proposal's chamber. > > > >> Maybe just make them all untracked and then list it as information that > >> needs to be included when proposals are started/resolved. > > > > Good idea. > > > >> I don’t think there’s any mechanism to remove the chamber once it’s been > >> set, even if the proposal becomes democratic. > > > > Chamber is defined as an "ordinary proposal switch", so democratic > > proposals don't have a chamber at all, even one set to "unset". > > Yep, that works. Thought I checked for that, oops. > > > > > -twg > > > > --- > > > > Title: Interesting Chambers v3.1 > > AI: 3.0 > > Author: // any volunteers? > > Co-authors: Trigon, Aris, Gaelan, G., Jason Cobb, twg > > > > > > Enact a new Rule of Power 2.0, entitled "Ministries", with the following > > text: > > > > A Ministry is an entity defined as such by this rule. Each > > Ministry has a goal. The Ministries of Agora, and their goals, are > > as follows: > > > > A. Ministry of Justice: serve justice to rulebreakers > > B. Ministry of Efficiency: see official duties performed swiftly > > C. Ministry of Legislation: see votes cast on proposals > > D. Ministry of Participation: reward players for achievements > > E. Ministry of Economy: encourage economic activity and contracts > > > > Interest is an office switch, tracked by the ADoP, whose possible > > values are lists of ministries, defaulting to the empty list. The > > ADoP CAN flip an office's interest without objection. > > > > For each item of each office's interest, that office's holder's > > voting strength is increased by 2 on proposals whose chamber is > > set to that ministry. > > > > > > Enact a new Rule of Power 2.0, entitled "Proposal Classes", with the > > following text: > > > > Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have an > > untracked Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default) > > and democratic. > > > > When a proposal with an adoption index greater than 2.0 is > > created, its class becomes democratic. > > > > Any player CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip an ordinary proposal's > > class to democratic, provided that it is in the Proposal Pool or > > that there is an Agoran decision on its adoption whose voting > > period has not yet ended. > > > > > > Enact a new Rule of Power 2.0, entitled "Proposal Chambers", with the > > following text: > > > > Chamber is an untracked ordinary proposal switch whose possible > > values include unset (the default) and each of the ministries of > > Agora. > > > > A proposal's chamber SHOULD only be decided by which ministry's > > goals it effects to the greatest degree. // > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/effect#Verb > > > > Any player CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip the chamber of an > > ordinary proposal to any ministry, provided that it is in the > > Proposal Pool or that there is an Agoran decision on its adoption > > whose voting period has not yet ended. > > > > > > Amend Rule 1607, "Distribut
Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v3
Gaelan wrote: > Yeah, not trying to insinuate that the current officers would do > anything. But we do occasionally have unsavory officers (as well as the > possibility of a cultural shift towards taking advantage of office > powers), and we’re skills be prepared for that. > > I’m not sure extending to the end of the voting period is any better, > though. The current H. Asor would never abuse it, of course, but > still don’t want it open for abuse. What sort of abuse are you imagining there? The Assessor only gets to decide the end of the voting period if there is a Humiliating Public Reminder - it's not usually under eir direct control in the same way that the time of distribution is under the Promotor's. And even in the event of a HPR, the voting period is still guaranteed to be at least 7 days long, which is enough time to collect Agoran consent. -twg
Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v3
Gaelan wrote: > Any reason we don’t just define this within the rules? Isn’t something > that should need to change except when offices change, so we can just do > this by proposal. Not particularly, but Aris preferred it the other way and I can't please everyone :P > The proposal pool is only proposals that haven’t started voting, right? > I think this lets the Promotor avoid eir proposals being democratic by > creating them and starting voting in the same message. I can't imagine the current Promotor doing that, but you're right that it could be a very short length of time in which proposals can be democratised. Probably worth extending it until the end of the voting period. Same thing applies to a proposal's chamber. > Maybe just make them all untracked and then list it as information that > needs to be included when proposals are started/resolved. Good idea. > I don’t think there’s any mechanism to remove the chamber once it’s been > set, even if the proposal becomes democratic. Chamber is defined as an "ordinary proposal switch", so democratic proposals don't have a chamber at all, even one set to "unset". -twg --- Title: Interesting Chambers v3.1 AI: 3.0 Author: // any volunteers? Co-authors: Trigon, Aris, Gaelan, G., Jason Cobb, twg Enact a new Rule of Power 2.0, entitled "Ministries", with the following text: A Ministry is an entity defined as such by this rule. Each Ministry has a goal. The Ministries of Agora, and their goals, are as follows: A. Ministry of Justice: serve justice to rulebreakers B. Ministry of Efficiency: see official duties performed swiftly C. Ministry of Legislation: see votes cast on proposals D. Ministry of Participation: reward players for achievements E. Ministry of Economy: encourage economic activity and contracts Interest is an office switch, tracked by the ADoP, whose possible values are lists of ministries, defaulting to the empty list. The ADoP CAN flip an office's interest without objection. For each item of each office's interest, that office's holder's voting strength is increased by 2 on proposals whose chamber is set to that ministry. Enact a new Rule of Power 2.0, entitled "Proposal Classes", with the following text: Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have an untracked Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default) and democratic. When a proposal with an adoption index greater than 2.0 is created, its class becomes democratic. Any player CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip an ordinary proposal's class to democratic, provided that it is in the Proposal Pool or that there is an Agoran decision on its adoption whose voting period has not yet ended. Enact a new Rule of Power 2.0, entitled "Proposal Chambers", with the following text: Chamber is an untracked ordinary proposal switch whose possible values include unset (the default) and each of the ministries of Agora. A proposal's chamber SHOULD only be decided by which ministry's goals it effects to the greatest degree. // https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/effect#Verb Any player CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip the chamber of an ordinary proposal to any ministry, provided that it is in the Proposal Pool or that there is an Agoran decision on its adoption whose voting period has not yet ended. Amend Rule 1607, "Distribution", by changing "the text, author, and coauthors of the proposal" to "the text, author, coauthors, class and (if applicable) chamber of the proposal". Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by adding the following to the list: * A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon its creation. Amend Rule 2422, "Voting Strength", by changing "between 0 and 5" to "between 0 and 15". // Move the PM's casting vote to the Speaker, since the PM already gets // all ministries: Amend Rule 2423, "First Among Equals", by removing the second paragraph. Amend Rule 103, "The Speaker", by changing "For an election of the Prime Minister, the Speaker" to "The Speaker". Set the ADoP's Interest to [Efficiency]. Set the Arbitor's Interest to [Justice]. Set the Assessor's Interest to [Efficiency, Legislation]. Set the Herald's Interest to [Participation]. Set the Prime Minister's Interest to [Justice, Efficiency, Legislation, Participation, Economy]. Set the Promotor's Interest to [Legislation]. Set the Referee's Interest to [Justice]. Set the Registrar's Interest to [Efficiency]. Set the Rulekeepor's Interest to [Legislation, Participation]. Set the Tailor's Interest to [Participation]. Set the Treasuror's Interest to [Economy, Economy]. // Some of the above have been slightly rejigged given the new definition // of Participation /* Treasuror is given Economy twice for balance reasons: * - It is a high-complexity office (was given Complexity=3 under
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
ais523 wrote: > This strikes me as an almost identical situation to a rule stating that > a player CAN perform a given action, but not specifying a mechanism to > do so. I'm not up to date with our existing precedents on that, > though. I'm not altogether sure that it is, actually. R2545 says: An Auction is a way for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency. which, I believe D. Margaux's judgement argues, is equivalent to: Entities CAN give away items in exchange for a currency by Auction. You can agree or disagree with eir interpretation, obviously, but I don't see how it's possible to argue that eir interpretation doesn't provide a mechanism. The mechanism is an "Auction". -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] End of January zombie auction
Alexis wrote: > I do not think these sorts of hypothetical conditionals work, fwiw. If this is based on the precedent in CFJ 1215, I would argue that those judgements were only specifically applicable to situations in which the relevant recordkeepors have _no reasonable way_ of knowing the value of the conditional on which the action is contingent (e.g., "t is standing up"). However, in this situation, one can ascertain the objective truth solely from the gamestate; we are only awaiting a judge to perform this duty and deliver eir results. Unless e pulls an R Lee and judges on the technicality of Gaelan's NttPF - which I missed too - without ruling on the underlying issue, I suppose. Additionally, the judgement in CFJ 1215 was based on the best interests of the game, and I would argue that in this case, the best interests of the game require us to keep Agora functioning as closely as possible to the intended meaning of the auction rules. -twg
DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v3
Trigon's "Interesting Chambers" idea got a great deal of popular support and doesn't deserve to be dropped solely because e left us, so I've updated it to incorporate all the changes suggested since eir last draft. Any further comments? -twg - Title: Interesting Chambers v3 AI: 3.0 Author: // any volunteers? Co-authors: Trigon, Aris, G., Jason Cobb, twg Enact a new Rule of Power 2.0, entitled "Ministries", with the following text: A Ministry is an entity defined as such by this rule. Each Ministry has a goal. The Ministries of Agora, and their goals, are as follows: A. Ministry of Justice: serve justice to rulebreakers B. Ministry of Efficiency: see official duties performed swiftly C. Ministry of Legislation: see votes cast on proposals D. Ministry of Participation: reward players for achievements E. Ministry of Economy: encourage economic activity and contracts Interest is an office switch, tracked by the ADoP, whose possible values are lists of ministries, defaulting to the empty list. The ADoP CAN flip an office's interest without objection. For each item of each office's interest, that office's holder's voting strength is increased by 2 on proposals whose chamber is set to that ministry. Enact a new Rule of Power 2.0, entitled "Proposal Classes", with the following text: Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default) and democratic. When a proposal with an adoption index greater than 2.0 is created, its class becomes democratic. Any player CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip an ordinary proposal's class to democratic, provided that it is in the Proposal Pool. The classes of proposals in the Proposal Pool are tracked by the Promotor. The classes of proposals with unresolved Agoran Decisions on their adoption are tracked by the Assessor. The classes of other proposals are untracked. // This seems a little messy but not sure how else to do it Enact a new Rule of Power 2.0, entitled "Proposal Chambers", with the following text: Chamber is an ordinary proposal switch whose possible values include unset (the default) and each of the ministries of Agora. A proposal's chamber SHOULD only be decided by which ministry's goals it effects to the greatest degree. // https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/effect#Verb Any player CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, flip the chamber of an ordinary proposal to any ministry, provided that it is in the Proposal Pool. The chambers of proposals in the Proposal Pool are tracked by the Promotor. The chambers of proposals with unresolved Agoran decisions on their adoption are tracked by the Assessor. The chambers of other proposals are untracked. // Likewise seems a little messy Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by adding the following to the list: * A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon its creation. Amend Rule 2422, "Voting Strength", by changing "between 0 and 5" to "between 0 and 15". // Move the PM's casting vote to the Speaker, since the PM already gets // all ministries: Amend Rule 2423, "First Amongst Equals", by removing the second paragraph. Amend Rule 103, "The Speaker", by changing "For an election of the Prime Minister, the Speaker" to "The Speaker". Set the ADoP's Interest to [Efficiency]. Set the Arbitor's Interest to [Justice]. Set the Assessor's Interest to [Efficiency, Legislation]. Set the Herald's Interest to [Participation]. Set the Prime Minister's Interest to [Justice, Efficiency, Legislation, Participation, Economy]. Set the Promotor's Interest to [Legislation]. Set the Referee's Interest to [Justice]. Set the Registrar's Interest to [Efficiency]. Set the Rulekeepor's Interest to [Legislation, Participation]. Set the Tailor's Interest to [Participation]. Set the Treasuror's Interest to [Economy, Economy]. // Some of the above have been slightly rejigged given the new definition // of Participation /* Treasuror is given Economy twice for balance reasons: * - It is a high-complexity office (was given Complexity=3 under *Politics), like Assessor and Rulekeepor; this makes the power *commensurate to the importance, and there is no ministry it really *fits under besides Economy * - It bumps up the number of voting increases issued for Economy *proposals; all other ministries have 2-3 excluding the PM. * Not just trying to give myself votes, I swear :P */
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
Falsifian wrote: > Treasuror's notes (if I'm still Treasuror; I'm not fully caught up): > > * As a result of this judgement, I believe Jason Cobb earned 18 Coins > rather than 18000 with eir December 7 scam message. > > * Per my recent reply to the deputy Tailor's report, I believe Alexis > earned 12 Coins with the quoted sequence of Glitter attempts. > > - Falsifian Yes, you're still Treasuror. The election is uncontested but Murphy hasn't resolved it yet. (Technically any player CAN resolve an uncontested election, but Murphy would still be REQUIRED to, which doesn't seem terribly fair. Could do it by temporary deputisation but I don't think there's really a hurry?) I agree with your notes and my local copy of the report matches the one you just published. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Tailor] Ribbon Bar
Falsifian wrote: > I think these are off by one. For example, 11 players do not have blue > ribbons, so earning one should be worth 11+1=12 Coins. Oops, well spotted! I missed the "+1" in "N+1". -twg
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Last Week in Agora
Falsifian wrote: > * twg proposes a fix to R2602 (Glitter) to address unclear wording > Alexis found in eir judgement of CFJ 3783. Thread: "[Arbitor] CFJ > 3783 Assigned to Alexis". "CoE": Although I did later circulate a related proto, the one you're referring to was written by omd. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3792 Judgement
Alexis wrote: > The critical distinction, then, is that the obligation > to publish a report is not an obligation to publish a document (much less a > public document) purporting to be a report, but purporting is required to > invoke self-ratification. I'm not sure I follow this part. Are you arguing that a backdated "report" (assuming no technicality like there is here) would not _be_ a report, but would _purport_ to be a report, and therefore be self- ratifying (assuming an applicable office)? -twg
Re: DIS: Straw poll: officers responsible for rewards?
Alexis wrote: > omd's fix proposal would make it so that the amount of the award is > platonic, given when the player invokes the triggering phrase > (presumably in response to our 21 different attempts to use the rule > with different numbers). It would then be easy for the Tailor to give > the appropriate awards by searching for instances of the triggering > action. Yes, I think we agree on this. My issue with omd's fix is that it makes it incumbent on the _Treasuror_, rather than the Tailor (as in my proto) or the player (as it is currently), to calculate the correct amount for the glitter reward. > Huh. I'm not sure of the incident you're referring to as Assessor, but > historically the Assessor's primary prerogatives have been to resolve > proposals out-of-order and to act first after resolution (including > possibly being the only player able to act in a window of opportunity > between two resolutions). I'm pretty sure Agora has accepted the > Assessor doing this in the past. Yes, the objection to my behaviour was not about my illicit gains themselves, but rather that, in the course of acquiring them, I inadvertently nullified the effect of someone else's proposal. Twice. (E was very nice about it, but several people took a far dimmer view.) -twg
Re: DIS: Straw poll: officers responsible for rewards?
Alexis wrote:
> How would people feel about changing to a model where rewards are primarily
> awarded by officers in response to certain events? E.g. the Assessor would
> give proposal rewards, the Tailor Glitter rewards, the CotC judging rewards.
That would certainly make things easier to keep track of. Except for
Glitter (see below), there's already an officer recording each event
associated with an award, so I don't see that it would add much to their
workloads (though I'd want their own confirmation on that before giving
my unbridled support). And it would massively simplify things for the
Treasuror.
If we required the reward to occur within 14 days of the action ("in a
moderately timely fashion"?), rewards could be made in the officer's
next weekly report. That would also make issuing rewards an action that
could be deputised for.
Here's a proto:
Amend Rule 2496 ("Rewards") as follows:
Replace its first two paragraphs with the following:
Each time a player fulfills a reward condition, the officer
associated with the condition CAN once, and SHALL within 14 days,
grant the associated set of assets to the player.
Below is a list of reward conditions and their associated assets
and officers.
Append "(Assessor)" to the first list item.
Append "(Arbitor)" to the second list item.
Append "(ADoP)" to the third list item.
Append "(ADoP)" to the fourth list item.
Append "(Herald)" to the fifth list item.
The only thing I'm a little concerned about is glitter. Rewards for
proposals, CFJs, reports and theses are all clearly associated with one
officer when they are awarded, but glitter might be in response to a
variety of different actions. I don't think the Tailor ought to have to
keep track of the votes on every proposal to see when someone earns an
orange ribbon.
Here's a proto that gives the Tailor the responsibility to evaluate the
number of coins due and award them, but not detect when a glitter-event
occurs. It also tidies up some of the ribbon language, and extends
glitter to work for all colours of ribbon (except black, obviously).
Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") as follows:
Replace the paragraph starting "While a person qualifies..." with
the following:
A person qualifies for a type of Ribbon if e has earned that type
of Ribbon within the preceding 7 days (including earlier in the
same message).
Replace the list items starting "Gray" and "Transparent" with the
following:
Gray (A): Once each month, the Tailor CAN by announcement nominate
a person for a Gray Ribbon. E is ENCOURAGED to do so in the same
message in which e publishes eir monthly report. A person
qualifies for a Gray Ribbon if e is the most recent person to be
so nominated. [This allows the recipient some leeway about the
timing of their ribbon, to prevent em from losing the opportunity
to get a Transparent Ribbon on a technicality.]
Transparent (T): A person qualifies for a Transparent Ribbon if,
at any point during the last 7 days, e qualified for at least 5
other types of Ribbon. [With the other rewordings in this
proposal, this should come out equivalent to the previous wording
even though it does not explicitly mention "awarding" or
"earning".]
Move the list item starting "Emerald" so that it falls between the
list items starting "Green" and "Cyan". [This was bothering me.]
Append the following:
While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon:
- If e has not owned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7
days, any player CAN, by announcement, award em that type of
Ribbon.
- Otherwise, if e has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or
the corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or
came to qualify for that type of Ribbon, e CAN, by
announcement, award emself that type of Glitter.
Amend Rule 2602 ("Glitter") to read:
For each type of Ribbon, there is a type of Glitter with the same
name. An attempt to award Glitter is INEFFECTIVE if the type of
Glitter is not specified. Awarding Glitter is secured.
Each time a player is awarded a type of Glitter, the Tailor CAN
once, and SHALL within 14 days, grant the player a number of coins
equal to the number of players who did not own the corresponding
type of Ribbon at the time of the award.
[Alternatively R2602 could be merged into R2438 (first para) and
R2496 (second para) to further simplify]
> In the past, Agora has often taken an extremely pragmatic approach, where
> the officers in question would be given the power to make such awards even
> if they were incorrect, with penalties for officers who abuse their
> position and possibly mechanisms to undo them. What are others' thoughts on
> moving towards this model?
Personally I'm not terribly worried about the
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3792 Assigned to G.
Alexis wrote: > The only difference is the expectation that the officer, before publishing > the report, verify that no messages have been sent that would alter the > contents of the report. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable > expectation on an officer. Agora does not have the volume of messages that > would make this into a physically difficult limitation. So the only reason > an officer might realistically be concerned with this would be if e felt e > needed to recirculate another draft. While I'm sufficiently convinced by your argument from the text to agree with your interpretation of the rules, I think you're writing off Aris's concerns a little too hastily. It's entirely possible, when drafting a report (whether or not the draft is circulated for peer review), for a bunch of actions to come in, rendering the draft outdated, at an inconvenient time when it's not practical for one to spend additional time updating it to the new gamestate. To my knowledge, no player plays Agora as a full-time job, and so I think it unreasonable to _require_ an officer to add additional hard graft to eir existing work at a moment's notice when e has already spent whatever time e allocated to tracking the last ~week's worth of relevant actions. This is especially the case for the Promotor, Arbitor and Treasuror, because the systems they manage are so tightly interlinked with others that relevant actions are often taken in threads that originally had nothing to do with them, and so are easily missed. Here I contrast them with, for example, the Assessor (most votes are submitted as replies to the Promotor's distribution) or possibly the Rulekeepor (most rule changes occur as a result of adopted proposals). Alexis wrote: > There is another strong argument in favour of requiring reports to be > current as of their publication: time stamp consistency. Official reports > are an extremely important tool for players trying to understand the game > state. Getting an accurate picture of game state can be a rather trying > task at times. But, with rare exception, one can do this working purely > chronologically through the archives. The point of self-ratification is > that, when doing this, you can assume that a report is true as written, and > thus minimize the amount of gamestate recalculation to a single week in the > event of an error. Typically, when an erroroneous report self-ratifies, > gameplay that occurred after the ratification date will likely have taken > place under the assumption that the report was correct, meaning that > recalculation will not be meaningfully required. > > But if a report could self-ratify at a past effective date, then we could > have a monthly report self-ratify nearly 38 days after its effective date. > This could result in significant gamestate recalculation. I take your point about the problems with ratifying very outdated monthly reports, but most reports are not monthly. With weekly reports, the maximum possible length of time between the date of publication and the date of currency would be a week, and in practice it would almost always be significantly less. I don't think that's an unreasonably long length of time to allow gamestate recalculation over. In fact, there have been several recent occasions where an officer's reports have been doubted for multiple consecutive weeks as a result of lingering gamestate uncertainties from open CFJs. If that's an acceptably high level of gamestate uncertainty, I don't see why this would be significantly more problematic. To cut a long story short, if this CFJ is eventually judged FALSE, I'll happily work towards a rule change to enable what Aris attempted to do. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] kamikaze
Alexis wrote: > It's still significant on a high-AI proposal, but I'd suggest that perhaps > an alternative would be to decrease the default to 2? The Prime Minister is > also affected by the default being 3. The original justification for increasing the default to 3 was to prevent a single unaggravated rule violation from reducing someone's voting strength to zero. Currently the highest crime is Class 8, Endorsing Forgery. Granted, blots don't last very long nowadays, so it may not be terribly important. G. wrote: > > Also, the maximum possible strength is less than twice the default > > strength, so this seems underpowered. > > Yeah, I wanted to keep it power-2 though, I thought mucking with the max > would be more controversial. At least, since it only works on AGAINST > votes, its power magnifies as the power of the proposal increases. A third option to magnify its effect, beyond decreasing the default or increasing the maximum, would be to increase the strength of _everyone's_ AGAINST votes. -twg
Re: DIS: Proto: Bureaucratic Power
Gaelan wrote:
> I create the following proposal: {
> Title: Bureaucratic Power
> AI: 2
> Author: Gaelan
>
> Create a power-2 rule titled “Bureaucrats” with the following text: {
> Each rule is said to have an “affinity” for each office, an integer equal to
> the sum of any points awarded by the following clauses:
>
> * 1 point if the office is Prime Minister
> * 4 points if the office is defined by the rule
> * 4 points for each switch defined by the rule and tracked by the office
> * 2 points if the rule defines an explicit mechanism for flipping a switch
> defined by the office [goal of the word “explicit” is to avoid rules about
> e.g. proposals or ratification having an affinity to everything]
> * 4 points for each class of assets for which the office is recordkeepor and
> for which the rule is backing document
Individual rules can't be backing documents; R2166 defines "the rules
collectively" as the backing document for public assets. Why not just
remove "or asset" from the next bullet point instead?
> * 4 points for each class of entity defined by the rule (other than a switch
> or asset), the elements of which are listed in the office’s report
> * 2 points if the rule defines an explicit mechanism for creating,
> destroying, or modifying entities of a class, the elements of which are
> listed in the office’s report
> * 2 points if the rule specifically lists information that must be included
> in the office’s report
> * 2 points if the rule specifically imposes obligations on the holder of the
> office, excluding an obligation to include information in a report
>
> If there is a single office for which a rule has the highest affinity, the
> holder of that office is said to be that rule’s primary bureaucrat.
>
> The holder of each office for which that rule has affinity is said to be one
> of that rule’s secondary bureaucrats, unless e is that rule’s primary
> bureaucrat.
>
> If a person is the primary bureaucrat for any rule amended or repealed by a
> proposal, eir voting strength is increased by 2 for Agoran decisions to adopt
> that proposal.
>
> If a person is the secondary bureaucrat for any rule amended or repealed by a
> proposal, and e didn’t receive a voting strength increase from the previous
> paragraph, eir voting strength is increased by 1 for Agoran decisions to
> adopt that proposal.
> }
>
> Amend rule 2423 ("First Among Equals”) by appending “and decisions to adopt
> proposals” to the final sentence.
> }
>
> Open questions:
> Do people like the idea?
> Do each of the affinity clauses work as intended? Do any rules get assigned
> counter-intuitive bureaucrats?
> Who bears the load of keeping track of all this? I hope a rule’s bureaucrats
> are intuitive enough that we don’t need to track > them, but this would still
> add a fair bit to the assessor’s workload.
I agree that it would be good to have some way of giving officers extra
votes on relevant proposals - this was also the goal of Trigon's
"Interesting Chambers" proto - but I'm not sure that this system is
workable in practice. There are currently 126 rules and 14 offices, so
this adds 1764 values that need to be kept track of by someone. I also
don't think it really works to just intuit the bureaucrats for each
rule, because I guarantee you players will want some proof that their
votes have been calculated correctly. I know I would.
Realistically, the affinities would need to be calculated and published
ahead of time, in order for players to know what their voting strength
is going to be on any given proposal. I can only see three reasonable
ways of doing that:
1. Put the burden on the proposal author to correctly specify which
officers get extra votes on a proposal. This massively raises the
barrier to writing proposals. Given that there was backlash even to
the suggestion of making proposals' _titles_ mandatory, I don't
think it would be likely to pass.
2. Require the list of bureaucrats to be specified in order to
distribute a proposal. This probably involves the least amount of
total work added, because not every rule has to have its affinities
calculated at once and the ones that _are_ calculated can be noted
for use in future distributions, but it piles more work on the
Promotor, which is already a high-complexity office.
3. Have them tracked by the Rulekeepor. This would be a considerable
one-time task for the Rulekeepor, even with machine assistance, and
thereafter would add a whole load of additional information to the
FLR. If you were to go this route, I think it would be incumbent
on you to precalculate the affinities for existing rules to give
the Rulekeepor a base to work from. (This perhaps applies less
strongly if you still intend to take over Rulekeepor yourself.)
If we were to link officers' extra votes to "their" rules like this, I
would prefer for the Rulekeepor to manually set individual rules'
bureaucrats (perhaps with
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
G. wrote: > Penalty box: Murphy, D. Margaux, twg. Oops, is this because of the CFJ I missed before the new year that you reassigned to omd? Sorry about that. I was having a busy spell and probably ought to have recused myself immediately, but managed to convince myself that I would get around to judging it that week. My new year's resolution is already aimed at addressing my time management issues, so I expect to do better in the future. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] citation expansion
G. wrote: > I submit the following Proposal, AI=3, "no fake CFJs needed": > > > Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing this text: > > 3. Initiate an inquiry case regarding the truth of the claim > (if the subject is actually a matter of law), or cite a > relevant existing inquiry case. > > with this text: > > 3. Initiate a CFJ regarding the truth of the claim (if the > subject is actually a matter of law), or cite an existing > CFJ or other public process that has a reasonable > expectation of resolving the matter of controversy. > > [ > Inspired by this from Falsifian: > > I respond to my own CoE by calling a CFJ: "In December, I flipped o's, > > Bernie's and Rance's master switches to Agora". I intend to withdraw > > that CFJ soon, but first I want to use it again for a similar CoE on > > this week's report (to be published soon). > > The "cite an existing CFJ" requirement can lead to dummy CFJs with no > purpose - e.g. i there's a Proposal that's fixing things, that could be > cited too. The "reasonable expectation" mirrors the language of R217. > ] > > Nitpick, but could we split the second half (from "cite an existing CFJ...") out into a 4th list item? The paragraph 2201(2)(3) always seemed a bit unwieldy when the other items in the list were only a few words, and now that the part about citations doesn't even refer exclusively to the "initiate a CFJ" situation, it makes even less sense to treat it as a single option. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Seeking a new Treasuror
G. wrote: > When Jason Cobb pulled the 18K scam there was some bit of discussion that we > might be over coins or ready for something new there - what do people think. > My opinion is that the zombie system is working reasonably, and we need some > manner to allocate zombies (preferably weighted by players' contributions to > the game) if we get rid of coins, but otw I don't mind. Not familiar with that abbreviation? Wiktionary thinks it means "on the way", but that doesn't seem to make sense in context. I think there is value in having a long-term way of "keeping score" between players, even if only in that it gives a pointer towards what we think the objectives of the game ought to be (e.g. passing proposals good, publishing reports good, breaking rules bad). Ribbons already sort of do that, but they're not very granular - someone earning a ribbon is a notable event, whereas coins/shinies have tended to gradually trickle in, so the Renaissance and Economics systems kind of do the same thing on different timescales. > manner to allocate zombies (preferably weighted by players' contributions to If people are bored of coins, though, they don't necessarily have to be flavoured like a currency. A little bit of brainstorming: - Rename "coins" to "influence". Players with more influence have higher- ranking Agoran noble titles, which confer privileges like zombie access, higher voting strength, or perhaps even exclusive ability to vote on low-power or reasonably uncontroversial proposals (like the Ordinary/ Democratic distinction from a while back). - Rename "coins" to "mana". Players can spend mana to cast spells. The parent title Necromancer becomes somewhat more literal. Potentially expandable to an old-school D&D theme, with evocation spells reusing the Space Battles mechanics, abjuration spells allowing an opt-out for them, alteration spells used to flip unsecured switches, etc. - Rename "coins" to "wisdom". Mechanically this would probably work similarly to influence (the wisest players have a greater voice in voting and so forth) but I feel like there would be more opportunity for wit. Amassing sufficient wisdom would allow a Win by Nirvana. -twg
Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
Aris wrote: > A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a > complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more > fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out > the details. > > -Aris > -- > Title: Administrative Adjudication > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > Enact a new rule, with power power 3.0, entitled "Administrative > Adjudication", > with the following text: > > Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, > which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, > have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official area of > concern, insofar as that memorandum is neither arbitrary nor capricious. I like the idea too! Regarding the implementation, these are very similar to regulations. Why not reuse the entity class? Something like this: Each officer CAN, with notice, enact a memorandum, which is a type of regulation. A memorandum has the power to resolve bindingly any matter within its office's area of concern. An attempt to enact a memorandum is INEFFECTIVE if it is arbitrary or capricious. /* maybe */ A memorandum is automatically repealed when all matters it regards are resolved. This has the advantage of also automatically tracking memoranda and providing mechanisms to amend or repeal them. Gaelan wrote: > I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO vague— > are these rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened > platonically, but with no actual platonic effect) or ratification- > like? How is arbitrariness and capriciousness defined/judged? What > about “official area of concern?” My understanding of the original proto was that the rulings were supposed to be binding, i.e. capable of modifying the gamestate, and that the other things were intentionally left vague to allow judges to rule in the best interests of the game. Gaelan wrote: > This seems like a particularly bad place for CFJ hell. When we > inevitably end up with a dispute over whether a memorandum is valid, > can that dispute itself be resolved by memorandum, by either the > original officeholder or the Arbitor? This is a good point - if judges are supposed to have authority over memoranda, the rule needs some way to stop memoranda from having authority over judges. Unsure of the best way of doing that. -twg
